Ted Cruz Calls Out Democrats As The ‘Party Of The Ku Klux Klan’

[TomSea]

It's real easy to prove that the Civil War was largely about slavery because the South's own leaders said it was.

Georgia, now, if this was about Lincoln's robber barons back east, then why did the Georgia declaration of Secession mention slavery.

The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Georgia_Declaration_of_Causes_of_Secession

And it goes on, one wonders if this wasn't about slavery, why some Southern politicians and State declarations of secession specifically mention it and defend the institution of slavery.

Texas:

WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression; THEREFORE,

http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Texas_Ordinance_of_Secession

Why even mention slavery if it had nothing to do with the Civil War?

Mississippi:

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.

http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_the_State_of_Mississippi_from_the_Federal_Union

Constitution of the CSA:
http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

A lot of references to slavery.

Virginia:

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Virginia_Ordinance_of_Secession

Alabama:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Alabama_Ordinance_of_Secession

This is the tip of the iceberg; we have been through this before. Southern Politicians made it very clear. If slavery had nothing to do with the civil war, they sure fool me.

[DiogenesLamp]

South fired on the North; Fort Sumter.

You left out the Warship flotilla the Union had sent to Charleston,  in violation of the armistice,  the arrival of which provoked Beauregard into firing on the fort.  (Literally.  He says so in his communications.)    When faced with the prospect of being attacked by both the guns of the fort,  and the flotilla of warships 10 miles off of Charleston,  he made the militarily prudent decision to take out one enemy force before the second one could bring it's weapons to bear. 


Most people didn't even know Lincoln had sent those warships.   (With several hundred armed soldiers aboard.)   It gets left out of the story because it doesn't support the narrative.   


Most people also don't know that Major Anderson (Commander of Ft. Sumter)  was not ordered to go to Ft. Sumter.   He was stationed at Fort Moultrie,  which he abandoned,  after spiking and burning the cannons.   This came as surprise to the locals,  because they had been led to believe that the Fort would be given over to them peaceably.   The burning of the cannons by Major Anderson was regarded by the locals as the first belligerent act of the war. 


Major Anderson decided to seize Ft. Sumter.  The Fortress had never had a garrison,  and Major Anderson's force was the very first time it was ever occupied,  and he occupied it without authorization or orders to do so.   

Suddenly the people of Charleston had Union Troops in a fortress that had never been occupied,  and they were already aware of at least one Union Newspaper urging that the guns of Ft. Sumter be turned on Charleston to stop them from trading with Europe.     


It would worry me too if Troops suddenly showed up there.  I would be alarmed. 


A lot of stuff gets papered over when people talk about what happened. 

[TomSea]

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

But the problem is: The Confederate leaders themselves had no reason then to hide what they were fighting the Civil War over. They were forthright about both why they were seceding into the Confederacy and their beliefs about the white supremacy (and its spoils of wealth) that they were willing to fighting to keep in place. Ever since I first read Mississippi's Declaration of Secession, I've used it as a response to someone who decides to spread these myths in my presence.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens famous Cornerstone Speech:
.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jun/21/confederates-speak-yes-we-fought-the-civil-war-ove/

So, the South's own said they were fighting about slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's real easy to prove that the Civil War was largely about slavery because the South's own leaders said it was.

If you can demonstrate that Lincoln was motivated to invade the South because of what the South's "Leaders"  said,   then perhaps you have a point.   


Lincoln tells us he invaded to "Preserve the Union."   He also makes it clear that "Preserving the Union"  had nothing to do with slavery.    He offered reassurances as late as August of 1862 that he would keep slavery so long as he could "preserve the union."   


What it is clear that he wanted to preserve was control over the Wealth producing areas of the South that were about to seriously damage Northern industry by sapping money from them and setting up competing industries.   

It's about money.  It's always about money.  Even Charles Dickens noticed it was about money.

"I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North. But the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily to recover it's old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.

Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, the South's own said they were fighting about slavery.

I believe you are trying to say they seceded because of slavery. 



They were fighting because they got invaded.  What were the invaders fighting for when they invaded? 


Don't be dishonest.  Tell me what were the orders of the invasion force?   


