End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Sierra Systems]

the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

We thought we had a right to be represented in Parlaiment. When that didn't happen, "We Quit!" Funny how that works out eh?

We never took part in elections for Parliament; we could not "quit" doing so, because we never did so in the first place. This is nothing like the case in 1860:
When you participate in an election you are agreeing to be bound by the result. The south had taken advantage of the results of previous elections that came out their way; people who had voted for the other side respected the outcome.

I agree that it is morally wrong to own human beings as property, but I cannot agree that that is the only reason for secession.

The people who decided on secession proclaimed, loudly, that yes, indeed, that was the only reason for their decision.

There is a lot of evidence that southern white males (not all but certainly enough to make decisions) consider themselves the ruling class. They have repeatedly threatened to leave when they didn't get their way. There is a lot of evidence they don't trust Presidents who are not only white protestent males, but also southern. Or at least expressing certain southern values. And I don't mean values that are reasonable to expect from a leader. They want someone who kills things. They want someone who distrusts foreigners. They want someone who hates the French. They want someone who sides with them on issue of minorities. They want someone who sides with them on the issue of religion. They care about issues, sure, but mostly they care about "lifestyle" and keeping their place as the ruling class. Every time they see a chance that we might lift up the downtrodden in this country, they see it as a threat. They see it as "dirty communists" letting the rabble into the castle. "Sure, we've got plenty for everyone, but God put us here to rule on high over these pieces of crap. Don't worry, you can trust us to be loving."

That's why they're anti-regulation but they support making laws that enforce their morality on people. They aren't for freedom. They're just against anything that is a threat to what they view as their privelege as white males. They determine right and wrong and all laws should be designed not to rule over everyone, but rather to control the rabble.

Source please?

Allow me to translate what you actually wrote into english.

There is a lot of evidence that southern white males (not all but certainly enough to make decisions) people I disagree with consider themselves the ruling class. They have repeatedly threatened to leave when they didn't get their way. Pointless accusation. There is a lot of evidence they don't trust Presidents who are not only white protestent males, but also southern aren't like them. Or at least expressing certain southern valuesWho don't somewhat agree with them. And I don't mean values that are reasonable to expect from a leader Values I don't agree with. They want someone who kills things. They want someone who distrusts foreigners. They want someone who hates the French. They want someone who sides with them on issue of minorities. They want someone who sides with them on the issue of religion More pointless accusations. They care about issues, sure, but mostly they care about "lifestyle" and keeping their place as the ruling class not having it changed too terribly much, just like everyone else. Every time they see a chance that we might lift up the downtrodden current popular minority cause or liberal cause celebre in this country, they see it as a threat. They see it as "dirty communists" letting the rabble into the castle a change in their way of life, which they would like to remain the same. "Sure, we've got plenty for everyone, but God put us here to rule on high over these pieces of crap. Don't worry, you can trust us to be loving." Pointless accusation.

That looks more right to me... Of course, it also makes alot more sense when you say it this way.

[Bottle]

Irony: The Confederacy fought for 'freedom' to live as they wished, while denying freedom to others. The Union fought for 'freedom' for all men, while forcing the Confederates to obey by force.

The Union did not fight for freedom for all men. They fought to keep the United States united. Slavery was not the issue for the North and many who supported the North also supported slavery.

Lincoln himself really summed up the Northern perspective, I think:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

[Jocabia]

the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

We thought we had a right to be represented in Parlaiment. When that didn't happen, "We Quit!" Funny how that works out eh?

We never took part in elections for Parliament; we could not "quit" doing so, because we never did so in the first place. This is nothing like the case in 1860:
When you participate in an election you are agreeing to be bound by the result. The south had taken advantage of the results of previous elections that came out their way; people who had voted for the other side respected the outcome.

I agree that it is morally wrong to own human beings as property, but I cannot agree that that is the only reason for secession.

The people who decided on secession proclaimed, loudly, that yes, indeed, that was the only reason for their decision.

