Confederate History and Heritage Month: Richmond was the slave trading capital of Virginia

This map of Richmond, Virginia slave auction sites was compiled by Elizabeth Kambourian. (Image courtesy of Google Maps)










(Image courtesy of Google Maps)



Ruins of Goddin Hall with the Virginia State Capitol in the background.
(Image courtesy of the Library of Congress)





So important in fact, that there were auction houses just steps away from the Virginia State Capitol.





1860, a fine year for auctioning property!
(Image courtesy of Newspapers.com)






Restoring the honor!





Comments

  1. I do believe that went on LOOOOOONG before the Confederacy was formed. Not good at arithmetic, are ya?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh no. I'm great with numbers. Check this out. Here's a fun number for you. 34.5. That's the percentage between whites and slaves according to the 1860 US census for Henrico County.

      Delete
    2. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1047000/

      See for yourself, if you can handle the truth about your racist, white supremacist ancestors.

      Delete
    3. I'm just not totally eaten up with race like you leftist haters are.

      Oh, and the Confederacy didn't exist in 1860. It was formed in February 1861.

      Look at you, ignoring facts in order to spread your hate.

      Racist? White Supremacist? That still puts them several rungs on the decency ladder above you leftist destroyers and haters.

      Delete
    4. Well that's another pretty dumb comment, just because I cited data from 1860 doesn't make it any less pertinent to what happened during the Civil War which began a year later. You're probably too stupid to know that the US Census is only taken once every ten years and that the data from the 1860 census is most representative of conditions during the early years of the Civil War. Look at you! Making a fool out of yourself again.

      Delete
    5. Nope. The census provides information from the time it was taken back in time, not forward. It's not "representative" of conditions that have not happened at the time it was taken. Unless you believe in magic censuses? I wouldn't be surprised, though, since you live in a fantasy world of hate.

      Delete
    6. Connie-
      So, upon the creation of the CSA, and its intent to make slavery perpetual, Virginia purged itself of its slaves... then joined the CSA?

      Delete
    7. sleridge, do you REALLY think that's what I'm saying? You antiConfederates are soooooo slow ... or else you deliberately misunderstand (I think this is more likely)in order to hate-monger.

      Jacob's claim is that ALL Virginia history, ALL slavery history, is "Confederate history and heritage" when, in fact, only four years of it is, and everything before that is NOT. But what do facts matter to y'all? Who cares if you shave the truth a little here or there, in order to make people hate white Southerners, past and future. It's worth it to y'all, isn't it?

      Delete
    8. Who's Jacob?

      Well, first you said it went on "LOOOOOONG before the Confederacy was formed". Then after presented with data from the 1860 census, you said "the Confederacy didn't exist in 1860. It was formed in February 1861." Suggesting that Virginia was quite different(slavery-wise) in 1861, than it was in 1860.

      Everything has context. Nothing just pops into being. So, "Confederate History" reaches back to before 1861. You people know that. You're always claiming "Northern Aggression". (Honestly, I didn't peg you for one of the "The US had slavery for 80+ years. The CSA only had it for 4. Now, which flag is more racist"-type.)

      I don't want anyone to hate Southerners. I am one. (I know, I know... "You ain't Southern unless you bite on the Lost Cause. Hook, line, and sinker.) But, the inability to accept basic history sure doesn't shake the slow-witted yokel stereotype.

      Delete
    9. Quote: "Suggesting that Virginia was quite different(slavery-wise) in 1861, than it was in 1860."

      Good grief. Is THAT the only way you can concepualize what I said? Well, it is wrong and juvenile. I even EXPLAINED it to you and you STILL pretend to not understand.

      The way Virginia was different in 1861 was that it was a Confederate state. Sheesh.

      Jacob (and you know exactly who I'm talking about, so don't ask that dumb question again) is attributing all of Virginia's decades BEFORE the Confederacy to Confederate History and Heritage Month. It's typically dishonest of him. So, no, Confederate history does NOT stretch back through the flippin' decades before it even existed.

      So, you don't believe the CSA had slavery 4 years and the USA for 90 years?

      You don't want anyone to hate Southerners. To clarify, I said WHITE Southerners. WHITE SOUTHERNERS is who Jacob tries to stir up hatred for. Being a Southerner has nothing to do with the Lost Cause (a misnomer when it comes to heritage folks).

