The Importance of the Confederacy

From Dixiepedia: The PC-Free Encyclopedia

American History has a great deal of explaining to do. The accepted rhetoric of the official historians leaves an incredible amount of actual information unrecorded and ignored, simply because it does not seem to fit into the one-sided explanations of the Liberal historians who have been given the sole charge of shaping modern American attitudes on the subject. If one looks just beneath the surface of the 'Accepted Necesssary' of Civil War studies, or even briefly joins a Civil War chat site, one will begin to feel the uncomfortable divisions which have split this country since the time of the incident at Fort Sumter. The Truth is out there, but aside from not being very well-received, Those Who Control the modern American media have also been given charge to control the Perceptions of the Past.

If one is determined to understand the real truth about Civil War American history, one risks charges of unpatriotic 'revisionism', and risks being seen as 'unthankful' for all he enjoys today, simply because of his curiosity and desire for the truth. The old adage that one should never discuss Politics nor Religion then becomes an outright by-law. But if this is allowed to be the case, then American history, as it is taught today, will continue to remain unchallenged and erroneous throughout its broad, sweeping assumptions. And there is one great problem with all of this; the rest of the world is not ignorant of our American history. They do not try and correct us on it, nor should they attempt to do so. It is not their place to correct our inaccuracies.

It is our place to do that. And we can start by telling the whole story, and accepting our own truths, and realizing not only who we are, today, but who we have been, historically.

Confederate Pictures has taken the first steps in beginning the study of the political, social, and economic causes of the American Civil War, and plans to release a series of DVDs based on the format of Ken Burns, and his THE CIVIL WAR series, to be entitled The Importance of the Confederacy. In this series of DVDs, the American Southern Confederacy of states will at last be studied as an absolute value, and not from any one viewpoint.

The first DVDs are to be released in the future, but for now, the first reference materials used in the study will be explored. Chief among these are the writings of Greg Loren Durand, from his unabridged two volume collection of period writings entitled America's Caesar - The Decline and Fall of Republican Government in the United States of America and Frank Conner's book, The South under Siege - 1830-2000 A History of the Relations between the North and the South.

These two texts are excellent resources for seeing the other side of the coin, from a very different angle.

Introduction to the Civil War

Before we begin our study of these texts, it is necessary to first take a look at what is commonly taught, and understood, concerning the American Civil War.

Less than one hundred years after the several English colonies had rebelled against the government of King George III, and had formed the ambitiously-titled "united states of America", the problems of self-government had come to a head here in the newly-formed North American government.

The Federal government, while seen by many as a necessary evil, as mediator between the vast array of newly-formed nations who were now calling themselves 'the several states', and as the keeper of the 'great treaty', the United States Constitution, was itself now becoming the problem.

There was this fine balancing act that the Federal government was supposed to perform; that is, to walk the tightrope between mediation and intervention into the affairs of the states. All of the problems which were discovered under the Articles of Association, the Articles of Confederation, and the creation of the United States Constitution, as an art form, had their genesis in this fine line of exactly where the Federal government's boundaries were to be placed.

In a few words, there are three different viewpoints to the American Civil War; The Northern Point of View, the Southern Point of View, and What Really Happened. All of this may be true at the same time, in places, and we can fault neither the North nor the South for their individual viewpoints. What we can do is fault modern historians for attempting to side with the North in their opinionated viewpoints - because they see the United States of today as being that Yankee Union government of Abraham Lincoln and his Radical Republican party, or his later second term party, the Union party...

The United States government of today is not the Yankee Union Northern States government of Abraham Lincoln.

A marvelous quote by the late Vic Morrow, as Sergeant Chip Saunders, in an episode of COMBAT! makes it all very clear; when a raw Southern-born recruit joins the squad. He is full of resentment and ire at the United States Army, as a name entity, and he is continually 'cracking wise' on the United States Army as being the Yankees from the days of Abraham Lincoln. Finally, Vic Morrow's character gets enough, and he unloads on the errant Southern national, when he proclaims, rather loudly, This is not the Yankee Army! This is the United States Army!

The Southern-born recruit finally sees this, understands it, and eventually becomes a hero during the episode.

How true. The United States Army in World War II contained Southern Confederate Army-descended Conservatives whose forefathers had been Southern officers and generals in the Confederacy of Southern States. Indeed, Saunders was right; the United States Army of World War II was anything but the Yankee Army of Abraham Lincoln.

