Posted on 06/22/2018 11:46:12 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
So me where I’ve ever “defended him”.
Show me.
>> Meaning he has attempted to trigger slave rebellions. Bet you didn’t know that was in there. Apparently stirring up their slaves was one of the just causes for which they seceded from the United Kingdom. <<
Utter nonsensical rubbish.
You edited the text. The actual charge, as you know, was “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
As the spacing makes clear, that’s a single charge. (Also, the use of “excited... amongst us” makes it clear the charges includes British actions which sided WITH and AGAINST the Indians.) The reference is to the French and Indian War. The British sided with Indians who didn’t distinguish between the French and other Indians, and loyal-to-Great-Britain colonists when they massacred colonists. They were simply promised payment for any frontiersmen they killed, in the presumption that said frontiersmen were likely to side with the French. The anger at the British over that led to the Black Boys Rebellion (which refers to their warpaint, not their race, which was white). See also the Paxton Boys Rebellion, the Knowles (Impressment) Riot, Pontiac’s war, Liberty Riot etc.
Hey, you asked.
Right, nor was that in the 1860 Republican party platform.
What Congress then could do, but Fire Eaters denied, was abolish slavery in US territories, and that's what the Republican platform did call for.
It was enough to drive Southern Democrats insane with rage and secession declarations.
Svartalfiar: "Yet, according to him/all of y'all, the South's secessions weren't legal, and those states never truly left the Union."
Of course, since neither condition our Founders acknowledged as valid for disunion existed in 1860: 1) necessity and 2) mutual consent.
Svartalfiar: "So by what authority could he then free slaves in those states, but not the northern ones?"
The term they used was "contraband of war" meaning a President as commander in chief could declare certain enemy properties "contraband" and seize it without compensating its owners.
It was by no means a new idea, had been around for centuries.
Svartalfiar: "You can't have it both ways - either 1). the South truly left and had to be beaten back in, in which case he had no power or authority over the Confederacy to issue his Proclamation, or 2). the states were always in the Union and he couldn't have freed the Southern slaves yet had no power to free those in the North."
I think you probably know the real answer already.
Do you remember that the Confederacy issued a formal declaration of war against the United States on May 6, 1861?
That should eliminate any doubts as to the status of Confederate officials, regardless of whether they were considered legitimate or not -- they were, by their own declaration of war, enemies of the United States and therefore subject to normal wartime treatment.
As such their property could be declared "contraband of war" and seized by the Federal government.
That contraband rule applied regardless of which of the two conditions you posited above was in effect.
By sharp contrast: so long as Southern Union states did not join the rebellion, they must be treated according to Constitutional requirements.
How is that not clear?
But none of that happened until long after secessionists provoked war by illegally seizing dozens of Federal properties (forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.), started war at Fort Sumter, formally declared war (May 6, 1861), and waged civil war, including in Union states & territories, eventually refusing to stop fighting on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
The US Constitution nowhere requires that people at war with the United States must keep their seats in Congress even after they walked out!!
Indeed, for such people the Constitution provides us a clear definition of the word "treason".
I generally avoid blaming “bankers”, though I must assume they were part of the robber baron power cartel that backed Lincoln and later pulled his strings.
People tend to focus too much on “bankers” as the bad guys, and I have always felt this is intended to be a subtle form of anti-semitism, and I just don’t support the spread of such ideas.
It was the Industrialists. It was the manufacturers, shippers, insurers, warehousers, and yes, probably some bankers as well. It was anyone who had money or power and who were part of the “in” crowd that is still running the Nation from their Northeastern Cartel now.
Then you misunderstand me. I believe slavery was *ENTIRELY* an economic issue, at least among the power brokers of both the North and the South.
I never ignore the economic. But to say that slavery was not an issue ignores the other 500 pound gorilla.
It wasn't the issue that started the war. It was the debate about who was going to get to divvy up that slave produced money that started the war.
At the beginning of the war, the fight was over where the money was going to go, not whether or not slaves were going to create. So far as all parties were concerned in 1861, the slaves were going to continue creating the money. The only question was, was the money going to go to New York with Washington collecting it's share, or was the money going to go to Norfolk, Charleston, Mobil and New Orleans?
I’m tapped out on the issue. And have honeydos to do.
Not me. I'm still learning more things about it every week. I find this previously hidden aspect of the Civil War to be quite fascinating. Following the money makes a lot of events clearer to me now than they were when I first learned of them years ago.
Good day.
And good day to you too!
The literal truth of it is the South was producing a sh*tload of money that had been going through New York with Washington taking it's cut, and that was suddenly about to be cut off.
You have to be a fool to think New York and Washington DC (by the way, the same two cities that mostly run our lives today) wouldn't move heaven and earth to prevent the loss of 200 million dollars per year in 1860 dollars.
The fictitious crap is what we have been taught growing up. Following the real economic numbers clarifies what really happened.
And you raise it to a fine art.
Following the real economic numbers clarifies what really happened.
Or what passes for real economic numbers in your opinion.
BroJoeK? Is that you? :)
You edited the text.
I copied and pasted. Go back and look for yourself.
As for the rest of your spiel, I believe JeffersonDem has thoroughly thrashed out the proof that "domestic insurrections" referred to slave rebellions which people thought might be triggered by Lord Dunmore's proclamations.
Isn’t it usually about now when you break out that awesome graph?
Once again, the vast majority of that money piled on New York came from the South. That pile of coins is a perfect visual representation of the cause of the war. 200 million dollars in 1860 currency which was about to be lost by New York and Washington DC.
You've raised something to a fine art, but it isn't debunking.
It clarifies what was happening to those with the wit to see it.
You should work on your zingers.
Re reply 595. You're welcome.
Sir, you are a stalwart.
God love you, and I thank you for providing me something I’ve long sought - a graphical explanation for the War of Northern Aggression.
The Civil War was avoidable, and the North didn’t live up to anything it had committed to writing.
As always, it was about cash.
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.