There is a lot of evidence that southern white males (not all but certainly enough to make decisions) consider themselves the ruling class. They have repeatedly threatened to leave when they didn't get their way. There is a lot of evidence they don't trust Presidents who are not only white protestent males, but also southern. Or at least expressing certain southern values. And I don't mean values that are reasonable to expect from a leader. They want someone who kills things. They want someone who distrusts foreigners. They want someone who hates the French. They want someone who sides with them on issue of minorities. They want someone who sides with them on the issue of religion. They care about issues, sure, but mostly they care about "lifestyle" and keeping their place as the ruling class. Every time they see a chance that we might lift up the downtrodden in this country, they see it as a threat. They see it as "dirty communists" letting the rabble into the castle. "Sure, we've got plenty for everyone, but God put us here to rule on high over these pieces of crap. Don't worry, you can trust us to be loving."

That's why they're anti-regulation but they support making laws that enforce their morality on people. They aren't for freedom. They're just against anything that is a threat to what they view as their privelege as white males. They determine right and wrong and all laws should be designed not to rule over everyone, but rather to control the rabble.

Source please?

Allow me to translate what you actually wrote into english.

There is a lot of evidence that southern white males (not all but certainly enough to make decisions) people I disagree with consider themselves the ruling class. They have repeatedly threatened to leave when they didn't get their way. Pointless accusation. There is a lot of evidence they don't trust Presidents who are not only white protestent males, but also southern aren't like them. Or at least expressing certain southern valuesWho don't somewhat agree with them. And I don't mean values that are reasonable to expect from a leader Values I don't agree with. They want someone who kills things. They want someone who distrusts foreigners. They want someone who hates the French. They want someone who sides with them on issue of minorities. They want someone who sides with them on the issue of religion More pointless accusations. They care about issues, sure, but mostly they care about "lifestyle" and keeping their place as the ruling class not having it changed too terribly much, just like everyone else. Every time they see a chance that we might lift up the downtrodden current popular minority cause or liberal cause celebre in this country, they see it as a threat. They see it as "dirty communists" letting the rabble into the castle a change in their way of life, which they would like to remain the same. "Sure, we've got plenty for everyone, but God put us here to rule on high over these pieces of crap. Don't worry, you can trust us to be loving." Pointless accusation.

That looks more right to me... Of course, it also makes alot more sense when you say it this way.

And another thread where you don't actually wish to read. Is this becoming a pattern with you? Worse, it's the second thread where you showed demonstrably that you didn't actually know much about the topic?

The OP shows that the "people I disagree with" weren't looking to escape a tyrannical federal government. They wanted the federal government to be MORE tyrannical. They wanted a particular law enforced more heavily on the northern states than it was. That's not pushing for a weak federal government. It's pushing for a strong one. (If you need a source for me to show you the law I'm talking about, please be specific. Cuz that's friggin' hilarious.) What we know, not guess, not sorta think, know is that the south seceded and were willing to fight a war (even going so far as to plan and execute the first attack) because they'd become outnumbered by people that were against slavery. They were all for democracy until they weren't the ruling class anymore.

Then they seceded to a federal government that forced the states to allow slavery. That took a right away from individuals through federal mandate.

Since then they've promoted taking marriage away from individuals in varied fashions.

Recently after the "dark one" took office, GA passed a resolution for secession again. In that resolution they said that it was for GA has the right to decide what rights it abridges. They also put nullification in the bill. If you don't know nullification is the same argument they used for ignoring segregation laws (remember why Ray Charles didn't go back to Georgia for half of his life?). And denied federal power to enforce any laws with few exceptions. Under their thinking, the federal government couldn't even seek out domestic terrorists like McVeigh and the Unabomber. Why? Because they didn't get they President they wanted again.

Bush expanded government more than any other President in the history of this country and they said and did nothing. Obama hit office and immediately, Oklahoma is talking about creating an army to fight the federal government and secession, GA actually voted to secede if the federal government even limits the type of ammunition you can use and Texas is talking about secession. The South has a terrible legacy for threatening to secede when their guy doesn't win. Always when the issues on the table are MORE rights for people.