Jon Guttman, in a special release magazine entitled STONEWALL (page 33 - from the Editors of Military History HistoryNet.com), wrote about the relationship between George S. Patton and Dwight David Eisenhower.

"Ike," Patton said, "... This is what we'll do. I'll be Jackson; you'll be Lee. I don't want to do the heavy thinking. You do that, and I'll get loose among our #%&%$# enemies." (Direct quote from Guttman).

Patton? Eisenhower? Nothing further, your honor. The defense rests. Call your next witness.

And yet, when children are taught about the Civil War, usually around the fourth grade, they are taught that the North 'preserved the Union' and 'freed the slaves'. How could this be anything other than the most noble of reasons for justifying a war? The children sit in class, and look around at their little black schoolmates, and think of them being held in chains of slavery because they are black. They then realize that the South must surely have been in the WRONG, if this is what they were fighting for, in the Confederate Army...

This happens every day in fourth grades all over the country. The children cannot internalize dying on a battlefield, but they can understand little Jackie, over there, being put in chains and taken away from them. Because she is ' a person of color '. This, they can understand.

Then they get to hear how everything worked out ' for the best '. How Appomattox was where " our country was reunited ". And we owe it all to a successful Union general who, strangely enough, one day becomes the president of the United States, and gets to be on the fifty dollar bill. Thank God for the Northern Armies!

Then, they hear about how President Lincoln was shot down by an assassin ( that even sounds like a bad word!) while he was at their version of the movies! ( In a theatre where grown up people actually do plays, like in the school auditorium, because they didn't have movies and TV in those days... ). He didn't even get to finish watching the play! By the way, he's on the five dollar bill and the penny.

This is the basis for Civil War knowledge in grade school, and the 'accepted necessary'. Knowing this much means you'll probably pass the test.

But how much of it is based in fact? Did any of this happen in this way, and for these reasons?

The Actual Causes of the Civil War

This question is on just about every Civil War chat site and discussion group, at one time or another. Invariably, one of the members will posit the term, and then the replies start coming in like artillery rounds, loaded and going off in all directions. One of the first words that will usually be associated with the question is the word SLAVERY. Then will come the usual states rights issues, and in the more advanced groups, arguments over trade tariff taxes, and internal improvements, or the federally funding of public works projects. Here the arguments begin to die off, and the question never gets fully answered. Both sides dig their trenches, and the siege begins, one worthy of Petersburg. The thread usually ends with a dead silence.

That, or else it continues into a meaningless study of how the North did NOT try and tax the South out of existence, and here are the census and taxation numbers for the years before, during, and after the war. And then someone else posits that the tax numbers DO work for the Southern argument of unfair taxation, and here they are, and... eventually, it all gets quiet, again. Until the next argument.

But what caused the Civil War? And why?

You can't get there... from here!

No matter how hard one tries, he cannot draw a straight line between The Civil War, and the Institution of Slavery. Literally, he cannot get there, from here. The closest any pro-Northern debate has ever come to fixing the Slavery issue on the war was the Emancipation Proclamation, and the claim that the war BECAME about slavery, at that time.

Here's the problem: Under President Buchanan, The South seceded because of the plan for Radical Republican Liberal Northern Congressional denial of Southerners and their slaves to occupy the common territories out West. Such a plan would have insured a permanent majority of Northern Liberals in Washington City, as a result of containing the Southern Conservatives and their slaves in the South, in a voting minority, as well as devaluing the slaves to where money could not be borrowed against them. Buchanan let them secede, peacefully. There were incidences, but nothing to start a war... Lincoln comes along, provokes Sumter, and says that proves the South wants to destroy the North, and the Union... (He was really after the tariffs Charleston Harbor was supposed to collect for the Union...).

So, no straight line between slavery and war. A detour through voting, value in slaves, territorial laws, tariffs, and Lincoln is necessary to connect any dots... But still, you can't get there from here.

LINCOLN ATTACKED THE SOUTH FOR SECEDING FROM THE UNION...

End of story.

This is the Northern argument:

1). Lincoln said he was not going to touch Slavery, where it existed. The South just didn't have faith in him, nor believe in him. This caused the Secession.

2). The Declarations of the Causes of Secession were littered with the word SLAVERY, and so the South seceded to protect their right to own slaves. No other reason.

