President Davis Inaugurual Address

[Ga.windbreak]

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdinaug.html

The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.

Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional duty, moved b! no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measures of defense which honor and security may require. An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued. Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity, and to obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must he directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed.

[BBF]

Without any malice, hidden agenda,disdain I am wondering after all this time, Why and for what good stir/bring this up??
It would appear there is enough trouble now in the land for generations to deal with.

[subdjoe]

Without any malice, hidden agenda,disdain I am wondering after all this time, Why and for what good stir/bring this up??
It would appear there is enough trouble now in the land for generations to deal with.

Several reasons.

First, history is important.

Second, we have conditions now somewhat similar to the conditions that led to that war.  Don't you think we can learn from that?  (see the first point)

Third, this puts out some of the real reasons the deep South left the Union, not the usual "The South was filled with racist slave owners who didn't want to give up their slaves" that is about all you see in textbooks now, even in lower division college classes. (see also the first point)

Fourth, Reconstruction is still going on. How often do you see something positive about the South in the press?  Not very.  How about negative stereotypes? Can you say: "Just about every day?" The intolerance, hate, and bigotry of the North still denigrates and belittles the South and southern culture.  Quite possible if the o, so tolerant, diverse, and inclusive liberal North were truly tolerant, diverse, and inclusive we would not need to be reminded of the truth. (once again, see the first point)

The "just get over in and let it drop" attitude of your post is kind of patronizing and insulting.

[Ga.windbreak]

I can only echo subdjoe's comments and add this one thought "If one forgets history one is bound to repeat it." The truth of that statement has been proven over and over again. Besides one stirs the pot to make sure NOTHING gets stuck on the bottom. I would also be shirking my duty to my good name by allowing those who are unaware or do not care about the truth to go unheeded/unchallenged into the night.

I look at doing nothing the same way as doing something wrong, it is just as sinful imvho. 

[subdjoe]

I should also mention that a certain portion of the political spectrum continually "bring(s) this up."  With affirmative action and calls for reparations to the great great (great) grandchildren of former slaves.  As I wrote earlier, Reconstruction is still happening, and the same mix of lies and half truths and distortions is still being propagated by the federal government as was used from 1863 on.

[BBF]

I had hesitated to make my post, it appears with good reason. I have no dog in this race. As a regular visitor to several different parts of the USA I enjoy whatever positive things I find.  IMO you are pi**ing into a strong headwind.

[subdjoe]

I had hesitated to make my post, it appears with good reason. I have no dog in this race. As a regular visitor to several different parts of the USA I enjoy whatever positive things I find.  IMO you are pi**ing into a strong headwind.

Yeah, trying to combat ignorance, bigotry, and hate is often like that.

[Ga.windbreak]

I had hesitated to make my post, it appears with good reason. I have no dog in this race. As a regular visitor to several different parts of the USA I enjoy whatever positive things I find.  IMO you are pi**ing into a strong headwind.

Lets see if this tact will make any headway with you as I have no dog in your race towards Canadian history. Being that you are from Canada just what is your prospective on the Quebec Secession issue? Legal, illegal, for, or against or do you care one way or the other? Also do you not believe that the history of one's country unworthy of study?

[teamnelson]

To the OP, thank you. Never read that before. The deeper sentiments expressed therein ring true today, and while not technically a Southerner ... the war having not quite reached the territory of my birth ... my reading of history leads me to assure Mr. Davis that I find all reasonable attempts were made to avoid war. And all reasonable attempts were made by the Confederacy in war to end it swiftly and justly. Regardless of what anyone may feel, dissent is a healthy thing for a country, and when managed appropriately, assures our safety from unilateral fascism. There is reason to believe that had the South not dissented, we may never have attained the status in the world we enjoyed in the 20th century.