Slavery. Segregation. Interracial marriage. Gay marriage. And this time, freedom of religion (since their beef is the government protected the right of the people by limiting the act of religion being supported by the government of a state. The right for blacks to vote. The rights for women to vote. The rights for nonlandowners to vote. Those aren't states' rights. Allowing those things to be granted to the people isn't a signal of an oppressive federal government. These empowering the people. And they empower people who aren't rich white men. That's the consistent message behind the things against which the ruling class of the south resist.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/sr632.htm

So ban assault weapons and we're out. Ban nuclear weapons and we're out. Chase demestic terrorists and we're out. Protect freedom of religion and we're out.

Nullification was a suggestion by Jefferson before judicial review tempered the power of the executive and congress. Judicial review was the alternative. The Republicans when in power didn't attempt to change judicial review. They just attempted to stack the deck with their selections (for the record, I like Roberts). but now that they "other side" gets to do the same, they don't follow normal procedures to fix the contract they've been a part of for 200 years. They did what they did last time, they decided that they unilaterally get to alter the terms of the contract without using any form of mediation whatsoever. Typically when you're unhappy with a contract and wish to claim that one side or the other has violated it, you take it to court. The south pulls out their guns and says whenever your "democracy" doesn't give us the result we wanted, they take their ball and go home. A founding principle of democracy is that when you vote, you agree to abide by the outcome.

[Raul Caribe]

Here are some interesting comments.

Take a look at some of the comments people wrote to his articles.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C1

ahh ok now i am free to like him again cause until i seen that link i thought you were talking about this guy



i dont watch CNN because of people like that other guy so i had never even heard of him.

[Muravyets]

Maybe I misread this: where you denying the fact that the North had control of the government?

Nope, just stating that the argument that the south was being oppressed was, is, and always will be complete bullshit. Why? Because it was just one election that their preferred side lost; one guy losing an election does not disenfranchise whole states so the southern states still had full access to and benefits of membership in the US government; if they didn't like the way power changed hands in the US government, they could blame themselves, since they helped set up that system; there would be another election in 4 years for them to try to get their way again by legitimate, lawful means; and those were the rules of the American game, so those historical bitches could suck it, historically speaking, okay?

[Muravyets]

You know what the difference was? We didn't make the rules and then refuse to abide by them. We didn't create the English government. The US was a place with different needs and different issues than England and had not part of their governments creation or continued existence.

The South participated in the formation of the government and/or voted to live under the set of rules that the US had. The people of each state had already said they wanted to be a part of the US. They created a system that accounted for the varying needs of the states (thus the differences in the way Senators represent states and the way Reps do and the electoral system). They set it up to work a certain way and they supported it until they felt like on a particular issue they didn't have numbers on their side. That issue was slavery and was so important to them that they took their ball and went home. They didn't believe in democracy. They believed in creating a system where one group rules another. And they were willing to fight a war to ensure they had the numbers advantage and kept it.

Actually I would quibble that it was more that the North American colonies of Britain actually were disenfranchised (to the extent anyone was enfranchised in Britain back then). Most of the colonists were British citizens but they found themselves having their rights violated. In Britain, they could appeal to the law for remedy, but they were denied that right in the colonies. Clearly, in firm practical terms, the British government had abandoned its own citizens located in its NA colonies. So the colonists basically just finished that action.

But as you point out, the South was in no way disenfranchised just because they disagreed with the policies of one presidential administration. They still had full access to their government and court systems to argue their case.

[Muravyets]

Irony: The Confederacy fought for 'freedom' to live as they wished, while denying freedom to others. The Union fought for 'freedom' for all men, while forcing the Confederates to obey by force.

The Union did not fight for freedom for all men. The Union fought to keep the Union together, i.e. all of the states and territories. If you think otherwise, just ask any black man in the north in the 1860s.

[Muravyets]

Irony: The Confederacy fought for 'freedom' to live as they wished, while denying freedom to others. The Union fought for 'freedom' for all men, while forcing the Confederates to obey by force.

The Union did not fight for freedom for all men. They fought to keep the United States united. Slavery was not the issue for the North and many who supported the North also supported slavery.

OK then: The Union fought for forcing the Confederates to obey, and ironically ended up winning 'freedom' for others.

Well, that tends to happen when you stop people from taking away other people's freedom. A pleasant side effect.