      I accept basic history. The people who don't are those who lop off everything about the South but slavery ... who totally define the South and the war as slavery. The "slow-witted yokel stereotype" is a figment of the imagination of haters like Jacob, Dimmy Jick and others, which they try to palm of as fact....

      Disagreeing with the leftist presentation of Southern history as slavery, all slavery, and nuthin' but slavery is not an "inability to accept basic history." It is a refusal to accept lies.

      Delete
    10. 1) Virginia was not different. Prior to being "a Confederate state" Virginia was still made up of all of the same white slaveholders who need the "inferior" blacks to do the hard, manual labor that they were too lazy to do.

      2) The history of Virginia and it's people is absolutely relevant to Confederate History and heritage Month because it is the people who made up the treasonous Confederate army who we are discussing. It is true, many of the young soldiers in the Confederate did not own slaves, but why is that? Well, age for one. Just like many 18 year olds today who don't own cars, people that young usually are not far along enough in life to have enough money to spend on expensive things, and slaves were expensive "things" in 1861-1865. But mommy and daddy often times DID have slaves. While many soldiers did not actually own slaves themselves, their families on the other hands in a lot of cases DID depend on slave labor. The Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia were especially concentrated with slaveowners who were dependent on slave labor and who did want to see the peculiar institution maintained. I would hazard to guess that many of them felt it was worth giving up their lives to keep the system of white supremacy in place. Economically, the state was very dependent on slave labor as the state had more slaves than any other state in the entire country in 1860.

      3) I have never once said that the United States of America was not guilty of enslaving human beings, but what I have pointed out is that a portion of our nation wanted to do away with it, and another fought a war to maintain it. They said so themselves in their own documents and speeches. It is an undeniable fact. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. I am not a cheerleader for the United States of America. Our country has done a tremendous amount of evil since it's founding. The difference between us is that I can look at history accurately and you cannot. You are unwilling to accept the truth.

      4) Again, we are supposed to believe that the Confederacy was an extremely welcoming, multicultural utopia. Nothing could be further from the truth. First off, my name isn't Jacob, but she is referring to me, so I will answer. I am not trying to drum up hate for Southerners. I actually like the South a lot. My visits there have been pleasant. I enjoy visiting and everyone I personally have been in contact with have been super nice, to me at least. But I'm white. The South is not a very welcoming place to everyone though. For the fourteen-millionth time, I do not ever wish to see harm to come to anyone I talk about at my blog. I don't advocate violence. I actually advocate peace. I would love to see these Southerners who are so consumed by hate to cast of their racist beliefs and learn to live with all kinds of people and to stop being judgmental. I do enjoy shaming them, but I don't hate them. If I saw someone assault Connie Chastain, I'd help her, because she is a human being and I don't like to see harm come to human beings. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy laughing at her because of what a total joke she is. To say that I hate white Southerners is absolutely ridiculous, since half of my family history is from the deep South. I don't hate my ancestors, but, I can and do recognize that they were wrong to support an army that fought against our nation to maintain an evil and despicable institution of owning human beings as property. I am white. I do not hate white people. I don't hate myself. I don't hate my parents.

      Delete
    11. "Is THAT the only way you can concepualize what I said? Well, it is wrong and juvenile. I even EXPLAINED it to you and you STILL pretend to not understand." - No, it isn't the only way to conceptualize it. But, you were questioned on your phrasing and you reiterated the same sentiment by acting like the 1860 census was not representative of slave ownership in Virginia in 1861.

      "The way Virginia was different in 1861 was that it was a Confederate state. Sheesh." - The issue was slave ownership and its effect. Not the legal/illegal status of Virginia.

      "Jacob (and you know exactly who I'm talking about, so don't ask that dumb question again)" - What's more dumb? Continually calling someone a name that you don't really know is accurate? Or asking for clarification of whom you're referencing?

      "So, no, Confederate history does NOT stretch back through the flippin' decades before it even existed." - OK. Then all of this "Northern Aggression" y'all go on and on about is inconsequential. So, there was no reason at all for the attempt at secession. So, then it really was a simple rebellion attempted to break apart the Union.

      I've never gone so far as to call the secessionists traitors, but I certainly never thought you would.

      "So, you don't believe the CSA had slavery 4 years and the USA for 90 years?" - Of course, that's the case. But, as Rblee pointed out, who in the US didn't want slavery and who did? It's a scapegoat to drop slavery at the feet of the whole Union without acknowledging why slavery gained tremendous strength and numbers before the rebellion.