[Ga.windbreak]

To the OP, thank you. Never read that before. The deeper sentiments expressed therein ring true today, and while not technically a Southerner ... the war having not quite reached the territory of my birth ... my reading of history leads me to assure Mr. Davis that I find all reasonable attempts were made to avoid war. And all reasonable attempts were made by the Confederacy in war to end it swiftly and justly. Regardless of what anyone may feel, dissent is a healthy thing for a country, and when managed appropriately, assures our safety from unilateral fascism. There is reason to believe that had the South not dissented, we may never have attained the status in the world we enjoyed in the 20th century.

Here, here!! Just as surely as there are those who believe my country, right or wrong, there is something very healthy about squarely facing one true history rather than yelling treason when hearing a desenting voice. Does one love his country less because he questions the actions it takes? If I can vote a man in I can surely vote him out, if I point out the folly of his acts does that make me a lesser friend than one who remains silent?


Most Southerners believe, still, our actions were driven by our love of liberty as we saw it to be and would have been more than happy to live and let live. Sadly it was not to be. When a man fights for what he truly believes in he is not a traitor, at least to the one who counts, HIMSELF!

[BBF]

[quote author=Ga.windbreak link

Lets see if this tact will make any headway with you as I have no dog in your race towards Canadian history. Being that you are from Canada just what is your prospective on the Quebec Secession issue? If it was my choice they could haver left years ago. Built a bridge over Quebec or a highway around them. The French press does not explain to  the average non english reading Quebeccer the rest of the country has a very different concept of "Seperation". I can expound on this more on another post.






Legal, illegal, for, or against or do you care one way or the other?
As long as there is a large enough vote, they could go as far as I know legally.


 Also do you not believe that the history of one's country unworthy of study?
[/quote]
No problem with the study however what I read here looks like a lot of sour grapes to me and as always, the Victor writes the books.

[Ga.windbreak]

If it was my choice they could haver left years ago. Built a bridge over Quebec or a highway around them. The French press does not explain to  the average non english reading Quebeccer the rest of the country has a very different concept of "Seperation". I can expound on this more on another post.

Certainly not necessary your views on "Separation" are duly noted. The reality is that a look back in time to the 1860's most Americans could have cared less about the South leaving as proven by the less than steller vote garnered by Lincoln, some 36%.

As long as there is a large enough vote, they could go as far as I know legally.

Well there you go. I surely don't know the laws of Canada, of course I'm not Canadian thus I have no opinion. I wish them well no matter how the victor treats them in your history books.

No problem with the study however what I read here looks like a lot of sour grapes to me and as always, the Victor writes the books.

Of course the victor writes the books, that in no way infers that those books tell the Whole truth.

What appears to be your sour grapes, is in fact, the other side of the story. Its quite natural actually when one considers that it is quite easy to be judgemental, thus wrong, when one has no horse in the race.

Kind of like the Mayor of San Fran saying that the new illegal alien Arizona law is racist, I'm quite sure his views would change if Arizona dumped those 500,000 illegals on the his doorstep. Don't you think?

[BBF]

Of course the victor writes the books, that in no way infers that those books tell the Whole truth.

Of course, what would be the point otherwise in writing or re-writing the books if you can't make yourself look good noble and justified.

What appears to be your sour grapes, is in fact, the other side of the story. Its quite natural actually when one considers that it is quite easy to be judgemental, thus wrong, when one has no horse in the race. It was a figure of speech of course. Will the truth ever come out? I doubt it and how many would care  and would it make a difference now or the future?

Kind of like the Mayor of San Fran saying that the new illegal alien Arizona law is racist, I'm quite sure his views would change if Arizona dumped those 500,000 illegals on the his doorstep. Don't you think?
As suggested somewhere, put the Illegals on a bus and ship them north with exit stops in other sanctuary cities in CA. BTW. That bishop in LA should be defrocked IMO of course

[Dee]

I do not care for single shot rifles, and shotguns, and see the repeater as the most logical choice. However, I do not condemn those that love them, shoot them, experiment with them, buy them, and talk about them incessantly. I do not consider them HUNG UP IN THE PAST, on a firearm that has been passed by new technology. I see them as folks whom like this type of firearm, and it's concepts.