If you show me any military orders regarding the initial invasions of the South that ordered them to do something about slavery,   I'll concede the point that the North was fighting about slavery.   


Again,  the South was *fighting*  because an army invaded them. 

[truth_seeker]

As was Lincoln's, my preference would have been to return the slaves to Africa.

[sneakypete]

That's not accurate.   It was a war over money first. 

@DiogenesLamp

Wealth is how they determine who is cultured,and who is a barbarian.

[GtHawk]

It's beautiful Cruz said this but who has said this for years is...

I love that man. Original too.

It has been said by everyone that knows the history of the democratic party for decades, Rush is not a pioneer in this.

[Emjay]

As was Lincoln's, my preference would have been to return the slaves to Africa.

The dem supporters have the memory of a flea.  They will never believe that the most racist party in America was the Democrats and the Dixiecrats. 

Even though the beloved Robert Byrd was a KKK member.

[TomSea]

Lincoln made it clear back in the Douglas Lincoln debates that he wanted to end slavery; and the South knew it.  That was 1858.

All of that talk on tariffs or whatever it is; are histories written by economists in one case, "The Real History" and doesn't seem to be viewed favorably by historians.

@sneakypete
When the States seceded and cited slavery in their declarations, I find it hard to say the fighting was not about slavery.

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jun/21/confederates-speak-yes-we-fought-the-civil-war-ove/

Really, the South was facing a demographic armageddon, if slavery and the white supremacist society was so important to them, perhaps it was unfortunate that the war started.  And white surpremacist it was by the words of the CSA's own Vice President. If Lincoln is going to be said to be dealing with banker barons; which seems to be a pretty obscure theory at that, this one is a lot more real.

There were all kinds of border disputes in Kansas and Missouri, Jayhawkers. Hard to pinpoint that this war was not going to happen.

Abolitionists existed well before the war.

[sneakypete]

Lincoln made it clear back in the Douglas Lincoln debates that he wanted to end slavery; and the South knew it.  That was 1858.

All of that talk on tariffs or whatever it is; are histories written by economists in one case, "The Real History" and doesn't seem to be viewed favorably by historians.

@TomSea

Oh,well! I guess that makes a difference,huh? We all know that historians NEVER  have an agenda,and NEVER write PC history in order to make sure their books are bought by the schools,right?

When the States seceded and cited slavery in their declarations, I find it hard to say the fighting was not about slavery.

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jun/21/confederates-speak-yes-we-fought-the-civil-war-ove/

If that you,Jesse?

If the Confederates were fighting over slavery,there must have been a hell of a lot of slave owners. Tell us,where did the Confederate privates,that made up the bulk of the Confederate Army,come up with the money to buy slaves?

If the North was fighting to free slaves,why didn't they free the slaves in the north before invading the south?

The vast majority of the Confederate soldiers did NOT own any slaves,and were only "fighting for slavery" in the fevered imaginations of Abolitionists, northern newspaper men that wanted to sell newsapers,and PC idiots that wrote history books.

Why they were fighting is the north was holding the entire south as slaves because the north refused to let the south withdraw from what HAD been a VOLUNTARY union where each member was free to withdraw from if it became dictatorial .

Really, the South was facing a demographic armageddon, if slavery and the white supremacist society was so important to them, perhaps it was unfortunate that the war started.  And white surpremacist it was by the words of the CSA's own Vice President. If Lincoln is going to be said to be dealing with banker barons; which seems to be a pretty obscure theory at that, this one is a lot more real.

White people don't have a right to feel like THEY are superior to other races,but other races DO have a right to think they are superior to whites? Maybe your name is Farrakhan instead of Jackson?

There were all kinds of border disputes in Kansas and Missouri, Jayhawkers.

There were border disputes everywhere there was borders. Each state wanted to conduct their own business to suit themselves. That's why they insisted on States Rights instead of becoming a part of the Borg. Nobody then or now liked having outsiders tell them what to do. Well,maybe YOU like it,but most people don't.

Abolitionists existed well before the war.

Duhhhhhh!

[EC]

Bleep Randy Newman and the camel he rode in on. SOB is one of the biggest racists and bigots going.

