Very chilling reading. Very chilling indeed, even if you try to see it as they may have done, beyond our 21C social mores.

It is very difficult to understand the motives behind past wrongs in times and cultures so very different in many ways to our own. That is one reason why trying to extort spurious "apologies" from countries centuries later is so meaningless. The intended apologisers know their ancestors did wrong, but no amount of ceremonial grovelling will achieve anything very useful.

However, those Confederacy texts are also chilling if you compare the philosophy behind them to more modern acts of suppression, from those of the Nazis in the 1930s-40s, the old Boer-based regime in South Africa, and of the Chinese Government currently against its Uighurs. It's as well to recall too that some US states clung to old apartheid laws until quite late in the 20C - though at least repealing them did not need go as far as South Africa, with a radical change of national governance. (S.Africa's old regime was nearly as mysoginist as racist, a point not often recognised, but told to me by white women who had lived there.)

There is not that much difference in the minds of those responsible even if the ideologies and methods are vastly different - all show an absolutist view of their own supremacy and rightness, based on thinking twisted to evade responsibility.

A lesson to be learnt now, facing the rise of assorted racial- and sexual- supremecist ideologies in the USA and Western Europe. To stem them though, we need understand their attraction to their followers, despite being hampered by those who cannot or will not differentiate between "understanding" and "condoning".

'

Interesting as well as chilling, the different States' own thinking, though the common thread appears that of feeling oppressed by a remote government that - in their view - was exceeding its powers over States it did not understand.

South Carolina made those political fears plain.

Georgia seemed uncertain. Its document rejects the Northerners' avowal of the -
,
then unwittingly but ironically refers to the,
.
It almost seems the Georgians were reluctant to admit that by their common view the latter clause really means "white", not "human", race.

Texas could only shuffle its responsibility off onto the shoulders of poor old God.

Mississippi was at least honest: its motive was money, money, and more money.

+

When things did boil over into the Civil War, the abolitionists received a lot of support in kind from Great Britain, which had originally supported slavery but was already turning against it. A lot of Mississippi-area cotton was exported to the Northern English textiles manufacturers, but many of these companies now started boycotting slave-cultivated cotton. Whatever was the commercial effect on the State, that did hit the English weaving firms and their employees hard, but helped Britain to be among the first in the "Old World" at least, to abolish slavery altogether.

So, do you reckon any of the morons that deny historic fact will read this? And if they do, do you reckon they will read into it just only what the first phrase of your first paragraph states?
After a hundred and fifty years, those that refuse to accept facts, have a definite agenda. And we all know what that is.

It's amazing how this is still a debate. Goes to show the failings of American education.

Thanks for doing that! Seems a good place to park this little meme too:


https://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/79193-So-Youre-Against-Immigration-When-Do-You-Leave-.jpg

Chilling words.

It's notable that in their desperation to treat the Africans as their untermenschen - I use that word deliberately, given its origins in a 20C regime with rather similar ideas - they even stooped to regarding themselves as following God's will. In hindsight we might well see that as anti-Christian and cowardly; but those 19C writers would not and could not have seen that.

Only one of those States had the vague courage to admit the main reason for slavery was merely commercial. The idea that the "negroes" could be employed fairly as farm labourers, not kept as slaves, would have been abhorrent to them because that would add to the business overheads - as well as denting their racial prejudices. Nothing to do with humanity, and many slave-owners were routinely extremely cruel beyond the cruelty of slavery itself.

Texas says it abandoned its and joined the Confederacy to further its own slave-ownership. Mississippi claims a peculiar link between race and withstanding its regional, sub-tropical climate. A more general objection to the Federal abolitionists though appears to be of these States wanting not to lose governmental power to the USA as a whole.

For the most part though the Confederates openly supported maintaining slavery merely on an appalling idea we now call "white supremacy" - an idea that lingered in some States' apartheid laws until as recently as the 1960s.

''''

Britain had used slaves too, in her colonies rather than in Britain itself, and some of her industrialists made a lot of money from slave-trading in the 18C. However it slowly dawned on the country just how evil is slavery, and powerful efforts to end it started in the late 18C. Slavery became abolished by law by two Acts of Parliament, in 1807 then 1833; the young USA was still arguing, then fighting, over it in the 1860s .

Even so, the UK Government and Parliament has had to reinforce the 1807 and 1833 Acts as recently as 2015 against what it called "Modern Slavery", when it was discovered that immigrants, especially illegal ones, were ending up as slaves in private households and black-economy businesses - both themselves largely among the immigrant community even where the slave-owners themselves are here legally. A lot of that seems to have strong cultural backgrounds; the enslavers themselves being from societies less concerned with human rights and humane ideals. These are very difficult offences to act against, but there have been a few successful prosecutions.

The 2015 Act is against



[Source: ; the official web-site.

So with the UK had outlawed slavery decades previously to the above arguments in America. During the American Civil War, the huge cotton-weaving trade in the North of England supported at considerable cost to itself, the abolition by boycotting imports from the Confederate cotton-growing states.

.
It is hard to overcome social attitudes though, and many Britons still held what in hindsight are very patronising views about the real inhabitants of her colonies until well into the 20C. Similarly with the white-supremacists in parts of the USA.

We have to be careful of course - we cannot think for our 19C ancestors, nor impose our thinking on them.

We can though recognise the wrongs they did, and what was recognised as wrong at the time by the great reformers like William Wilberforce and Thomas Foxwell Buxton.

good work posting this... i have never read this before, a clear lesson in Confederate objectives.

It was tariffs bro.

Source: trust me.

This is the best posts about this topic I have come across

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

Just finished the book CHOCTAW CONFEDERATES. It deals with the Native Nations in "Indian Territory" supporting and supplying troops to the Confederacy and one of the main reasons why was their use of black slaves on cotton and corn plantations. I knew that Native tribes kept slaves, but hadn't realized how some of the nations had developed a plantation slave system that mirrored the White Southern system.

Excellent source material. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for posting.

Thank you so much for posting these ! I looked them up years ago as anyone with internet access can do and it’s all here, in their own words. The people who still want to claim that the civil war wasn’t primarily about slavery are simply refusing to look at the reasons given by the Southerners themselves.

BRAVO! I shall link to this
you have pointed it all out well

Well.


That settles that, then.

This is precisely why rape is illegal, comon man grow up.

I LIKE THIS PART
, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator,
NOW IF THAT IS NOT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT mutually beneficial my ass and the will of god..