How were Southerners supposed to “spread slavery” to Cuba? Cuba was already a thriving slave state. Slavery wasn’t abolished there until after the War Between the States. BTW, it was the Yankee who attacked Cuba in the Spanish-American War.

In 1861, blacks were voters in five New England states. There were no black voters or citizens in Pennsylvania or the Midwest or Oregon where free negroes were banned altogether. Even after the war, Minnesota, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Connecticut rejected the negro voter in state elections, and Ohio rescinded its ratification of the 14th Amendment for being “contrary to the interests of the white race.”

Why are you making the idiotic argument that the South went to war to spread slavery?

(1) Under Dred Scott and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the South was free to “spread slavery” into all the territories. The North had lost on that point.

(2) The South didn’t go to war over Kansas. That’s absurd. The Confederacy never claimed Kansas. By seceding from the Union, the Confederacy surrendered its claim to all the territories but New Mexico.

(3) When the South seceded in 1860/1861, there were slaves in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah, and Southerners had every right to bring slaves into the Dakotas and Wyoming.

(4) What is meant by “spreading slavery” anyway – a slave in Kansas is no different from a slave in Alabama. There is no such thing as “extending slavery.”

The “secession” movement is mostly a social things — guys showing off for other guys. BUt that is what most things are. Slavery was that, Nazi ism was that, things good and bad are like that. Usually things are for very basic reasons — the desire for power, the desire for control, the desire for acceptance in a group. To get attention and respect from the people around you. To get status.

That is what most people care about — not truth. Mankind advances when men who care about truth stand up. Slavery was not standing up for truth. Saying you cared an iota for consent of governed was goofy — South went to war when people in Kansas rejected slavery. YOu wrote a nice article about how Southerners were plotting and trying to spread slavery elsewhere — by FORCE. Not by debate, not by persuasion. No one even wasted time in 1850′s to reason with Kansas abolitionist. No one had a discussion about it. The South sent thugs out there first, and when that failed, they wanted to separated from the Union so THEN they could send the army out there — and into Cuba, and whereever else they wanted slavery.
‘
‘But did Davis really want slavery? No. He wanted power. He wanted prestife. He wanted to be able to walk into barns built by others, and sell women and children if he so desired.

YOu want to fit in with your buddies. If you were raised in Ireland, and never heard of the nonsense about the South wanting “consent of governed” you would laugh if anyone told you the history of the South, and how they now claimed it was about consent of the governed.

YOu don’t laugh about it now, because it gives you states and a feeling of belonging to believe it.

Don’t worry. Most people are that way.

Ok, man. It’s undesirable to communicate with you like this. I have already addressed everything you said here and I addressed them well. You didn’t respond to anything I wrote. Trying to communicate with you like this is awful.

In fact, the article YOU WROTE — YOU WROTE the article about the South’s violent attempts and intentions to spread slavery. YOU WROTE IT!! How the hello can you say your OWN article was wrong.

In a previous post — you ran behind the canard of “the South fought for the consent of governed”. A goofy nonsense — they hated the consent of governeed. It takes a special kind of denial to say slavers who went to war against the will of the people in territories, when those people voted 98% against slavery — and you claim you were for CONSENT OF GOVERNED!! Really, do words or truth mean anything ANYTHING to you ? At all.

Then you receed even further, hiding now by “south was fighting for self determination” — because you got chased off the goofy “consent of government” absurdity. No, the South was not fighting for SELF determination, they were fighting for slave masters to control and push slavery where they wanted.

WHy hide behind the fillibuster term? You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself. You wrote an outstanding piece, you just sorta hid as much as you could, but I was very impressed, usually you don’t see that level of intelligence about secession, since 99% of the time the scream slavery had NOTING to do with it.

Clearly slavery had everything to do with, as the documents speeches and newspapers in the South made quite clear.

But you did not want to say clearly the SOuth had a violent program to spread slavery against the will of the governed, did you? SO you used that word and several other linguistic tricks. Well that’s normal. No one likes to totally refute all they learned. YOu actually did a very nice job approaching a complex issue. It’s not really that complex, but you have to handle it in a complex way to sorta straddle the facts but still keep what you think is Southern honor.

ANd you said Davis was “not enthusiastic” about pushing slavery in Cuba but was pressured by others. No one pressured Davis into anything. He was big on the spread of slavery, as anyone who reads his books know. He had plans for Cuba for decades! And not just Cuba, but Kansas too.

And Kansas had just voted 98% to 2% to keep slavery out forever. Do you know how many times I have seen any Southern apologist even mention the spread of slavery into Kansas as even a REMOTE factor? Till your article, zero. Davis called the resistance to the spread of slavery was THE Intolerable grievance! IN fact he said it was NOT the other things, it was the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas. So Davis was shouting it from the rooftops. Your own leader was screaming it as loudly as he could, for years!

SO why can’t Southern apologist say what their own leader was jumping up and down about!??

You did better than anyone, you mentioned Kansas, and I didnt know that stuff about Cuba very well. But it makes sense, its the same bragging right slave masters aways wanted — more power, more territory, more status.

DId you know Lee’s slave ledgers still exists? They do. Lee kept extensive slave ledgers, and they were finally studied by Elizabeth Pryor. Plus 10,000 personal letters from the same time period, so Pryor could match up the dates — Lee was very thorough and clear in his record keeping.; SO Pryor can essentially track him day by day, slave sale by slave sale, bounty paid, by bounty paid.

ANd Lee is drastically different than we have been told. He was not loved by his slave s- – they hated him. HE did not free them, he kept getting MORE slaves, and used bounty hunters to expand his own supply of slaves. He also used physical torture to keep slaves in line, but it didn’t work. He had epidemics of escapes. He had dozens of slave escape, despite his promises to capture and have them whipped — which he did.

WE don’t get to see the actual slave ledgers, but if the Lee family does not burn them, we eventually will see them. And the jig will be up. the nonsense about an honorable anti slavery Lee is doomed by the truth he wrote down. How great is that.

I do not think any worse or better of the South. I know all men would be tyrants if they could. If I lived in Lee’s place, I would probably have done worse than he did, to the slaves. Men are vile bastards when they get power, and slave masters had too much power. The facts are pretty clear, Lee was a very cruel slave master. Douglas Southall Freeman’s deceptions are pretty clear now. He insisted Lee slaves loved him — they hated him. He insisted Lee freed the slaves as soon as he could – nonsese, Pryor shows Lee kept going to court THREE TIMES — during the CIVIL WAR! — to fight the will! And he kept losing. Finally the Court gave him a final date to free his wifes slaves (he had his own slaves AND his wifes’) but he did not obey even then. He finally released the slaves when he felt like it, and they were of no value, there was no market to sell them by then.

Freeman always pretended Lee freed them before the war — utter rubbish.

Thats why when Lee’s slave ledgers are made public — instead of just letting one person see them — it will settle a lot of disputes. Because its pretty hard to dispute Lee’s own handwriting when he records a whipping or bounty or sale or rental. You cant pretend some Yankee made it up.