Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
I think you kicked his @$$. You’ve obviously done your homework.
;’)
Name one please.
And that's him being cordial ;')
MUST READ for future reference and homeschooling
could be, but since I posted the article to back up my claim, stop the straw man argument, okay?
Now, lets google black slave owners in Charleston:
http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/BlackSlaveOwnersinCharleston.html
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Slave holding among the mulatto class in South Carolina was widespread according to the first census of 1790, which revealed that 36 out of 102, or 35.2 percent of the free Black heads of family held slaves in Charleston City. By 1800 one out of every three free black recorded owning slave property. Between 1820 and 1840 the percentage of slaveholding heads of family ranged from 72.1 to 77.7 percent, however, by 1850 the percentage felt to 42.3 percent.
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
And since I live in Dixie now, I would think that when black americans and white americans all tell me that blacks had almost FIFTY percent of the slaves in South Carolina...
I cant find that 50% on line in any history, but to a man, they were all taught it in SC where I live
My dad was a Civil War history buff and I can remember watching the Ken Burns documentary with him as a ten year old when it came out on PBS. I've enjoyed reading about it since. But I'll admit I've dug up more Civil War history on the web as a result of threads like this, and learned more from people like you and Bubba Hotep and x and all the rest of the experts, than I ever knew before. And along the way I've been called a few names I never got called on any other thread. So...good and bad.
So is that a “Yes” or a “No” to the question, Did they have a right to leave?
You sound exactly like a peace democrat from 1861
No problem. Here ya go.
Article I, Section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
...and when the Chief Justice of the US said his actions were illegal, the tyrant Lincoln had the gall to try and arrest the Chief Justice.
I've seen that claim mentioned but somehow not a single one of the biographies of Taney, and I've read two of them, mention that fact. Had it happened it would be worth a mention in the book, wouldn't you think? But instead...crickets. Obvious explanation is that it's more Lost Cause myth.
He was a freaking tyrant, and set the stage for tyrants like Obama. No,facts are too kind to your god, Lincoln.
And again we see how when you all get truly desperate you foam at the mouth like a rabid dog and make any wild claim that suits your fancy.
You know very well I claim that the Union fought to stop independence and didn't give a rat's @$$ about the continuation of slavery, but most people think they were fighting to stop the practice.
You can be intellectually honest if you really want to.
Certainly nowhere near the ridiculous number that Baldwin states.
Well, in order to claim it is ridiculous, it would be a good idea for someone to ask him where he got that number. I find it odd that people (Baldwin) think they can throw out "facts" and think that people won't check on them.
But for what it's worth, I think his numbers are ridiculous too.
Which means nothing. Republicans on the 19th century were like Progressives today. The parties have switched, and now merged.
In most of these discussions, you cannot avoid the Union apologists bringing up slavery, as if that somehow answers the question as to whether the South had a right to leave.
Some people are surprised that the Union had five slave states, and that they had no intentions of stopping slavery until two years into the war.
These facts don't support the long taught propaganda about what people were fighting for. The "Abolish Slavery" angle is the only one that makes the Union look good.
Too bad for them that it isn't actually true.
Apparently there is no consistent moral argument at work here; it’s an argument of expediency to justify an outcome of which they approve.
Now you are going to make them mad. With facts like these, you puncture their moral superiority balloon. The claim that the Union fought the war to abolish slavery is the only fig leaf they have to justify what horrible bloodshed they caused.
In the one case the moral imperative of ending slavery justifies a war against the rebels and the need to exterminate all traces of their culture 150 years later; in the other case it never even gets mentioned. Go figure. I guess slavery only became interesting to the North sometime after 1783.
It only became significant to the Union in 1863. For two years into the war, they were going to let in continue, and indeed, did let it continue in their own states.
Could the firing on Fort Sumter by Confederate authorities be considered levying war against the United States?
Still pushing that lie I see.
Their reasons for leaving are irrelevant to their right to do so. Did they have the right to leave as espoused by the Declaration of Independence? Did they have that right?
The Union fought to end freedom REGARDING SLAVERY.
But they didn't. Had the South given up independence, the Union would have continued to allow slavery. So not only is your cutesy little quip wrong, it's a deliberate attempt to lie to people about what was really going on.
"Ending Slavery" got lumped into the goals of the war after two years of fighting. What were they fighting to do for those first two years before they came up with that bit of propaganda?
The root cause of the Secession of the Southern States was and has always been, the fact that they wanted to maintain the right to own and other people, and to extend that right to the Territories. You can call it FREEDOM, or State’s Rights, it’s still about the right to own other people against their will.
Which the Union continued to do as well, Remember there were five Union slave states throughout the war, and also remember that had the South been defeated prior to 1863, the Union was going to keep slavery going in the south.
How do you get up on your moral high horse when the facts contradict what you are claiming? Why are you pushing a lie that is demonstrably untrue to people with intellectual honesty?
The Union abolished slavery out of revenge, and because of a desperate need to justify all the bloodshed and destruction they caused by invading people who didn't want to remain part of their government.
Just stop with the slavery bullshit. Had they never tried to become independent of Washington D.C., they would have had slavery for decades longer. The Union kept it going throughout the war in Maryland, New Jersey, Missouri, Delaware and Kentucky.
All Slave states, and no slaves were freed in those Union slave states by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
Absolutely.
Lincoln sought to calm the waters in the hopes that cooler heads would prevail and the insurrectionists halt their rebellion. I don’t think that it was foolish but it was certainly misguided.
Why that is demonstrably untrue. When one starts the conversation using the emotional club of slavery, one has already engaged in an emotional discussion. I asked you about ex post facto, because it is not emotional. It is a well understood concept in history and law.
What you are trying to do, is ex post facto justify an invasion that had no intention of abolishing slavery, with the four year later consequence of slavery being abolished.
It is dishonest, and it is completely emotional.
I don’t appreciate your inference that i am dishonest because I don;t see it the same way you do.
You are dishonest for just the reasons I have named. You are trying to justify what someone did after the fact, because what they did which you agree with, was not done prior to the fact of the war. It was long long after the war had been going on that they tacked on that little "purpose" of the war.
And you accept it unquestioning because this is the history you have been taught. H3ll, it was the History I was taught as well, but I learned better as I went through life.
Dream on Yankee. Beside being on the same forum, we have nothing in common.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.