      "You don't want anyone to hate Southerners. To clarify, I said WHITE Southerners." - I don't want ANY Southerners to be hated. But, the majority of the heritage folk refuse basic history because they feel it lessens their stance. I mean, it's great that people want to denounce the very thing their heroes fought to make perpetual. But dismissing it, or refusing it completely, is not only disrespectful of their heroes, it's also embarrassing to see the Lost Cause mythology permeating.

      "Lost Cause (a misnomer when it comes to heritage folks)" - That's the problem.

      "Disagreeing with the leftist presentation of Southern history as slavery, all slavery, and nuthin' but slavery is not an "inability to accept basic history." It is a refusal to accept lies." - When the secessionists made it about "slavery, all slavery, and nuthin' but slavery" it's kind of hard not to see it their way. Yeah, there were other minor issues. There always was and is (though, there was nothing unconstitutional). But, nothing pushed the South to rebel like the issue of slavery did.

      Delete
  2. 1) Virginia was not different. Prior to being "a Confederate state" Virginia was still made up of all of the same white slaveholders who need the "inferior" blacks to do the hard, manual labor that they were too lazy to do.

    ~~ But it wasn't Confederate history and heritage BEFORE the Confederacy came into existence. What is so hard for you to grasp about that?

    2) The history of Virginia and it's people is absolutely relevant to Confederate History and heritage Month because it is the people who made up the treasonous Confederate army who we are discussing. It is true, many of the young soldiers in the Confederate did not own slaves, but why is that? Well, age for one. Just like many 18 year olds today who don't own cars, people that young usually are not far along enough in life to have enough money to spend on expensive things, and slaves were expensive "things" in 1861-1865. But mommy and daddy often times DID have slaves. While many soldiers did not actually own slaves themselves, their families on the other hands in a lot of cases DID depend on slave labor. The Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia were especially concentrated with slaveowners who were dependent on slave labor and who did want to see the peculiar institution maintained. I would hazard to guess that many of them felt it was worth giving up their lives to keep the system of white supremacy in place. Economically, the state was very dependent on slave labor as the state had more slaves than any other state in the entire country in 1860.

    ~~Sheesh... What a lot of words to refute an argument nobody is making. Virginia history may be RELEVANT to Confederate History and Heritage Month, but not all Virginia history IS Confederate history and heritage. It cannot BE Confederate history and heritage BEFORE the Confederacy came into existence. That makes your headline, "Confederate History and Heritage Month: Richmond was the slave trading capital of Virginia" and most of your post a lie.

    3) I have never once said that the United States of America was not guilty of enslaving human beings, but what I have pointed out is that a portion of our nation wanted to do away with it, and another fought a war to maintain it. They said so themselves in their own documents and speeches. It is an undeniable fact. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. I am not a cheerleader for the United States of America. Our country has done a tremendous amount of evil since it's founding. The difference between us is that I can look at history accurately and you cannot. You are unwilling to accept the truth.

    ~~ Wrong. "A portion" didnot want to do away with it. A handful of abolitionists did. Northern states wanted to "do away" with their black populations, so they abolished slavery and sold their slaves. One portion did not fight a war to maintain slavery. It fought a war because an army invaded its territory. SOME documents and speeches said that SECESSION was to maintain slavery -- among other things. You do not look at history accurately. You torturously twist it in order to use it to drum up hatred for people who see it differently than you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 4) Again, we are supposed to believe that the Confederacy was an extremely welcoming, multicultural utopia. Nothing could be further from the truth. First off, my name isn't Jacob, but she is referring to me, so I will answer. I am not trying to drum up hate for Southerners. I actually like the South a lot. My visits there have been pleasant. I enjoy visiting and everyone I personally have been in contact with have been super nice, to me at least. But I'm white. The South is not a very welcoming place to everyone though. For the fourteen-millionth time, I do not ever wish to see harm to come to anyone I talk about at my blog. I don't advocate violence. I actually advocate peace. I would love to see these Southerners who are so consumed by hate to cast of their racist beliefs and learn to live with all kinds of people and to stop being judgmental. I do enjoy shaming them, but I don't hate them. If I saw someone assault Connie Chastain, I'd help her, because she is a human being and I don't like to see harm come to human beings. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy laughing at her because of what a total joke she is. To say that I hate white Southerners is absolutely ridiculous, since half of my family history is from the deep South. I don't hate my ancestors, but, I can and do recognize that they were wrong to support an army that fought against our nation to maintain an evil and despicable institution of owning human beings as property. I am white. I do not hate white people. I don't hate myself. I don't hate my parents.