Dude's right about short people though. Got to give him that.

[sneakypete]

Dude's right about short people though. Got to give him that.

@EC

I'm short people. Care to pick me up to talk to me?

[EC]

@EC

I'm short people. Care to pick me up to talk to me?

A very wise man once said to me: "Insult a huge man, you might get flattened. Insult a shorter man, you WILL get killed."

No thanks. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

 HorseHillary stacked 12 feet tall is still HorseHillary. The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free ONE SINGLE SLAVE IN THE NORTH at the time the speech was made....IF the Emancipation Proclamation had been a serious thing,it would have immediately freed the slaves still being held in the north. It didn't.
 
 

1)  You've just changed completely what you previously said after being proven wrong.  You said "Lincoln did not free a single slave", a statement that was not limited just to the north or even the border states, and now you're trying to pretend that you didn't.  A lot of southern slaves were freed during the war in the South, by the Emancipation Proclamation. -- that's a fact.  Lincoln detractors often rely on the "Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction over the South" argument to pretend that the Proclamation had no real-world impact on slavery, but it's a bogus argument because it ignores that the North actually did have control over greater and greater parts of the south as the war progressed.  And slaves were freed as a consequences.

2)  You're right -- the Emancipation Proclamation did not free ONE SINGLE SLAVE IN THE NORTH.  That's because slavery was already illegal in the northern states.

3) Perhaps what you meant to say was that it didn't free any slaves in the border states, and that is true.  That's because Lincoln's end goal was to free all the slaves -- north, south, and border -- and he knew that if he tried to free border slave states before the War was won, he'd probably lose the war.  And that would mean that the vast majority of slaves would remain slaves.  So he freed as many as he could during the war without risking losing the war, and freeing none.

Not sure why some people want to trash Lincoln, but it shouldn't go unchallenged.

[TomSea]

"Stephen Wise posts the average net tariff collections from 15 ports in his book "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War". The figures he gives are quoted from Exec. Doc. No. 33, 36th Congress, 1st Session, 1860. The figures given are:

New York - $35,155,452.75
Boston - $5,133,414.55
Philadelphia - $2,262,349.57
New Orleans - $2,120,058.76
Charleston - $299,339.43
Mobile - $118,027.99
Galveston - $92,417.72
Savannah - $89,157.18
Norfolk - $70,897.73
Richmond - $47,763.63
Wilmington, N.C. - $33,104.67
Pensacols - $3,577.60

It should be noted that the reason the collections were so small had nothing to do with an inability of ports to handle imports. New Orleans, after all, exported almost 1.8 million bales of cotton. Mobile exported almost half a million bales, Charleston over a quarter of a million bales. With the capacity to handle such large amounts of cargo, the reason why so few goods were imported through these ports obviously has to be that there was little demand for the imported goods. So 95% of all tariffs were paid in the Northern ports, by Northern merchants. Adams claims have no basis in fact. "

Discussed.

CSA articles of secession also make no mention of these tariffs.

[Bigun]

But it was all about slavery!!!  /s

[sneakypete]

1)  You've just changed completely what you previously said after being proven wrong.  You said "Lincoln did not free a single slave", a statement that was not limited just to the north or even the border states, and now you're trying to pretend that you didn't.

 

I said that Lincoln did NOT free a single slave when he signed the Emacipation proclamation,and he didn't BECAUSE IT ONLY APPLIED TO SLAVES IN THE SOUTH,AND HE HAD NO DOMINION OVER SLAVES IN THE SOUTH WHEN HE SIGNED IT.

Furthermore,Lincoln is ON RECORD as writing "If it were up to me I would be more than willing to let the south keep their slaves if I could do so and it would convince them to remain in the union."

No matter how much you and other Lincoln fan bois want to make Lincoln into some kind of human rights saint,it just ain't so. The whole "Free the slaves!" thing was nothing more than a smokescreen to get the northern public to support the illegal war. If "Honest Abe" would have been honest,he would have promoted the war to "Save the millionaire bankers in NYC from losing money!". How well do you think THAT slogan would have worked for him?