3). The North invaded the South to keep them in the Union. But it was not over tax money, nor tariffs on trade. It was because the states just needed to all be together (?) like always... A new and successful Liberal party of sectionally-interested Blue State New Englanders was running Washington City these days, and the Conservative South was just being Traitors to this legally voted-in administration by seceding from their lawful 'rule.'

But, the Slaves were really doing a lot for the Southern War effort, and so Lincoln decided to free the slaves so they could disrupt the Confederate War Machine.

In doing so, he did a noble thing, and made the war a Holy War against the evil South, who still kept their slaves long after the North had decreed that it was not any longer fashionable, nor 'right', to own them.

Thus, the North was justified in doing ANYTHING against the South that was deemed necessary for these poor afflicted black folks and to save the Union.

His truth is.... marching... on!

This is, of course, utter whitewashed nonsense. One has to consider that these Northern Liberal historians all truly believe that the South was a traitor to the Liberal Republican party and to President Lincoln, and so their John Brown attitude of "anything against them goes" was being played out at every opportunity. The real problem in the North was that, like today, the moneyed interests simply convinced the oh so easily-offended Northern people ( The Blue State Liberals are still the party of the OFFENDED, today! ) that they had been WRONGED on a ROCK in CHARLESTON HARBOR! That was the extent of it.

Let us take a look at what President Jefferson Davis has to say about all of this in Part One Chapter Ten of his excellent treatise, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government

Concerning the Original General Government...

"Perhaps it is unfortunate that, in earlier and better times, when the prospect of serious difficulties first arose, a convention of the States was not assembled to consider the relations of the various States and the Government of the Union. As time rolled on, the General Government, gathering with both hands a mass of undelegated powers, reached that position which Mr. Jefferson had pointed out as an intolerable evil—the claim of a right to judge of the extent of its own authority. Of those [pg 192] then participating in public affairs, it was apparently useless to ask that the question should be submitted for decision to the parties to the compact, under the same conditions as those which controlled the formation and adoption of the Constitution; otherwise, a convention would have been utterly fruitless, for at that period, when aggression for sectional aggrandizement had made such rapid advances, it can scarcely be doubted that more than a fourth, if not a majority of States, would have adhered to that policy which had been manifested for years in the legislation of many States, as well as in that of the Federal Government. What course would then have remained to the Southern States? Nothing, except either to submit to a continuation of what they believed and felt to be violations of the compact of union, breaches of faith, injurious and oppressive usurpation, or else to assert the sovereign right to reassume the grants they had made, since those grants had been perverted from their original and proper purposes".

"The preamble to the Constitution declared the object of its founders to be, "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Now, however (in 1860), the people of a portion of the States had assumed an attitude of avowed hostility, not only to the provisions of the Constitution itself, but to the "domestic tranquillity" of the people of other States. Long before the formation of the Constitution, one of the charges preferred in the Declaration of Independence against the Government of Great Britain, as justifying the separation of the colonies from that country, was that of having "excited [pg 83] domestic insurrections among us." Now, the mails were burdened with incendiary publications, secret emissaries had been sent, and in one case an armed invasion of one of the States had taken place for the very purpose of exciting "domestic insurrection." "

Concerning the Causes of the late Civil War...

"It was not the passage of the "personal liberty laws," it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern States of equality in the Union—generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the Territories, the common property of the States, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity".

"Instead of accepting the (Dred Scott) decision of this then august tribunal—the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions—as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility".

"What resource for justice—what assurance of tranquillity—what guarantee of safety—now remained for the South? Still forbearing, still hoping, still striving for peace and union, we waited until a sectional President, nominated by a sectional convention, elected by a sectional vote—and that the vote of a minority of the people—was about to be inducted into office, under the warning of his own distinct announcement that the Union could not permanently endure "half slave and half free"; meaning thereby that it could not continue to exist in the condition in which it was formed and its Constitution adopted. The leader of his party, who was to be the chief of his Cabinet, was the man who had first proclaimed an "irrepressible conflict" between the North and the South, and who had declared that abolitionism, having triumphed in the Territories, would proceed to the invasion of the States. Even then the Southern people did not finally despair until the temper of the triumphant party had been tested in Congress and found adverse to any terms of reconciliation consistent with the honor and safety of all parties".

No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it".

Ouch.