[Free Soviets]

fun fact of the day: mississippi finally got around to ratifying the 13th amendment (you know, the one outlawing slavery) in 1995. yes, that's nineteen, not eighteen.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

fun fact of the day: mississippi finally got around to ratifying the 13th amendment (you know, the one outlawing slavery) in 1995. yes, that's nineteen, not eighteen.

Weren't they bound to it anyway by 14, though?

[Sgt Toomey]

fun fact of the day: mississippi finally got around to ratifying the 13th amendment (you know, the one outlawing slavery) in 1995. yes, that's nineteen, not eighteen.

Weren't they bound to it anyway by 14, though?

I think once the requisite 3/4 of the States ratify, they're all bound by it.

[The Fanboyists]

I'd note you don't see much mention of state's rights anywhere in particular, except in the US Constitution, in which it's basically mentioned that whatever the Federal government cannot do, the states can decide, and what the states can't decide or do, the individual can deal with. I'm pulling a blank on whether its the 9th or 10th Ammendment that says each of these.

I'd note that while slavery is why the upper class of the Confederate states may well have been fighting for, it's by and large not why the rank-and-file fought. One need only look at the phrasing of the alternate (southern) name for the Civil War, "The War of Northern Aggression" to see the psychology of many soldiers; most soldiers that fought for the Confederacy were not by any means wealthy enough to hold slaves or plantations, and whose conditions were not a whole lot better than the slaves (basically, they were only de-facto dirt as opposed to being officially dirt); many saw the North's (not unjustified) invasions to rein in the rebelling states as an attack against their homes, and moved to defend said homes, just as many of the militia that fought in the American Revolution did against British troops.

I am not saying this to completely disagree with the OP, but I'd like to note that, like most things in the world, the Civil War and its causes were considerably more complicated than simply being "State's Rights" or "Slavery" alone; I believe someone else noted that many people fought on each side for their own reasons, with slavery being a major one on both sides, but with views of the need to admonish rebellious territories (which I'm sure plenty of northerners had) and the view of defending one's home (which many on both sides, because invasions cut both ways) for others, and for many who had, simply put, no stake at all in the slavery issue, the concept of sovreignty; if one considers it, no matter how repugnant one of the many causes they fought for was, the Confederacy was no more or less illegal than the entire American government is, on concept; it was almost exactly the same thing as what the 13 colonies did 90 years prior against the British Crown. Noting an argument I did not notice originally, I'd point out that the American colonies, strictly speaking, were not disenfranchised by the British system; the British Parliament was not strictly representative by territory (if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Like I said, not necessarily backing one side or the other, but pointing out that things are always more complicated than people will try to make them, and reminding everyone to keep that in mind, and hopefully give a slightly different perspective here.

Thanks.

[Free Soviets]

One need only look at the phrasing of the alternate (southern) name for the Civil War, "The War of Northern Aggression" to see the psychology of many soldiers

nobody called it that until after they lost. ta-nehisi coates has an excellent recent article that gets at the real psychology here.

The Ghost of Bobby Lee

What undergirds all of this alleged honoring of the Confederacy, is a kind of ancestor-worship that isn't. The Lost Cause is necromancy--it summons the dead and enslaves them to the need of their vainglorious, self-styled descendants. Its greatest crime is how it denies, even in death, the humanity of the very people it claims to venerate. This isn't about "honoring" the past--it's about an inability to cope with the present.
...
This is about a lancing shame, about that gaping wound in the soul that comes when confronted with the appalling deeds of our forebears. Lost Causers worship their ancestors, in the manner of the abandoned child who brags that his dead-beat father is actually an astronaut, away on a mission of cosmic importance.

read the whole thing.

[Tmutarakhan]

it was almost exactly the same thing as what the 13 colonies did 90 years prior against the British Crown.

Not even slightly.

I'd point out that the American colonies, strictly speaking, were not disenfranchised by the British system

Yes, strictly speaking they were completely disenfranchised.

the British Parliament was not strictly representative by territory (if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong).

You are completely mistaken. Seats in the House of Commons were by shire (county) and borough (major town: there was a problem in that some boroughs were no longer major, and some towns had become major without acquiring seats in Commons). Americans had no representation at all.

