Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?
Civil War did not start over slavery, it started over Fort Sumter.
But slavery soon became an issue during the war, as first thousands, then tens and hundreds of thousands of slaves escaped to Union Army lines.
By law they could be declared "contraband" and freed, and so they were.
Slavery could only be abolished nationwide by constitutional amendment, and so it was, in 1865.
Of course you know all that, but continue to lie about it anyway.
Too bad.
You’ve been reading that idiot dilorenzo again, haven’t you?
Except those many millions of dollars of Federal subsidies holding up Northern Shipping's bottom line.
You do have a problem grasping the economics of this situation, don't you?
Well yeah, actually it can. Begin by recognizing that the South Carolina authorities seized Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinkney, the Charleston customs house, and all the other federal property they could get their hands without any negotiation or payment. The first three dates mentioned by PeaRidge were after the fact. The letter to Lincoln contained no offer to pay for anything.
So let's take that forward to today. If California announced their secession and seized all the military bases, all the arms, and all the federal property in the state without negotiation and without payment, and then sent a delegation to Washington saying that they wanted D.C. to recognize the legitimacy of their secession, and once D.C. did then they would be open to discussing matters of interest to them, then would you accept that in the hopes that maybe they include negotiating payment for the property they seized and settlement of debt in that list of "all matters and subjects interesting" to them?
But the Unionists, then and now, are DEATHLY AFRAID of admitting their reasons for forcing an unwilling population back in.
They go to great lengths to disguise the fact that Southern Independence represented a horrific financial threat to the power bloc of the Washington/Boston power corridor. They prattle on endlessly about slavery in the hopes no one will notice that their own bread was being buttered by the economic conditions created through a captive Southern market.
The War was about money. It was about who would control the European trade, and who would profit most from it. It was also about preventing the capitalization of Southern industries that would then compete directly with their northern counterparts. It was a preventative Trade War with the emphasis on the "War" part.
But nothing, nothing stopped Southerners from building, owning & operating their own ships, and using them to transport mail & other government items.
More import, Southerners dominated Congress and the presidency from 1788 until 1860.
So *ANY* real issues they felt could have been addressed and corrected at any time they felt the need.
So like everything else you post, your argument here is pure rubbish & nonsense.
So the Canadians were living under a different standard of treatment than those colonies that became the US?
Why would they treat the Canadians better than the other North American colonies? On what basis do you allege they treated the Canadians differently?
Please, do continue pinwheeling in your efforts to not fall off a logical cliff.
They didn't write one because they didn't consider their treatment bad, unlike the people (USA) who wanted a break from England.
This is exactly my point. That the Canadians did not consider their treatment bad, demonstrates that the founder's were leaving "at pleasure" all the while asserting it was because of intolerable conditions. If it were really intolerable, then the Canadians would have joined us in leaving, rather than fighting against our effort to leave.
We are back to the "eye of the beholder." The Canadians were in the same predicament, but did not see it as did the Americans.
"Mutual Consent" is the other reason considered legitimate by our Founders, and practiced by them in 1788.
You think George III "consented" to letting us leave? This is why I normally don't bother arguing with you. You and reality seem to be nothing more than passing acquaintances.
You make up or imply one cockamamie claim after another.
Posting in any font reveals you to be a moron.
It started because both the Federal Government and the New York centric power barons were both going to lose a hell of a lot of money. Ft. Sumter was a pawn.
They didn't care about the slaves. They cared about the money and the power it gave them.
Fort Moultrie was abandoned by Major Anderson, it's cannon's spiked and their carriages set on fire. The Southern people surrounding the fort had believed that the Fort would be turned over to their officials in due course, and regarded the destruction of the cannons as a belligerent act which indicated to them that they were to be regarded as an enemy by the Federal authorities.
It was the first indication to them that they would be regarded in a hostile manner.
Also, you may not realize that the granting of Ft. Sumter to the Federal Government was conditional, and that the Federal Government defaulted on the conditions decades before the Civil War ever started.
That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.
It wasn't completed in the three year time limit (it wasn't even completed by 1861) and it wasn't garrisoned until Anderson moved into it.
The legal point here is that the US Government was in default violation of the conditions which would have allowed them ownership of the property.
Actually I don't know that. When is the date on the document you quoted and the document itself so we can see the quote in context?
The legal point here is that the US Government was in default violation of the conditions which would have allowed them ownership of the property.
No they weren't. Not according to this legislation passed on December 31, 1836 - Link
Sorry, but it's DiogenesLamp who posts endless irrational nonsense, regardless of how often you're corrected.
So look it up in any history book.
You'll find nothing in Canadian history equivalent to the U.S. Revolutionary War era.
As for why, anybody can speculate, but the fact remains Canadians experienced nothing like the "train of abuses and usurpations" inflicted on 13 colonies.
Well, as that act is subsequent to the 1805 act which granted Sumter to the US, it would appear to supersede the 1805 act. This act of 1836 also contains some conditions, but I will have to read it more closely to determine if these are dispositive or not. It seems that the conditions "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" applying at the Fort, might be a loophole.
So we are intended to believe that all British acts and edicts had a clause "except for the Canadians" in them?
And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.
You've never actually read the Declaration of Independence, have you?
You have no real clue what it says, do you?
And you know nothing of that history, right?
Because if you did, you'd be ashamed to post such ludicrous nonsense.
Our Founders' Declaration itemizes a "long train of abuses and usurpations", none of which Canadians endured.
Those made disunion for Americans necessary and their absence made it for Canadians "at pleasure", which is, doubtless, why Canadians declined.
DiogenesLamp: "We are back to the 'eye of the beholder.'
The Canadians were in the same predicament, but did not see it as did the Americans. "
More rubbish.
Canadians were certainly not in the same "predicament", and so did not respond the same.
DiogenesLamp: "You think George III 'consented' to letting us leave?
This is why I normally don't bother arguing with you.
You and reality seem to be nothing more than passing acquaintances.
You make up or imply one cockamamie claim after another. "
As always, you misunderstand because you don't know history.
The fact is that Canada today is effectively independent of Britain, an independence accomplished gradually over many years and by Mutual Consent.
Actually no. What that means basically is that the local laws, criminal and civil, apply on the grounds of the fort. If a soldier there robbed a Charleston merchant then they could not take refuge in the fort free from arrest. If a Charleston civilian filed suit against someone in the fort then the local authorities could serve papers. Basically any property that a state cedes to the federal government has a clause like that in the legislation that cedes it.
So the 1836 act would supersede it, wouldn’t it?
I would think so, just as I previously said.
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.