pressure-mounts-to-rename-army-bases-that-honor-confederate-soldiers

And what you fail to mention is that the Confederacy was aware of this contradiction and knew that it would eventually resolve with blacks being thought of as people and freed. That's part of why they didn't trust the Constitution to protect the institution of slavery. I know you were linked to it before, but the Cornerstone Speech states this explicitly.

 

No it most certainly does not. The territorial government’s it was referring to were TERRITORIES that had not become states yet.

Which is why you completely ignored the question. Why would they need to include that provision of protecting slaveowners traveling within the confederate states from having their slaves taken from them if those states were not allowed to ban slavery?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

 

If anyone did not fight to ensure the rights of black folks then yes, it would be the group of people who counted black folks as 3/5 of a person or didn't count them as humans at all. Did the southern confederacy fight for their rights?

 

It says exactly that. I quoted it for you multiple times. Please. Read.

IN ALL SUCH TERRITORY THE INSTITUTION OF NEGRO SLAVERY, as it now exists in the Confederate States, SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CONGRESS AND THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Please read. It is only one sentence. Don't worry. I'll wait.

 

No did the American revolutionaries? Because from everything I’ve read they were almost all slaveowners and universally blatant and unapologetic white supremacists.

 

Yet none of them revolted against our country, or any other for that matter, over slavery and white supremacy. That's the difference.

 

Yes we know northerners had slaves. How many blacks served in the confederacy?

The 54th Massachusetts
Early in February 1863, the abolitionist Governor John A. Andrew of Massachusetts issued the Civil War's first official call for black soldiers. More than 1,000 men responded. They formed the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, the first black regiment to be raised in the North.

 

Are you being obtuse?

This is the actual quote.

3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Notice the beginning where it talks about how the confederacy can acquire new territories.

The ENTIRE paragraph is about how the territories must act. Including not being able to appropriate someone’s slaves. Hence the beginning of your quote where it says “in all SUCH territories...”

I’ll ask you for the THIRD time. If the states were not allowed to ban slavery, then what is the point of including a provision to protect slaveowners traveling within the confederate states with their slaves?

You’re reading it incorrectly. And by now I’m starting to think you’re doing it on purpose.

 

You realize the north used black men as cannon fodder and meat shields right? That’s why in most of the battles they fought in they had a grossly disproportionate number of casualties. They weren’t targeted more. It’s because the northern armies put the black troops in the most vulnerable spots where they knew they would take the most casualties.

Take for instance Fort Pillow where Forrest is accused of trying to wipe out the black people because they had a 60% casualty rate. They had a 60% casualty rate because the northern command stuck them out front and let them take all the casualties while they kept their white people back.

That was done consistently, over and over and over again in the civil war. The north used black soldiers as meat shields.

 

And I ask you again why you ignore the words of the Constitution and Stephens's words regarding it.

Your argument that it would be redundant is completely vacuous. Legal language is often redundant. Besides, it isn't all that redundant in the first place to say that 1) slavery is a right and 2) you can't take someone else's slaves when they are traveling. Again, Stephens was very specific about the significance of these changes to the Constitution.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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."

 

Speaking of Forrest and black Confederates ......

When the Civil War began, Forrest offered freedom to 44 of his slaves if they would serve with him in the Confederate army. All 44 agreed. One later deserted; the other 43 served faithfully until the end of the war.

Though they had many chances to leave, they chose to remain loyal to the South and to Forrest. Part of General Forrest's command included his own Escort Company, his Green Berets, made up of the very best soldiers available. This unit, which varied in size from 40-90 men, was the elite of the cavalry. Eight of these picked men were black soldiers and all served gallantly and bravely throughout the war. All were armed with at least 2 pistols and a rifle. Most also carried two additional pistols in saddle holsters. At war's end, when Forrest's cavalry surrendered in May 1865, there were 65 black troopers on the muster roll. Of the soldiers who served under him, Forrest said of the black troops: Finer Confederates never fought.

 

The idea that they just put extemporaneous rules in the constitution is so absurd that it doesn’t even justify a response.

Here is Alexander Stevenson EXPLAINING what he meant and pointing out the reporter misquoted him and refused to allow his edits:

“As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us.

The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.“

 

But see you don’t know any of that because I doubt you’ve ever read his speech in its entirety and I’m sure you never read his explanation.

You only regurgitate propaganda you’ve been spoon fed.

 

I also know the service was volunteer. And I'm sure they were happy to be at the front to kill as many racists southerners as possible.
They were willing to die for their freedom rather than let the south win and be kept slaves.

 

That’s simply false. Exactly how do you think the confederate constitution differed from the American?

 

I love when you guys say racist southerners when states like Oregon banned black people from entering the state upon pain of lashings and sometimes death.

You do realize that until we executed Lincoln for his crimes the north’s plan was to ship all the black people out of America to the Caribbean, South America and back to Africa. Right?

The ones that you laud for giving black people freedom hated them so much they didn’t even want black people in the country.

 

Read the link to the speech from the VP of the Confederate States....he made it perfectly clear...the concept of All Men Being created equal was removed

This goes in to detail on other specific changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

 

Primarily in terms of its explicit protection of slavery, as anyone who has read it and Stephens's comments regarding the Confederate Constitution know.

 

Exactly how is the all men being equal different from the US constitution given that all men equal isn’t in the us constitution but counting blacks as 3/5 of a person and denying them constitutional rights was.

 

Your argument is demonstrably false and based upon your fallacious reading of the confederate constitution as I already pointed out and a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what Alexander said based upon his OWN words.

 

Not to mention the US constitution had explicit protections for slavery. It was called the fugitive slave clause. In case you forgot. Or didn’t bother to read that either.

 

Michael Murphy deserves a base named after him. MOH recipient, Navy SEAL.

 

That's addressed in my link....the US Constitution didn't use the word slavery, or refer to race....the CSA did.

 

So what was the fugitive slave clause about?

 

Look we can all agree that slavery was egregious and the fugitive slave clause should have been removed from the constitution.

However the precedent CANNOT be allowed to stand unchallenged that the federal government can simply declare a portion of the constitution to be immoral, they can refuse to uphold that portion of the constitution, they can ignore TWO direct orders of unconstitutionality from the SCOTUS, they can attempt to change the constitution without going through the constitutional process and without the consent of the governed and then violently oppress anyone who opposes them.

That is UNACCEPTABLE and must be met with the utmost and fiercest opposition up to and including warfare. That’s what my ancestors did. They stood up in defense of the constitution, in the face of certain death, against a tyrannical government who was violating that constitution at will and with immunity. They did so against ALL odds; outgunned, outsupplied, with little to no infrastructure and outnumbered nearly three to one. They did so with much honor, sacrifice and blood spilled.

Those confederate men and women are the only reason we still have a constitution today as they made violating the constitution far too costly. They should be honored for that sacrifice. Not vilified.