WHAT WE WERE AS A COUNTRY, IS WHY WE ARE, WHAT WE ARE, TODAY. That's a fact jack.
As someone has already said, and any prudent person would have to agree: Forget history, and you are condemned to repeat it.
When this forum was more active in the past, it was quite common for someone to TROLL past and criticize men engaging in what they enjoyed. Which in the case of this site, is ACCURATE SOUTHERN HISTORY. If one does not care about, or is not interested, what is the point to TROLL in, take a few cheap shots, while accomplishing nothing, "nor adding anything of value" to the discussion of these men, and then leave? I would suspect MISCHIEF. This forum bothers no one, educates some, and answers questions, while at the same time generating questions. To some. INTERESTING questions.

President Davis' Inaugural Address was enlightening to find the THOUGHT OF THE DAY, of one man, in a time of peril for an entire country. We have certainly heard, "and continue to hear" about the Gettysburg Address among other Lincolnesk thoughts.

[dukkillr]

I caught a piece written on the Secession statements of the various southern states a while back that I found interesting.  I spent a few minutes trying to find it again online but I couldn't. 

However, I did spend a few minutes reading them and, much like Dee said above, found them interesting because of their meaning at the time in which they were written.  They appear to be unaltered by the hand of revisionist historians, from whatever ideological angle they might have.

What I found interesting was that they dealt, to a great extent, with slavery.  South Carolina's is roughly half about slavery.  Mississippi's second full paragraph says:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Thoughts?  It appears that some of you have spent a great deal of time studying this topic, I'm sure there is a school of thought out there on these obviously important documents.

[Dee]

Well duk, there were then, and are now, those that hold to both sides of slavery. The actual facts of this area, as it was HEAVILY SOUTH in that period, and I occasionally joke about the courthouse lawns in this area of North East Texas being decorated with Southern Monuments and tradition.
Slavery was beginning to be recognized as more of a BURDEN, than a BOON, as the slave owner was responsible not only for the cost of slaves, but the "care, custody, and control" of them also. As the cotton industry grew along with other organic textiles, the need for more man power also grew, which meant more slaves and the problems and cost that went with their "care, custody, and control".
The general population of the area had also grown, and the farmers were learning that they could EMPLOY workers (usually white) cheaper by simply paying a wage and in that era, were not responsible for the EMPLOYEE'S "care, custody, and control".
i.e. slavery was being fazed out, as it was no longer cost efficient. A smaller farming operation could perhaps "make it pay" by purchasing a few "slaves" but as his wealth grew, his farm grew, and as I said, more folks (slaves) to be TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR, in the way of FOOD, SHELTER, AND CONTROL.
My own family (both sides) were SHARE CROPPERS. The USUAL DEAL WAS. You get a house, a wage, and at times the use of a team and tractor for your labor, and even a beef, or hog once a year. You are for the most part, YOURSELF RESPONSIBLE for your own, "care, custody, and control", which includes food, transportation, and medical care. This type of farming was evolving then, and is still practiced here today.
Bottom line? Slavery was dying a natural death, and many SOUTHERNERS, had already freed their slaves, and the FORMER SLAVES, had chosen to stay and work for a fair and kind farmer.

[SouthernByGrace]

Great points, Dee, joe, and gw !!!!

It's always funny to me that people who "have no dog in this race" always seem to know every stumble and turn about that race!

To you, BBF, if all of a sudden Canada was being told to whom they could and couldn't sell their goods, and they were also told they were having a 40% tax placed on those goods coming from just that particular part of the British Empire, and not any other, and if Great Britain were to quite literally invade your country and you (Canadians) had to fight a purely defensive war to protect your homes, families, and property, what would you do?

If you had separated yourselves from the British Crown in a completely legal fashion, by the book, by the rights given to you by your government, and that government made it its ultimate goal of completely destroying you for actually Expecting to exercise those rights, what would you do?