So Jefferson Davis nails it down on this wise... Northern Arrogance and Anglo-Saxon hatred for the predominantly Celtic Southern agrarians, their desire for a controlling interest over the South, the Republican party's plan to keep Slavery and slave-owners physically out of the Territories by prohibiting slavery and even slave owners and their slaves from even passing through these territories! ( so the majority of the voters will vote Liberal, and destroy any hope of a Conservative majority out West, and therefore, in Washington City, in Congress, as well...) and the North's willingness to endanger all Southerners in slave states with continued agitation towards stirring up slave revolts by Abolitionist terrorism...

So, the North's egregious slave trade, which had made the yankees very wealthy, and which had packed the South with Negro slaves, was now gone... and in its place was the desire to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY stir up strife with the South, and its peace and prosperity... because the North was now selling its soul to gain the votes of Abolitionist Terrorists, so it could pass all sorts of tax laws against the South, and take all Federal patronage for the Northern interests, at the expense of everyone else...

The southern people, 94% who did not own slaves, as well as the 6% who did, were terrified of an unthoughtful and unconstitutional emancipation of all these slaves. The Slave Revolts in the West Indies had terrified these good people, and set them to thinking that the Institution of Slavery was the only thing protecting them from a Negro terrorism that would commence with an unchecked emancipation... and end with starving negroes marauding across the countryside... and all because the Yankee Abolitionist thinks he knows what is best for everyone.

In a word, Northern Greed and Arrogance mingled in with Abolitionists who think themselves to be God Almighty. This is what the South wished to get away from, according to President Jefferson Davis.

President Jefferson Davis was to the point, but perhaps he was too close to the subject, historically, to see the reasons that Frank Conner provides in Chapter One of his book, entitled WHY THIS BOOK (?).

From Frank Conner:

Actually, this cultural war has raged unabated since the 1830's, when Northern Liberals decided to supplant Christianity with secular humanism as the official religion, and they selected the religious South as their battleground. To understand what the war is really about, we shall review the battles of Northern secularism against Southern Christianity - many of which have been fought under the banner of black civil rights.

WHAT THE WAR IS REALLY ABOUT? As in, it is still going on, today?

Can it be possible?

Frank continues later in Chapter One:

For example, the Southern states did not secede from the Union in 1860-61 because they thought the institution of slavery was threatened - it was not; slavery was specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution. ...

The South seceded because the Republican (Liberal) party's platform for the election of 1860 spelled immediate and irrevocable financial doom for the South if Lincoln were elected president and the Republican party gained control of the Congress, and the Southern states remained in the Union...

So Frank Conner says it was for economic reasons that the South seceded. And indeed, if we can look beyond the word SLAVERY - written every few inches in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession, we also read that the economics of North-South relations was as just as large an issue, if not a larger issue, than SLAVERY was...

The North seems to harbor a great deal of hostility for the South...

It is strange that the word YANKEE has several definitions, each one taking in more of a land boundary than the last. For example, YANKEE means an EASTERNER, or a NEW ENGLANDER. YANKEE also means NORTHERNER (as in, not from the South, nor the Western states). And, YANKEE also means a person from NORTH AMERICA, or as is arrogantly assumed, "from AMERICA", thus denegrating the Central and South Americans as 'not really being from AMERICA'.

(These people still get mad about this).

The Canadians, who are also, by definition, AMERICANS, actually refuse to be called such, because of the North American country known as the United States. and their reputation on the world scene, as a nation...

THE HISTORY CHANNEL

Perhaps one of the greatest devices in modern times is the creation known as the History Channel; a tool for recreational explorations into historical events. This device allows us to see re-enactments and recreations of ancient events, and to put words into actions in such a way as to garner interest in what has been, 'historically', a boring subject...

Unfortunately, the media controls this tool, and anything to do with the Civil War seems to have all the objectiveness of New Hampshire native Ken Burn's THE CIVIL WAR. There is no "other side' to the war, and none is ever presented. And, as this has been the case since its inception, apparently they are 'running out' of history, and have consigned themselves to being a knockoff of the DISCOVERY CHANNEL. Most evenings, the viewer is regaled with a rousing array of shows which bear titles such as AX MEN, ICE ROAD TRUCKERS, and something to do with being TOUGHER IN ALASKA...

A comprehensive study such as a planned series entitled INSIDE REENACTING, a look inside what it takes to be a reenactor, how to get started in the hobby, the knowledge they possess, and the work which goes into accurate portrayals of historical people and their lives, would have a much more historical appeal.

The show, which is being developed by CONFEDERATE PICTURES for a future release, plans to do just that.

