NewYorkConfederate
Private
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2018
In the final days of the antebellum period the south was up in arms over the issue of slavery to a certain extent, and a defense of slavery was even written into the secession documents of a handful of southern states, and this fact is constantly being dredged up by the apologists of northern aggression in an effort to demonstrate that the "civil war" was fought primarily over the issue of slavery. In the view of the said apologists, these out-of-context statements offer some kind of "proof" that the southern states were driven primarily by a desire to protect the peculiar institution of slavery.
In my own view, folks in the southern states were getting sick and tired of being verbally and physically harassed by the "holier-than-thou" denizens of New York and New England.
In one of several notable provocations, John Brown of Connecticut went into a section of what is now West Virginia, at Harpers Ferry, with the intention of leading a bloody slave uprising.
Incidents such as the affair at Harpers Ferry had the effect of making the southern states "dig in." The existence of pro-slavery language in secession documents must therefore be seen in light of the historical context. In my own view these statements can only be understood as constituting a defensive response that was thrown together under duress and in the face of hostile rhetoric that was emanating from the likes of various northern radicals like John Brown et al.
I wonder why the southern states never agreed to ratify the proposed 13th amendment to the constitution a.k.a. the Corwin Amendment ? This amendment was a virtual "dream come true" for the alleged lovers of slavery. All they had to do was to renounce secession and stay in the union, and the institution of slavery would have been protected forever.
In my own view, folks in the southern states were getting sick and tired of being verbally and physically harassed by the "holier-than-thou" denizens of New York and New England.
In one of several notable provocations, John Brown of Connecticut went into a section of what is now West Virginia, at Harpers Ferry, with the intention of leading a bloody slave uprising.
Incidents such as the affair at Harpers Ferry had the effect of making the southern states "dig in." The existence of pro-slavery language in secession documents must therefore be seen in light of the historical context. In my own view these statements can only be understood as constituting a defensive response that was thrown together under duress and in the face of hostile rhetoric that was emanating from the likes of various northern radicals like John Brown et al.
I wonder why the southern states never agreed to ratify the proposed 13th amendment to the constitution a.k.a. the Corwin Amendment ? This amendment was a virtual "dream come true" for the alleged lovers of slavery. All they had to do was to renounce secession and stay in the union, and the institution of slavery would have been protected forever.
Bringing the