If the British Crown came into your town and burned everything in sight, including your homes, churches, businesses, and they stole all your livestock, grain stores, then turned around and burned and destroyed all your farm implements to prevent you from growing even enough food for your own family, not to mention enough to make a living of any kind, all in the dead of winter, and THEN the very people (slaves) whose freedom they claimed to be fighting FOR, were tortured, murdered, abused treated as less than dogs, and defiled in ways unspeakable to most modern men, while at the exact same time maintaining slavery in their own lands and criticizing you for having the audacity to participate in such a "vile" institution, what would you do?

Then, after losing your struggle against the tyranny imposed on you by the Crown, you were painted as unpatriotic, disloyal, and traitors, for Expecting your government to live up to its promise to you as a citizen. Now with your history stripped from the minds of your young people because you are not allowed to produce your own state's history books (which included lots of true history that happened Before your struggle against the Crown), even after 150 years, I ask again, sir, What Would You Do?

You say you have no problem with Quebec's separation, as long as there are enough votes to justify it. There were multitudes in the North who felt the same way about the South's separation. The fact that the southern states were paying some 80% of the revenue required to run the government was a Tremendously Huge factor in our situation. The fact that the Northern slave traffickers stood to lose millions by not being able to sell their imported slaves to the South was another, since the Confederate Constitution actually Forbade the importation of slaves while the U.S. Constitution Never did. Each of the Southern states went by the book and, through their individual legislatures, cast those votes and made that separation legally, morally, and justifiably.   

It is you, sir, who in fact does have "malice,hidden agenda and disdain" to come here and "stir" something you have no idea about. You have only been subjected to one side of the story, so why would you feel any other way, except to think we are hashing up some pitiful attempt at glory.

Of course, what would be the point otherwise in writing or re-writing the books if you can't make yourself look good noble and justified.

[/quote]
Sir, we don't Have to make ourselves "look good, noble, and justified, because WE ALREADY ARE!!! Our ancestors were, too! THAT'S what we're here trying to do; show people the Other side of the coin.

When Canada goes up against Great Britain and wins its Independence, Then and only then do you even Qualify to know what it's like to go through such a thing. Then do it again, against Canada itself, and you just might get a little taste of what we're trying to do here.

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[SouthernByGrace]

That's a great post, Dee. I couldn't agree more.  

Another point... when President Davis made the statement, "In order to make a slave Fit for freedom, he has to be made Unfit for slavery. This can Only be accomplished through education", he spoke Volumes to the North American Continent as a whole. He, in fact, broke most slave laws on the books at the time, i.e., he had schools on his plantation to teach his slaves the necessities needed in a life on their own, and he believed wholeheartedly that slavery should and would come to a natural end, and that the former master would have no greater friend than his former slave, and vice versa. He actually attended church with them, and occasionally taught in their Sunday School classes. He paid for his overseer's sons to attend an Ivy-League College after the War. He established a covenant with his his slaves, a system of justice on his plantation whereby it was the fellow slaves who set the punishment for the wrongs committed by another slave, and Not Davis, himself. He could lessen sentences he felt too harsh for the crime committed, but he couldn't impose one harsher than handed down by the fellow slaves.
This, the man vilified by history, a man who had more patriotism in his little toe that Lincoln had in his whole body!

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[Dee]

Abraham Lincoln was a "whore to the industrialized north", just as many a congressman, and senator, and president are today, and in days past. Lincoln was making and using THREATS AGAINST THE SOUTH, to gain support from northern voters, during his campaign,before he was even elected. Money talks, and honesty walks right out the door.
Stonewall Jackson held weekly Bible Studies WITH his slaves and taught them to read, and when in the field during the war, TITHED to their little church to keep it going in his absence.