Part Two

Here is what is missing from the Yankee argument, particularly on the chat sites:

1. The Radical Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was the first successful Liberal party in the history of the United States. Twice before, collectivist 'totalitarian socialism' had been attempted, and twice it had failed. First were the Federalists of John Adams. Next were the Whigs (Whiggamores) of Henry Clay's era. The Radical Republicans were the third attempt, and they succeeded in getting into power.

They also succeeded in destroying the United States of America.

2. The great divisions that this so-called 'Second Party' brought with it - attempted a form of socialism in this country, whereby what today are known as the Blue States attempted to get unmerited funding from the states which we call the Red States, today. This, along with the Second party's attempt to woo the abolitionists of the period, and to legislate the negro out of the Western territories, caused the South to not feel as if they were a part of the Union, any longer. They were not being represented, and by a mob rule majority vote, they were being literally enslaved to their voted-in masters in Washington City, to do their forced bidding.

But it was much more than that... The denial of slavery in the territories was unconstitutional, and had the effect of devaluing the property in slaves. It was an economic sanction that would have dire consequences for the Southern economy...

And worst of all, there were no Constitutional protections to stop a mob-rule sectional democracy from taking over in Washington City through what Jefferson Davis called "Usurpation, and Aggrandizement". His term for the politically correct.

But, there were also no provisions for forcing a state to stay in the Union, either...

3. Unchecked and immediate emancipation of all the Southern slaves would have created a holocaust for the American Negro Slave of the period, to say nothing of the 250,000 known freed negroes who currently resided in the South. The Abolitionists were seen, then, as a form of terrorist by all the South, even the 94% who did not own any slaves, at all... Some estimates claim that a million negroes actually starved to death due to this 'emancipation of displacement', being made refugees, or as Matthew Broderick in GLORY refers to them, as the DISPOSSESSED.

4. The Fort Sumter Excuse leaves a lot to be desired, as a 'cause for a Civil War'. The Cornell University website has all the dispatches between Major Robert Anderson, Governor Pickens of South Carolina, and the Lincoln administration, and they paint a very different portrait of the affair. THE TRUTH OF THE WAR CONSPIRACY OF 1861 by HW Johnstone (available at http://www.confederatereprint.com) also tells of an armistice that Lincoln violated, which is in itself an act of war. We know what really happened there. No one was hurt, nor killed, while the Confederates spent 36 hours disabling the fort before Lincoln's eight warships arrived with men, and munitions to set up a military installation in Charleston harbor, which would threaten Charleston, as well as trade with other countries...

The Rise of the Second Party to Power

In the Beginning, we were a Conservative nation, run by a Conservative government.

Certain designing persons, and political organizations, from the very beginning, sought to change that, forever.

At the time of the Civil War, these people had suffered massive defeats as both Federalists and Whigs. But their third incarnation, as the Radical Black Republicans, would bring them their long-awaited political voice, and cost an admitted 700,000 Americans their lives. The figure is actually very much higher, when you calculate the Southern civilian deaths, and the newly-freed slave deaths, from exposure, starvation, and neglect.

The problems at the time hinged upon the Territories of the United States Union.

The Radical Republicans were aligned with subversive and terrorist organizations such as the Abolitionist movement, which sought to free all slaves, unconstitutionally, illegally, and violently, through what Jefferson Davis called "an Invasion of the States" supported financially by this Black Republican Left WIng Party.

The Institution of Slavery- What It Was, and Was Not...

Today, when we hear about the Institution of Slavery, we get the impression of a national form of 'racism' against the negro, as a person. We are taught to believe that the South wanted to continue its 'hobby' of owning these people who were being kept as kidnapped victims of the plantations, and who were being continually beaten down and damaged, and oppressed... we are taught that the Civil War era North had 'freed' their slaves (Many didn't; they sold them off, instead, 'down the river' of the Mighty Mississippi!) and had become the all-wise, all-knowing invaders of the Civil War, who had to preserve our glorious Union - (cue ASHOKAN FAREWELL, and the closeup of a bewildered-looking, higher-cause Matthew Broderick, and fade to black... Cut. Print. Wrap.)

But was the South really willing to leave the Union, risk the empire-minded Abraham Lincoln and his pushy, arrogant Northern Liberals, and their new-found abolitionist terrorist buddies, (who now had the entire United States 'excuse' behind them), - and then to have to build their own nation, with all that expense and problem - just so that 6% of them could own negroes, as a lucrative 'hobby' ?