A lot of southern slaves were freed during the war in the South, by the Emancipation Proclamation. -- that's a fact.

Really? How many were saved the day he gave the speech? Furthermore,how many were saved from slavery THAT DAY?

Or is it you don't give a damn about slavery in the north,only the slaves in the south?

Lincoln detractors often rely on the "Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction over the South" argument to pretend that the Proclamation had no real-world impact on slavery, but it's a bogus argument because it ignores that the North actually did have control over greater and greater parts of the south as the war progressed.  And slaves were freed as a consequences.

Yeah,let's talk about bogus arguments. What could possibly be MORE bogus than claiming Lincoln is the "Great Emancipator" because he promised to free slaves in the south at some future date,while refusing to free the slaves in the north that he DID HAVE DOMINION OVER THAT VERY DAY?

WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS?

2)  You're right -- the Emancipation Proclamation did not free ONE SINGLE SLAVE IN THE NORTH.  That's because slavery was already illegal in the northern states.

Now you are just bragging about your ignorance. Ever heard of a northern general named U.S.Grant? He still owned slaves on the day the war ended. There were lots of household slaves in the north,as well as slaves working in warehouses,loading ships on the docks,etc,etc,etc.

3) Perhaps what you meant to say was that it didn't free any slaves in the border states, and that is true.  That's because Lincoln's end goal was to free all the slaves -- north, south, and border -- and he knew that if he tried to free border slave states before the War was won, he'd probably lose the war.  And that would mean that the vast majority of slaves would remain slaves.  So he freed as many as he could during the war without risking losing the war, and freeing none.

Not sure why some people want to trash Lincoln, but it shouldn't go unchallenged.

Do you have any other fairy tales you would like to tell today? Obviously all your information on Lincoln comes from what you were taught in school,and you have never read his diaries or his letters to others.
 

[sneakypete]

It should be noted that the reason the collections were so small had nothing to do with an inability of ports to handle imports. New Orleans, after all, exported almost 1.8 million bales of cotton. Mobile exported almost half a million bales, Charleston over a quarter of a million bales. With the capacity to handle such large amounts of cargo, the reason why so few goods were imported through these ports obviously has to be that there was little demand for the imported goods. So 95% of all tariffs were paid in the Northern ports, by Northern merchants. Adams claims have no basis in fact. "

Discussed.

CSA articles of secession also make no mention of these tariffs.

Yup,sho nuff! Everybody KNOWS the cotton shipped directly from New Orleans to Europe was a MUCH inferior product to the cotton shipped out of NYC!

Same thing with the lumber,wool,cowhides,etc,etc,etc shipped out of southern ports. Who would want any of that stuff when they could be the higher-priced spread from NYC?

[Silver Pines]

Well there it is.   You aren't aware that it has never ended.    The same people are still fighting it.   New York and the Wealthy Elite,  versus everyone else.   Corporate Robber Barons who are morally superior to all of us "Fly Over Country"  Yokels,  still want to preach their latest moral enlightenment to the rest of us. 

@DiogenesLamp

[Hoodat]

It's real easy to prove that the Civil War was largely about slavery because the South's own leaders said it was.

An ordinance of secession is not a declaration of war.  These ordinances were issued BEFORE the North invaded the South.  Considering that the North was the aggressor, the reason for war falls on them.   And their reason had nothing at all to do with slavery.

[Bigun]

An ordinance of secession is not a declaration of war.  These ordinances were issued BEFORE the North invaded the South.  Considering that the North was the aggressor, the reason for war falls on them.   And their reason had nothing at all to do with slavery.

They were political documents. Nothing more or less than that. Had no need to get out in the weeds about tariffs and such.

[Chosen Daughter]

And I tell people they have kept their slaves on the government dependency plantation since LBJ in the 60s.

All the truth.  Good for Ted to say it.  You are also right they are still enslaved by the Democratic party.  Unfortunately the African American community keeps voting for their own enslavement.

[Bigun]

All the truth.  Good for Ted to say it.  You are also right they are still enslaved by the Democratic party.  Unfortunately the African American community keeps voting for their own enslavement.

See my tagline.

[Chosen Daughter]

See my tagline.

Exactly