    ~~I've never said the Confederacy was a welcoming, multicultural utopia. Where do you get this crap? Your imagination is a pathological liar. I've simply maintained that the people of the Confederacy were no worse that anyone else who has ever lived (and better than some), particularly the people who came South to make war on them. The contents of your blog refutes your disclaimer about not wishing harm to come to anyone. Southerners are no more consumed with hate that you are; that's part of the lies you are using to perpetuate hate against them. Yes, you may make exceptions for your family or friends in the South, but you are fomenting hatred for white Southerners... It doesn't matter that you are white; most hatred of whites is perpetrated by leftist whites. That's what they do ... make "exceptions" to their blanket hate and condemnation.

    The huge, major problem with people like you and Dimmy is that you push the lie that Southern slavery was the greatest sin, the greatest atrocity of human history, when there are things that are much worse, and Southern slavery was not what they portray it to be. (For example, Islamic enslavement of black Africans was far, far worse). Your hatred of Southern whites demands that you portray them as mankind's greatest monsters. One way you attempt this is to portray black/slave misery in direct inverse proportion to white evil. Thus, living the life of a slave is hardly worth living, it is so horrible. This is why haters of white Southerners (past and present) portray the totality of slavery as its worst parts -- thus, because some slaves were raped, beaten, etc., the totality of slavey is portrayed as rape and beatings. Anyone who points out that this is a lie is called a "slavery apologist." To hear some haters tell it, white Southerner kept slave to indulge their love of inflicting pain on other human beings.... I mean, it's as if putting in a crop, harvesting it and taking it to market was completely irrelevant to slaveowners.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "No, it isn't the only way to conceptualize it. But, you were questioned on your phrasing and you reiterated the same sentiment by acting like the 1860 census was not representative of slave ownership in Virginia in 1861."

    ~~ No, that is COMPLETELY missing my point. My point is that Jacob's headline implies that all of Virginia history is Confederate history. It isn't. It didn't become Confederate history until the Confederacy was formed.

    "The issue was slave ownership and its effect. Not the legal/illegal status of Virginia."

    ~~Look again at the headline of Jacob's blog post. THAT is what I was referring to. It implies that he's talking about the 4 years that Virginia was a Confederate state, but he includes history PRIOR to that.

    THAT is the issue I was talking about.

    "What's more dumb? Continually calling someone a name that you don't really know is accurate? Or asking for clarification of whom you're referencing?"

    ~~I assume, since you've commented here in the past, that you actually read the blog, and you should thus know that "Jacob" is one of the ways I address him. Oh, sure, he says he's not Jacob ... but when others say what THEY are or are NOT, he doesn't accept that.

    "So, no, Confederate history does NOT stretch back through the flippin' decades before it even existed." - OK. Then all of this "Northern Aggression" y'all go on and on about is inconsequential. So, there was no reason at all for the attempt at secession. So, then it really was a simple rebellion attempted to break apart the Union.

    ~~You do such amazing leaps, you could be a ballerina, sledridge. Most of the time "northern aggression" is a term for the Union Army's war on the South. And, no, it is NOT inconsequential. Hard to see how you reached THAT conclusion. The reasons for secession -- and yes, for some states, slavery was a major reason -- were not "simple rebellion."

    Rebellion is what the colonials fomented, and yes, it was treason. The crown OWNED the colonies. Secession was not rebellion because the feds do not OWN the states. The South didn't try to "break apart" the Union. The 22 states remaining in the union (more than twice the nine required by the Constitution to start the union) could have stayed just as unbroken apart as they wished. They didn't need the Southern states to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I've never gone so far as to call the secessionists traitors, but I certainly never thought you would."

    I haven't. I have repeatedly said they were NOT traitors because nothing they did fit the Constitution's or the US Code's description of treason.

    " Of course, that's the case. But, as Rblee pointed out, who in the US didn't want slavery and who did? It's a scapegoat to drop slavery at the feet of the whole Union without acknowledging why slavery gained tremendous strength and numbers before the rebellion."