[dukkillr]

Well duk, there were then, and are now, those that hold to both sides of slavery. The actual facts of this area, as it was HEAVILY SOUTH in that period, and I occasionally joke about the courthouse lawns in this area of North East Texas being decorated with Southern Monuments and tradition.
Slavery was beginning to be recognized as more of a BURDEN, than a BOON, as the slave owner was responsible not only for the cost of slaves, but the "care, custody, and control" of them also. As the cotton industry grew along with other organic textiles, the need for more man power also grew, which meant more slaves and the problems and cost that went with their "care, custody, and control".
The general population of the area had also grown, and the farmers were learning that they could EMPLOY workers (usually white) cheaper by simply paying a wage and in that era, were not responsible for the EMPLOYEE'S "care, custody, and control".
i.e. slavery was being fazed out, as it was no longer cost efficient. A smaller farming operation could perhaps "make it pay" by purchasing a few "slaves" but as his wealth grew, his farm grew, and as I said, more folks (slaves) to be TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR, in the way of FOOD, SHELTER, AND CONTROL.
My own family (both sides) were SHARE CROPPERS. The USUAL DEAL WAS. You get a house, a wage, and at times the use of a team and tractor for your labor, and even a beef, or hog once a year. You are for the most part, YOURSELF RESPONSIBLE for your own, "care, custody, and control", which includes food, transportation, and medical care. This type of farming was evolving then, and is still practiced here today.
Bottom line? Slavery was dying a natural death, and many SOUTHERNERS, had already freed their slaves, and the FORMER SLAVES, had chosen to stay and work for a fair and kind farmer.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I don't see how this response addresses my question.

[Dee]

duk, the Southern Society was an ever evolving one, just as the Industrialized North. Technology was changing much as it is today. With this, ideaology was changing in all aspects. DEFINE your question more clearly. Perhaps I missed it somewhat.

[dukkillr]

It seems to me that efforts are always being made by both sides to distance themselves from reality.  One one side is the modern and perhaps liberal view that the Civil War was fought entirely between the freedom loving north and the evil slave holding institutions of the south.  On the other side is the modern southern view that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War and that anyone who mentions such a thing must be an uneducated liberal stooge.  Indeed the south didn't even want slavery any more and further, the slaves that were there were happy and life was universally wonderful.

I suspect that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Those secession statements seem to indicate that slavery was indeed a central issue in the decisions of the various states to leave the union, as were other central issues such as economic and cultural disparity, states rights, and others.  Much as you said above, those statements were powerfully important political documents from the south and have not been altered by revisionist history, and they seem to indicate, to me at least, that slavery mattered.

Since several of the people who frequent this section have spent an undeniably large amount of time on this issue, I'm sure there is a prevailing pro-south school of thought on how to dismiss/convert/pervert/modify the seeming importance of slavery in these documents.  I was asking what it was.

[Ga.windbreak]

It seems to me that efforts are always being made by both sides to distance themselves from reality.  One one side is the modern and perhaps liberal view that the Civil War was fought entirely between the freedom loving north and the evil slave holding institutions of the south.  On the other side is the modern southern view that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War and that anyone who mentions such a thing must be an uneducated liberal stooge.  Indeed the south didn't even want slavery any more and further, the slaves that were there were happy and life was universally wonderful.

I suspect that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Those secession statements seem to indicate that slavery was indeed a central issue in the decisions of the various states to leave the union, as were other central issues such as economic and cultural disparity, states rights, and others.  Much as you said above, those statements were powerfully important political documents from the south and have not been altered by revisionist history, and they seem to indicate, to me at least, that slavery mattered.

Since several of the people who frequent this section have spent an undeniably large amount of time on this issue, I'm sure there is a prevailing pro-south school of thought on how to dismiss/convert/pervert/modify the seeming importance of slavery in these documents.  I was asking what it was.

Let’s see if I can answer your question in this way. States Rights was the issue property rights was one of two problems causing this issue, the other being an imbalance of taxation. From 1650 forward thru till after reconstruction slavery was not seen in the racist/moralistic view that it is today. From the very early 1600’s up until the 1650’s indentured Blacks were viewed no different than any other indentured person of whatever race. The fact is that within a year of the first blacks to arrive on these shores a mixed race child was born and the first early uprising of indentured peoples was a mixed lot of whites, blacks, and native Americans.

By 1860 the popular belief was that the Black race was inferior to the White race and Lincoln held to this view and made no bones about it. The general feeling in the North was we don’t want them here and their laws reflected that, it should be noted also that those very laws became the basis for the so called Jim Crow laws that came into being, in the South, after reconstruction officially ended.