[The Fanboyists]

I have read it, now, and I must say, it is quite well. However, I must also point out that it does not undermine the heart of my argument; if it seems that it has, I believe I have not communicated my point well enough.

While it may well be true that the Civil War only took on the additional name of "The War of Northern Aggression" post-war (I personally don't know, my father, who was born and raised in Alabama, told me that was what he was taught about it as, noting the bias and pointing out how education varied from state to state), the main point I was trying to make is that, like any other conflict, there may well have been a leading reason, but it does all involved a huge disservice to boil it down to only that. The article you linked to actually describes that rather nicely; the people involved were men and women of their time; at bottom, men and women, who, like all men and women, believe different things. I am merely trying to remind people not to boil this down to a black-and-white (no pun intended) debate, to keep in mind that many people had many reasons for fighting for the sides they did.

That was all I was trying to say; that all involved, OP included, should be careful to not boil this down to a black-and-white debate, else they risk being just as guilty of the same glaring revisionism "Lost Causers" are undoubtedly guilty of. Just as nobody would say that it was Fascism-Communism or Hitler alone who led to WWII, it oversimplifies the issue to say the Civil War was simply about "state's rights" or "slavery."

[The Fanboyists]

it was almost exactly the same thing as what the 13 colonies did 90 years prior against the British Crown.

Not even slightly.

I'd point out that the American colonies, strictly speaking, were not disenfranchised by the British system

Yes, strictly speaking they were completely disenfranchised.

the British Parliament was not strictly representative by territory (if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong).

You are completely mistaken. Seats in the House of Commons were by shire (county) and borough (major town: there was a problem in that some boroughs were no longer major, and some towns had become major without acquiring seats in Commons). Americans had no representation at all.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. Thank you for the information.

I'd note though, that according to the US Constitution, there actually would have been a legal way to secede; enough states supported it that it could have been introduced as an amendment that would have allowed states to secede; on basic concept (ignoring any modern legal changes or what-have-you), it makes no less sense to allow a state to leave the union they agreed to join, voluntarily.

[Jocabia]

You know what the difference was? We didn't make the rules and then refuse to abide by them. We didn't create the English government. The US was a place with different needs and different issues than England and had not part of their governments creation or continued existence.

The South participated in the formation of the government and/or voted to live under the set of rules that the US had. The people of each state had already said they wanted to be a part of the US. They created a system that accounted for the varying needs of the states (thus the differences in the way Senators represent states and the way Reps do and the electoral system). They set it up to work a certain way and they supported it until they felt like on a particular issue they didn't have numbers on their side. That issue was slavery and was so important to them that they took their ball and went home. They didn't believe in democracy. They believed in creating a system where one group rules another. And they were willing to fight a war to ensure they had the numbers advantage and kept it.

Actually I would quibble that it was more that the North American colonies of Britain actually were disenfranchised (to the extent anyone was enfranchised in Britain back then). Most of the colonists were British citizens but they found themselves having their rights violated. In Britain, they could appeal to the law for remedy, but they were denied that right in the colonies. Clearly, in firm practical terms, the British government had abandoned its own citizens located in its NA colonies. So the colonists basically just finished that action.

But as you point out, the South was in no way disenfranchised just because they disagreed with the policies of one presidential administration. They still had full access to their government and court systems to argue their case.

Sadly, if you actually believe in something, you generally stick to it whether things are going your way or not.

My brother is going through a rough time right now and has gotten really upset because he was treated pretty foully during his divorce. Once when he was really angry he talked about taking it out on the people who wronged him calling it justice. The fact is that he doesn't want justice. If he did he would be concerned about other people's problems as well as his own. What he wants is vengeance. What the teabaggers are doing and what the South did then isn't much different. If they stood up for their ideals whether they won or lost elections, I'd have a lot of respect for their position.

Unfortunately, we only tend to see these sorts of movements among conservatives when they lose. At least when the liberals are preaching sour grapes, they threaten to leave, not to force the conservatives in their states into a war and or removing them from a government they've been a part of since birth.