    Did you know that a generation before the war, there were more anti-slavery societies in the South than the north? (Once the north pretty much got rid of their black population, slavery was a concern mostly to a handful of northern abolitionists, not the general population.) And yes, slavery lies at the feet of the entire Union, even after it was abolished in the north. The north continued to benefit from slavery even when the slaves were domiciled in another region. New England's textile and maritime industries benefitted enormously from slavery right up until the war.

    Please explain what you mean by slavery gaining tremendous strength and numbers before the (non)rebellion. The yearly increase of slavery from 1790 to 1860 was basically very uniform -- from 23% to 30%... Well, do you mean an increase in the number of slave owners? How much was the "tremendous gain" in the number of slave owners before the rebellion?

    I don't want ANY Southerners to be hated. But, the majority of the heritage folk refuse basic history because they feel it lessens their stance. I mean, it's great that people want to denounce the very thing their heroes fought to make perpetual. But dismissing it, or refusing it completely, is not only disrespectful of their heroes, it's also embarrassing to see the Lost Cause mythology permeating.

    If you don't Southerners to be hated, you might consider refraining from commenting on blogs that exist to foment that hatred.

    First, most heritage folks do not believe Confederates were fighting to make slavery perpetual. They were fighting because an army was threatening their homes and people. You now and then run across people who say "The war had NOTHING to do with slavery!!!!" which is inaccurate. Slavery's connection to the war is indirect (some states seceded to perpetuate slavery, and the north fought to force the seceded states back into the union) but it exists. But the north did not send troops South to free slaves. If heritage folks don't focus on slavery, it's because, first, others carp, carp, carp continually about slavery, so it isn't necessary; and second, they prefer to focus on all the factors that the slavery-obsessed refuse to acknowledge.

    "Lost Cause (a misnomer when it comes to heritage folks)" - That's the problem.

    ~~I don't see a problem.

    "When the secessionists made it about "slavery, all slavery, and nuthin' but slavery" it's kind of hard not to see it their way."

    ~~Well, first, they made SECESSION about slavery -- partially. They didn't make ALL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY about slavery, which is what I clearly, cleary said -- go back and look at it.

    There is a LOT more to Southern history than that.

    "Yeah, there were other minor issues. There always was and is (though, there was nothing unconstitutional). But, nothing pushed the South to rebel like the issue of slavery did."

    The South did not rebel. Slavery pushed some states to SECEDE. Secession is not rebellion. Plus, there were other factors in secession. (The states of the upper South did not secede over slavery, but because Lincoln tried to force them to send troops to invade the seceded states.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "My point is that Jacob's headline implies that all of Virginia history is Confederate history. It isn't. It didn't become Confederate history until the Confederacy was formed." - The post is about slave auction sites. Whenever they may have been. But, the slave ad is from 1860. The census info is from 1860.

    And as I pointed out, Confederate history has to have context. There's a reason the Confederacy came to be. The point here is the major role slavery played in the South.

    "THAT is what I was referring to. It implies that he's talking about the 4 years that Virginia was a Confederate state, but he includes history PRIOR to that." - Like a dog chasing his tail. Why do y'all have such a problem understanding the role context plays in understanding history? You can't understand why slavery was so important to the Confederacy without understanding why it was so important to the South; even going back to the colonies.

    "and you should thus know that "Jacob" is one of the ways I address him." - Yes, I know. I've seen your comment explaining that you do it because you believe he's a certain blogger (can't recall at the moment) that has apparently been targeted by white supremacist groups. So, unless you are trying to bring him some kind of harm or ill-will, I don't understand the need to keep doing it.

    "You do such amazing leaps, you could be a ballerina, sledridge." - I have been called light in the loafers... or maybe it was light on my feet...

    "Most of the time "northern aggression" is a term for the Union Army's war on the South." - My exposure to that term is in reference to supposed political and legislative aggression that led to rebellion.

    "Hard to see how you reached THAT conclusion." - You're the one that doesn't believe context is important. I was just following your logic. If context isn't applied to why the South rebelled, then what reason exists besides simply rebelling for rebellion's sake.

    I know your position. And I know you understand context is important. I'm just following your reasoning in this instance.

    "Rebellion is what the colonials fomented, and yes, it was treason. The crown OWNED the colonies." - I agree.