It is pointed out to us Southerners repeatedly that the North became slave less starting in 1790 with Mass outlawing the practice. Did they do the morally proper thing and free them all, of course not, they spent the next 5 years selling them all to those in Southern states. In stating this fact it should also be noted the very reason for becoming a slave free state had nothing what so ever to do with being moral, Christian, or even common decency; quite the contrary it was cheaper to pay day labor and not have to deal with the expense of housing, feeding, clothing, and caring for the slave when the winter weather wiped out the possibility of any growing season. There was no effort from those in the North to even try to properly educate the Black race so that it ever stood a chance to become self supporting; their only answer was to ship them south.

While in the South relations between Black and White was more complicated to the point that blacks looked down on poor whites and were, for the most part, better off and cared for both in standard of living and Health care. And all though it will be pointed out by some Northerners of mistreatment via “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and there is truth in it; it was not that common and was more prevalent among Black slave owners than White. Also while there were laws to keep blacks from a proper education most did not follow that law and there are facts galore to support that statement, just google it if you don’t believe me. There were even Black teachers teaching white and black children in the same classroom!

To suggest that Southern planters were immune to rising cost and cared more for slavery than making a profit is utter nonsense. What is a compelling issue is that for the most part these Owners felt a responsibility to their slaves as people and wanted above all to see them not just free but educated enough to maintain that freedom and have some chance to prosper and enjoy that freedom, which was utterly lacking in their Northern Brethren.

My only desire is to see the whole truth of this subject displayed, then and only then do I feel, we will ever move beyond this issue.    

 

[Ga.windbreak]

Well duk, there were then, and are now, those that hold to both sides of slavery. The actual facts of this area, as it was HEAVILY SOUTH in that period, and I occasionally joke about the courthouse lawns in this area of North East Texas being decorated with Southern Monuments and tradition.
Slavery was beginning to be recognized as more of a BURDEN, than a BOON, as the slave owner was responsible not only for the cost of slaves, but the "care, custody, and control" of them also. As the cotton industry grew along with other organic textiles, the need for more man power also grew, which meant more slaves and the problems and cost that went with their "care, custody, and control".
The general population of the area had also grown, and the farmers were learning that they could EMPLOY workers (usually white) cheaper by simply paying a wage and in that era, were not responsible for the EMPLOYEE'S "care, custody, and control".
i.e. slavery was being fazed out, as it was no longer cost efficient. A smaller farming operation could perhaps "make it pay" by purchasing a few "slaves" but as his wealth grew, his farm grew, and as I said, more folks (slaves) to be TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR, in the way of FOOD, SHELTER, AND CONTROL.
My own family (both sides) were SHARE CROPPERS. The USUAL DEAL WAS. You get a house, a wage, and at times the use of a team and tractor for your labor, and even a beef, or hog once a year. You are for the most part, YOURSELF RESPONSIBLE for your own, "care, custody, and control", which includes food, transportation, and medical care. This type of farming was evolving then, and is still practiced here today.
Bottom line? Slavery was dying a natural death, and many SOUTHERNERS, had already freed their slaves, and the FORMER SLAVES, had chosen to stay and work for a fair and kind farmer.

Great post Dee and I fully agree!

[Dee]

Perhaps another source of answers for dukkiler would be to do a simple search of "racist quotes of Abraham Lincoln" whose speeches would make the papers he has thus far read seem like Sunday school lessons, in comparison to the Lincoln view of not only the black, but the Mexican also, whom he referred to as MONGRELS.
Abraham Lincoln was no friend to the black man, and had Mr. Booth not executed him there very well would have  been very few blacks in the United States today. Lincoln fully intended on shipping them all to Liberia, and made it clear that the United States was for the white man.

[dukkillr]

Perhaps another source of answers for dukkiler would be to do a simple search of "racist quotes of Abraham Lincoln" whose speeches would make the papers he has thus far read seem like Sunday school lessons, in comparison to the Lincoln view of not only the black, but the Mexican also, whom he referred to as MONGRELS.
Abraham Lincoln was no friend to the black man, and had Mr. Booth not executed him there very well would have  been very few blacks in the United States today. Lincoln fully intended on shipping them all to Liberia, and made it clear that the United States was for the white man.

