Posted on 04/29/2019 10:09:48 AM PDT by Pelham
Hundreds is not even in the same category as millions.
and presented nothing to indicate that that number would do anything but increase.
Other than the fact that they had decades to do so, and did not. Here is a little tidbit from the Wikipedia entry on the Crittendon Compromise.
"The only territories south of the line were parts of New Mexico Territory and Indian Territory. There was considerable agreement on both sides that slavery would never flourish in New Mexico. "
Apparently they weren't as impressed by your theory that they could be used in mines or something.
Why do you suppose a law protecting slave property was passed by New Mexico in 1859? Surely it couldn’t be because slavery wasn’t expected to diminish and disappear.
One would think that the very act of passing such a law would indicate they thought it would very well diminish and disappear, else why pass a law protecting it?
“Churchill and Reagan were fond of Lee as is Trump”
As were many of the generals who fought against him.
One in particular was General Charles Francis Adams Jr, grandson of President John Quincy Adams and great grandson of President John Adams.
Charles Francis Adams Jr, who commanded the 5th Massachusetts cavalry, so admired Lee that in the early 20th century he gave three speeches extolling the virtues of Lee and asking that the charges of treason against Lee be reassessed.
Unfortunately the winners write the history books so the truth gets watered down and obscured over time.
When I was driving long haul I was amazed at how often those in the north looked down their noses at anything southern.
The trolls here who ride the anti-south wagon will never change their minds about anything. They are as closed minded as the most rabid liberal.
I actually pity them.
“Churchill and Reagan were fond of Lee as is Trump”
As were many of the generals who fought against him.
One in particular was General Charles Francis Adams Jr, grandson of President John Quincy Adams and great grandson of President John Adams.
Charles Francis Adams Jr, who commanded the 5th Massachusetts cavalry, so admired Lee that in the early 20th century he gave three speeches extolling the virtues of Lee and asking that the charges of treason against Lee be reassessed.
Unfortunately the winners write the history books so the truth gets watered down and obscured over time.
When I was driving long haul I was amazed at how often those in the north looked down their noses at anything southern.
The trolls here who ride the anti-south wagon will never change their minds about anything. They are as closed minded as the most rabid liberal.
I actually pity them.
Well the founder of this very forum expressed his own satisfaction today over the monuments decision
So these turds continue at their own peril
You don’t know what “constitution” or “union” means. They are clearly defined and won’t change. You might also look at the meaning of “perpetual” and “more perfect.”
You might look up the meaning of "the laws of nature and of nature's God..."
I believe that beats your claim of "Perpetual", which is a word that isn't even in the US Constitution.
The United Kingdom was a "Perpetual Union" too.
“Charles Francis Adams Jr, who commanded the 5th Massachusetts cavalry, so admired Lee that in the early 20th century he gave three speeches extolling the virtues of Lee and asking that the charges of treason against Lee be reassessed.”
One of the best being his “Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?”, which for some inexplicable reason is nowhere to be found in HTML format.
You can find it below in a number of formats, but not one that’s easy to use here:
https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellhav00adam/page/n6
“On August 24th, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln wrote to politician and editor Henry J. Raymond that Raymond might seek a conference with Jefferson Davis and to tell him that hostility would cease “upon the restoration of the Union and the national authority.” In other words, three plus years of hideous bloodshed and war crimes would simply be ended on the above mentioned conditions.
But there is so much more in those ten words than might be seen by the casual observer. Of course, Jefferson Davis was hardly “a casual observer!” He understood the conditions under which his nation and his people would be spared further torture and destruction but he chose not to follow the path of abject slavery. It is interesting to note that a war many people declare solemnly was fought “to abolish slavery” among blacks was in fact fought to institute slavery among all Americans.
As for the first of Lincoln’s demands; that is, the “restoration of the Union:” the simple fact is that for many years participation in that “Union” had been a kind of economic and cultural slavery for the States of the South. Despised and attacked by fellow members of the “glorious Union,” they found that their wealth was not despised but, indeed, desired and as a result, year by year found its way into the coffers of those who could not be considered anything but their implacable enemies.