    "Secession was not rebellion because the feds do not OWN the states. The South didn't try to "break apart" the Union." - No. The feds didn't "own" the states. But, they were in a voluntary union. And any state leaving the Union makes the Union less than it was. Harm has come to the Union. Paraphrasing Jefferson, a federal government couldn't exist with unilateral secession as a possibility. Even farther, state governments couldn't either. It's really just anarchy.

    "I haven't. I have repeatedly said they were NOT traitors" - I was just joshin' ya... But, now that I look at it...
    18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them...

    "Did you know that a generation before the war, there were more anti-slavery societies in the South than the north?" - I didn't. But, I would love to see the evidence of that. I know many abolitionists were assaulted, even killed, in the South. My how times change.

    "And yes, slavery lies at the feet of the entire Union" - I'm just saying it's a scapegoat without acknowledging who insisted on strengthening slavery at every opportunity and who was trying to abolish slavery even before the Revolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's going to say that they did not owe any allegiance because they had legally separated from the US.

      Delete
    2. Every time they say that I'm reminded to never enter into business with a neo-Confederate.

      Delete
  7. "Please explain what you mean by slavery gaining tremendous strength and numbers before the (non)rebellion."
    - Strengthened through legislation. Numbers-wise - just from 1850-1860 there was an increase of 800,000. That's significant. That was the biggest spike. The other censuses show an increase of around 400,000-500,000 per 10 year period.

    The raw numbers and the legislation combined, I would say constitutes "tremendous gain". But, I'll admit that's a subjective term.

    "If you don't Southerners to be hated, you might consider refraining from commenting on blogs that exist to foment that hatred."
    - Racism isn't good for anyone. Pointing it out only helps.

    "First, most heritage folks do not believe Confederates were fighting to make slavery perpetual. They were fighting because an army was threatening their homes and people." - Granted. And if Davis hadn't ordered Fort Sumter to be fired upon, there wouldn't have been an army marching South.

    "You now and then run across people who say "The war had NOTHING to do with slavery!!!!" which is inaccurate." - NOW AND THEN!?!?!?!? You really need to venture beyond your echo chamber now and again.

    "Slavery's connection to the war is indirect" - Even using that logic, there wouldn't have been war without slavery.

    "But the north did not send troops South to free slaves." - Agreed.

    "they prefer to focus on all the factors that the slavery-obsessed refuse to acknowledge." - Such as... duh-duh-duuuuuuh! Northern Aggression™? There was none. To be frank, it's really quite amazing what the South was able to accomplish politically and legislatively. Especially when you factor in that the South had less than a third of the free population.

    No slavery. No secession. No war.

    ""Lost Cause (a misnomer when it comes to heritage folks)" - That's the problem. ~~I don't see a problem." - Exactly.

    "They didn't make ALL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY about slavery, which is what I clearly, cleary said -- go back and look at it." - Slavery was a very hot button going back to colonial times. Then especially after the Revolution. I know you know that.

    "Well, first, they made SECESSION about slavery -- partially." - Wholely. You can throw in the kitchen sink, but slavery is what made them take action. And I did say "secessionists".

    "There is a LOT more to Southern history than that." - But, there isn't anymore than that to Confederate history. Which are the symbols y'all hold so dear. Those symbols aren't antebellum.

    "The South did not rebel." - You say potato; I say since secession denotes a peaceful separation, and because secession is illegal, a confrontation was inevitable, so they were rebelling.

    "The states of the upper South did not secede over slavery" - Gov. Isham Harris of Tennessee: To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity, and domestic happiness. We owe it to the mechanic whose shop is closed, to the multiplied thousands of laborers thrown out of employment, to the trader made bankrupt by this agitation. We owe it to ourselves, our children, our self-respect and equality in the Government, to have this question settled permanently and forever upon terms consistent with justice and honor, and which will give us peace and perfect security for the present and future.

    Even if slavery wasn't what pushed the upper-South to secede, it was the binding cause. But, slavery was the focus of the CSA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What came first? The secession chicken or the invasion egg? Bwahahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shaun Winkler becomes unglued over the Sons of Confederate Veterans "pet monkey"...

Hate Not Heritage: Black Confederates reportedly enroute to Tupelo rally, armed white nationalists and Klansmen slated to attend...

Aryan Nations Throws Its Racist Support Behind Dylann Roof | Hatewatch