WAS THE SECESSION FOR SOUTHERN FREEDOM REALLY OVER SOMETHING AS IGNOBLE AND DISTASTEFUL AS... SLAVERY? ALL THOSE DEATHS? ALL THAT BLOOD? ALL FOR NOTHING MORE THAN AFRICAN SERVITUDE?

Let's take a walk. Back in time.

It is 1860. The negro has been a fixture in the South for a number of centuries. Unlike the American Indian, or even the Poor White Trash Americans, the Negro Slave is not on the bottom rung in the caste system of the North American United States. This is a common misconception. He is in the middle, or thereabouts, depending on who his master is, and is not...

At this moment, there are 250,000 freed negroes living in the South, right now, as free men. A number of these are 'colored taxpayers', and own their own black slaves. Something like 4,400 of them, as one estimate puts it. There are 4 million negro slaves in the South, roughly. Many of these negroes are treated as family members, living on enormous spreads of land. Many are trained craftsmen, and have their own money. Some are owned by Cottton Whigs, or Southern Liberals - like Alexander Stephens, who are racists and unpleasant people, and who abuse their slaves with bull whips and other torture devices. But the majority of the South is Conservative, God-fearing, and under biblical admonitions to treat their slaves well. The Liberal Secular Humanists, like their 'Blue State' Left WIng counterparts, have no such godly guidance with their slaves... These people believe in the color of their skin as an advantage, and a good many are White Supremists, like Stephens. The Poor White Trash are also White Supremists, and people like Andrew Johnson were actually 'white slaves', after a fashion, when they were younger. Abraham Lincoln is the head of the Illiniois Colonization Society, a White Supremist organization dedicated to both keeping negroes out of the territories, keeping them in the South, and eventually keeping them from intermarrying with Whites by sending them all back to Liberia, in Africa, in a massive exodus. To keep the United States for the White Man.

This is the state of things in 1860. Note the absence of modern-day Liberals and their 'equality' egalitarianism... Abolition was as much to abolish the negro, as an art form, in some quarters, as it was to abolish their incumbent slavery...

But back to Slavery.

Slavery is both a business, and a way of life. A great control was placed on the Institution by the states, early on, in order to ensure the safety of all the citizens. The wealth of the South is tied up in slavery, because it is tied up in plantations. These massive farms grow much if not all of certain exports to other countries. The fact that slaves cost an enormous amount of money (about $900.00 for a male field hand, and around $400.00 for a woman, or for a young child like Booker Talieferro Washington) and in a day when about half that much money could secure a buyer the equivalent of a 250 acre farm, this was a lot of money.

But the fact that slaves were worth so much allowed plantation owners to borrow money against them, for the good of the plantation. This is often overlooked, when the value of slaves was being looked at as being 'devalued' by Liberal Republican legislation in the territories. If the negro is outlawed from coming into the territories as a slave, the value of the slaves drops economically low. One cannot borrow against his assets if his assets are being devalued.

What the Yankee Wanted... According to the Yankees

The Yankee today posits that the North wanted to Free the Slaves and preserve the Union. How nice of him to want to do that. But then, the Liberal Left has always been historically very generous with other people's money...

The Yankee, then, wanted several things, from this Radical Republican (Liberal) party of Left Wing Blue State Collectivists.

1. Keep the territories free of Negroes and the Conservative Southerners who own them, and who always vote against Yankee 'improvements' in the North. All Negroes, and all Conservatives to be kept out, preferably.

2. Keep the Slaves in the South, and not allow them to come out! Lincoln feared white interbreeding with them, and was a racial 'purist'.

3. Free the Slaves, so Yankee abolitionist consciences will be appeased over the origins of the Yankee slave trade. But keep them all in the South, mind... Don't let any more of them out!

4. Oh, and keep up the good work, and continue the tax money coming in from negro servitude, whether free or slave... The taxes and the tariffs will continue as scheduled.

5. And no, we Yankees would rather have a Civil War over freeing them rather than to actually posit a realistically-envisioned Compensated Emancipation plan that would actually benefit everyone... and cost the Federal government a bloody fortune... ' Internal Improvements' such as these would never be suggested seriously by the bleeding hearts at the North...

End of Page One - Continued on Page Two Here, in other words: http://www.southernhistoricalreview.org/wiki/index.php/The_Importance_of_the_Confederacy_-_Part_two_-_%282008%29_Confederate_Pictures