They should stick to their guns (I love puns) and allow their friends and neighbors they same freedom they claim belongs to them. If I'm living in GA, do I get to secede because I'm so outnumbered? Can I join IL or form my own state just so I can get represented in electoral votes? Because if you're a liberal in GA, then you're vote for President hasn't mattered in 150 years. I don't have a say in the governor. I don't have a say in my representative in most places. Do they advocate secession for the state overstepping it's bounds and attempting to force me to leave the US... three different times?

[Maxen von Bismarck]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

[Farnhamia]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Indeed. And since defenders of the Confederacy often say it was all about states' rights, what about the Fugitive Slave Act that Southerners in Congress pushed through in the 1850s? That act rode rough-shod over states' rights by requiring the authorities in every state and territory to return black people to anyone who merely filled out an affadavit saying they were that black person's owner. It also specifically prohibited jury trials in such cases. Well done.

[Free Soviets]

If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

because slavery is one thing, but a doomed treasonous war in defense of slavery against a non-existent threat is another?

[Muravyets]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

[Sdaeriji]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

"So many slave states"? Four of the 15 slave states did not join the Confederacy. Two of those four states abolished slavery during the Civil War, independent of the Emancipation Proclamation. A third, Kentucky, essentially declared their independence and asserted their neutrality in the war, until the Confederacy violated that neutrality by occupying a Kentucky city. Even after that, a faction of the Kentucky government formed the Confederate state of Kentucky shortly after the war began, and were admitted to the Confederacy.

So, really, the question is "why did Delaware not participate in the Confederacy?"

[Maxen von Bismarck]

"So many slave states"? Four of the 15 slave states did not join the Confederacy.

Over 25% sounds like a lot, eh?

Two of those four states abolished slavery during the Civil War, independent of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Absolutely nothing to do with the divisions located within their states? Obviously, it was completely organic. They weren't "really" slave states... because they coincidentally abolished slavery during the time that they were occupied by Iraq-levels of Federal troops.

A third, Kentucky, essentially declared their independence and asserted their neutrality in the war, until the Confederacy violated that neutrality by occupying a Kentucky city. Even after that, a faction of the Kentucky government formed the Confederate state of Kentucky shortly after the war began, and were admitted to the Confederacy.

Declared their independence, you say? Declared neutrality? If that isn't dying to the last breath for slavery, I don't know what is.

So, really, the question is "why did Delaware not participate in the Confederacy?"[/quote]

[Sdaeriji]

"So many slave states"? Four of the 15 slave states did not join the Confederacy.

Over 25% sounds like a lot, eh?

Two of those four states abolished slavery during the Civil War, independent of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Absolutely nothing to do with the divisions located within their states? Obviously, it was completely organic. They weren't "really" slave states because they coincidentally abolished slavery during the time that they were occupied by Iraq-levels of Federal troops.

A third, Kentucky, essentially declared their independence and asserted their neutrality in the war, until the Confederacy violated that neutrality by occupying a Kentucky city. Even after that, a faction of the Kentucky government formed the Confederate state of Kentucky shortly after the war began, and were admitted to the Confederacy.

Declared their independence, you say? Declared neutrality? If that isn't dying to the last breath for slavery, I don't know what is.

So, really, the question is "why did Delaware not participate in the Confederacy?"

[/quote]

You managed to not address a single point I made. Congratulations.

[Maxen von Bismarck]

"So many slave states"? Four of the 15 slave states did not join the Confederacy.

Over 25% sounds like a lot, eh?

Two of those four states abolished slavery during the Civil War, independent of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Absolutely nothing to do with the divisions located within their states? Obviously, it was completely organic. They weren't "really" slave states because they coincidentally abolished slavery during the time that they were occupied by Iraq-levels of Federal troops.

A third, Kentucky, essentially declared their independence and asserted their neutrality in the war, until the Confederacy violated that neutrality by occupying a Kentucky city. Even after that, a faction of the Kentucky government formed the Confederate state of Kentucky shortly after the war began, and were admitted to the Confederacy.

Declared their independence, you say? Declared neutrality? If that isn't dying to the last breath for slavery, I don't know what is.

So, really, the question is "why did Delaware not participate in the Confederacy?"

You managed to not address a single point I made. Congratulations.

I addressed all the points that you presented. Just because you didn't make any isn't my problem.