But this was not the foremost reason that Lincoln wanted the eleven Confederate States back under the thumb of the North. It is the second demand that makes clear why Lincoln launched his war against the States of the South in the first place; that is, they had refused to observe “the national authority.” To what “national authority” does Lincoln refer? Again, it is simple. Lincoln was going—and indeed already had—nullified the Constitution and the Union of the Founders by replacing the sovereignty of the States and the People with a now national rather than federal government. Of course, this was not just Lincoln’s desire. Many in the North and in the South of both parties no longer wished to maintain the limited federal government as created by the Constitution. Both before and during the War, Lincoln spoke endlessly of “saving” not the nation or the Union but the government! The “national authority” which he wished to “restore”—although it had not existed at least openly before the War—was an all-powerful central government with himself at its head.
To this very day, those who seek what Lincoln desired infest the Constitution with “amendments” and “legal interpretations” assuring that both of his demands would be institutionalized in perpetuity and that is why we have what we have today: an all powerful “national authority.” At least the People of the South can take some comfort in knowing that their ancestors did not willingly or even grudgingly accept Lincoln’s slavery while they could still lift their swords to resist it. That they failed in that effort does not detract from the effort.”. - Valerie Protopapas
Would you seek to justify any American military officer--northern or southern, supporting a UN war against any American State? I cannot! There is no way the Quisling rationalization could ever be acceptable.
Nice work
I’d never read that one
Of course you can't.
There could have been no conceivable moral justification for his waging war on his own homeland.
In the same way that the police have to struggle with "no conceivable moral justification" for performing their duties? And who is to say that he would have to wage war on his own homeland? Do you conclude that George Washington waged war on his own homeland during the Whiskey Rebellion?
Would you seek to justify any American military officer--northern or southern, supporting a UN war against any American State?
No. Why do you ask?
Poppycock
Thanks. Those who have nothing better to do than attack others for seeking to preserve those others’ heritages, get under my skin.
Did you see Robinson on the monuments decision
Puts them in direct opposition
At least they can’t run from it now
I searched for the Cromwell speech quite a bit yesterday but could only find book reviews.
Thanks for the link.
Not everyone:
"Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." - George Washington, 1796
We really could use a clean HTML copy of the speech.
Even a clean Kindle copy would be good, the one that is currently available has a lot of misspellings.
Shameless! You keep bothering people saying the same thing over and over and over again and never taking into account objections and counterarguments and then when people tell you to get lost, you cackle and think that you've won. No, all you've done is tick people off with your nonsense.
If I wanted to understand an 18th century legal case, I would at least try to understand something about 18th century law. Britain and the colonies had the common law, a body of traditional, ancestral judge-made law. Few objected to it because it was based on tradition and precedent and principles derived from precedent. It wasn't an attempt at social engineering or social control, it was an attempt to work out and apply a few simple principles of law.
Slavery was abolished in Britain by degree in 1381, and was on shaky legal ground with the courts ever since, so it wasn't from out of the blue that courts banned Negro slavery in Britain and in Massachusetts four centuries later, without any great social outcry. People knew that slavery wasn't secure legally or morally (or constitutionally, after Massachusetts adopted its own written constitution). Most people would be glad that slavery could be abolished peacefully, but then, most people don't show your loving concern for the welfare of the slave owners.
I said before, not to ping me unless you had something new to say. But after that last post, just don't ping me at all with your garbage.
So one turncoat admires another. Maybe that's a little too extreme, but CFA Jr. did betray the troops who served him and the cause he believed in. That was not uncommon in Northerners of old families who felt out of place in post-Civil War America.
Lincoln was a big government liberal and that’s why he is loved by the democrat party. There was not a thing conservative about Lincoln and his new Republican Party. He was a liberal, bordering on socialist.
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.