Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
You are going to have to be a bit more blunt and a lot less subtle if you are going to get your point across. Your message doesn’t look like it’s responding to anything I wrote.
Did they have a right to leave?
“So then whose slaves did Lee free in 1862 if not his own?”
His wife’s.
“In all the brouhaha over SC, hardly anyone realizes that it was Dixiecrats that put this flag up at that particular location, during a time when they hated black people... “
The Confederate flag was raised over the SC state house on April 11, 1961.
The first shot of the Civil War occurred in Charleston Harbor SC on April 11, 1861.
See if you can figure out the hidden pattern.
“during a time when they hated black people... “
If I was them I’d have you check my eyes for specks.
An intellectually honest person would say the time has come to let it go. Claiming that it's tyranny does an injustice to those who have actually suffered under the same.
If you think this stops with a flag, you do not understand the nature of a Pogrom. This is simply the whispering campaign before Kristallnacht.
His wife’s family’s.
“The Republican party was the party of abolition...period.”
Well, in the Territories, anyway. But not in the states.
“This is simply the whispering campaign before Kristallnacht.”
Good analogy.
Then why didn't his wife free them?
The information on Grant is incorrect.
“Then why didn’t his wife free them?”
She in reality did. R.E. Lee was the executor of his father-in-law’s estate, which was bequeathed to his daughter (Lee’s wife).
“For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property”
“A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”
they then go on to lay out how the North’s ability to win control of both the legislature and the executive branch has them fearing anti-slavery will prevail and pointing out that the Constitution forces the Northern States and federal government to enforce slavery in their territory and return fleeing slaves to the state of origin”
He also inherited them from his Mother....and continued to own them for years....he freed them as part of his late father in law’s will after 5 years.
Lee owned slaves...period.
Only 4?
My suspicion is that he pulled it out of the same section of his anatomy that he got most of the rest of his story from.
Still, to make the history come out the way everyone claims, that number should still be zero.
The way everyone claims? Or the way you claim? Regardless, I'm aware of one Union officer who was also a slave owner, Colonel James Wallace of the 1st Maryland Infantry (Eastern Shore). There may well have been more but I would think that the number of slave owning Union soldiers would have been few in number. Certainly nowhere near the ridiculous number that Baldwin states.
That seems to be what Chuck Baldwin wanted to talk about, also the poster I was answering.
Many things too many to count brought on the Civil War. Besides slavery there was turf wars over what company or company owner controlled what, tariffs, states rights for powers specifically given to the federal government which were wisely delegated by the founders to go to the individual states. As such many who fought were from non slave areas where slavery wasn't as such profitable such as Mountain Rebels. My late wife's GG Uncle was a Confederate General under Braxton Bragg and was a Mountain Rebel. He was a graduate of West Point as well and had served the Union in previous war.
General Burnside established the National Cemetery in our town. In it lies a Confederate Captain. He is amongst the white soldiers. In another section is the USCT soldiers.
But the worst attack the north did to harm this nation was carried out in NYC in the 1930's. Adolph Hitler expelled a group of Germans he considered a threat. They weren't Jews they were Marxist. A certain NYC university welcomed them here and allowed them to teach. Thus Cultural Marxism as we now see today is destroying what Lincoln could not. Cultural Marxism's more common name is called Political Correctness. The college campus protest and riots originated from it.
Our nation has way too strong a central government. In the past 25 years much more so in abuses. Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, GW Bush, and Obama, have done the greatest damage by expanded federal and executive powers and federal government going way beyond founding fathers intents and the limitations they placed in The Constitution. Nixon to a lesser extent can be added.
Lincoln declared a war upon the southerners who left the Union. The others mentioned declared war upon The Family and in the case of a couple of POTUS the churches as well.
Only 4 what?
It seems that no one knows that the British issued two emancipation proclamations during the Revolutionary War.
Dunmore’s Proclamation in 1775. And the Philipsburg Proclamation in 1779.
Like the Union the British were fighting against an independence movement. They were fighting to force the American rebels to remain in the United Kingdom. And like the North the British Crown offered freedom for the slaves.
I don’t see how someone who argues that ending slavery justified the Union war against Confederate independence can at the same time argue in favor American independence from Britain. Had the Crown defeated the American rebels slavery would have ended 90 years earlier.
Apparently there is no consistent moral argument at work here; it’s an argument of expediency to justify an outcome of which they approve.
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.
Oh, I see what you are referring to.
Yes, only four. Read the Articles and Acts of Secession.
It is a common misperception that all the seceding states listed slavery as the reason for their secession. Just as it is a common misperception that the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed someone.
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.