Why does that seem like an answer to my question?  Indeed, if anything, it supports my post above regarding both sides moving themselves towards simple absolutes and away from reality.

[Dee]

Ok, dukkillr. What are you looking for here. This is a discussion of history. We aren't trying to change anything, we just enjoy getting at the truth. We aren't interested in spin, we use documentation. What you have read, is what it is. One must RESEARCH to find why someone said, or wrote, what one said or wrote.
No one here came to the conclusions we came to over night. I have been reading Texas Civil War History for almost 60 years. A quick skim of such a topic can cause one to jump to one of many conclusions.
You seem to be trying to hold us to a standard you believe on the matter, without experiencing any of it yourself. Why don't you put some time in, and research the origin and intent of the documents you say you have read. And do so without prejudice or biases? Things are not always what they seem as I am sure you know.
You seem to be insinuating, that we are foolishly chasing our tail over events you seem to think you have a handle on with no research.

[dukkillr]

Ok, dukkillr. What are you looking for here. This is a discussion of history. We aren't trying to change anything, we just enjoy getting at the truth. We aren't interested in spin, we use documentation. What you have read, is what it is. One must RESEARCH to find why someone said, or wrote, what one said or wrote.
No one here came to the conclusions we came to over night. I have been reading Texas Civil War History for almost 60 years. A quick skim of such a topic can cause one to jump to one of many conclusions.
You seem to be trying to hold us to a standard you believe on the matter, without experiencing any of it yourself. Why don't you put some time in, and research the origin and intent of the documents you say you have read. And do so without prejudice or biases? Things are not always what they seem as I am sure you know.
You seem to be insinuating, that we are foolishly chasing our tail over events you seem to think you have a handle on with no research.

I was doing nothing of the sort.  I was asking an honest question about these documents to a group of people who hold themselves out as being well studied in the area.

[Ga.windbreak]

Why does that seem like an answer to my question?  Indeed, if anything, it supports my post above regarding both sides moving themselves towards simple absolutes and away from reality.

I have to again agree with Dee neither he or I glossed over the slave issue, if anything we charged it head on. It appears to me that you either don't understand or don't agree with our answers, which is your right, in either case! (Note*****Property rights = slaves. You see slaves in those days were considered property not people. Even the U.S. Constitution stated that as fact)

We both showed, with a great degree of accuracy, everyone feelings about slavery during that time frame. As Dee recomended if you disbelieve, look it up, the answers are at your fingertip.

[dukkillr]

Why does that seem like an answer to my question?  Indeed, if anything, it supports my post above regarding both sides moving themselves towards simple absolutes and away from reality.

I have to again agree with Dee neither he or I glossed over the slave issue, if anything we charged it head on. It appears to me that you either don't understand or don't agree with our answers, which is your right, in either case! (Note*****Property rights = slaves. You see slaves in those days were considered property not people. Even the U.S. Constitution stated that as fact)

We both showed, with a great degree of accuracy, everyone feelings about slavery during that time frame. As Dee recomended if you disbelieve, look it up, the answers are at your fingertip.

So in your post it would be appropriate to replace the words "property rights" with "slavery"?

I've carefully read each of your responses and I didn't see anything regarding the text of the various secession statements.  That is, specifically, what I was looking for.  What you and Dee posted I could just as easily have wrote.  I understand that position clearly.  I was looking for some historical and contextual arguments regarding the specific documents.  Perhaps neither of you have knowledge on that specific topic.  If so, sorry for the confusion.

I don't especially care about this topic.  I'm from Kansas and no state or it's history makes up a significant portion of my self image.  I just read an interesting article on documents I didn't know existed.  I read them next.  They were on topic with Mr. Davis's speach, but for the opposite reason.  I was interested in a discussion on the subject.  I have no agenda beyond that.