Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
http://www.amazon.com ^ | April 30, 2007 | Walter Cisco

Posted on 08/28/2013 8:03:18 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 last
To: Sherman Logan; Pelham; celmak
Sherman Logan: "It is generally believed by Biblical scholars that the sabbath and Jubilee year provisions of the law were aspirations never actually put into practice."

For crying out loud, FRiend, are you going to blame the Bible because Jews didn't always follow its commandments?
What's up with that?

The Bible is quite clear and consistent in opposing "slavery" for God's people, and this is the concept you must, must grasp or you'll be forever confused.
Yes, it recognizes that slavery is sometimes necessary, even amongst Israelites, but it requires that slaves not be mistreated and must be released after seven years (see Exodus 21).
That requirement alone makes it not real "slavery", but an employment contract -- i.e., to pay off debts.

If you wish to see an actual example of how this worked in practice, try Jeremiah chapter 34.
The short of that story is that Jews knew perfectly well what God required, and when they really, really needed His help, were willing to do it.

By the way... if you love history as much as I do, then compare the story of Jeremiah 34, where Jews in extremis free their slaves to win God's favor, contrast to that of Carthaginians in precisely the same predicament, who offer up to their god (Baal?) what he wanted most -- they kill their children.

So don't tell me the Bible doesn't know right from wrong, FRiend.

201 posted on 09/01/2013 4:04:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Sherman Logan

“You really should read the posts here, and their links.”

Do you mean like this one?:

Leviticus 25:44-46

‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.’

BroJoeK, I think that you noted that the OT makes a clear distinction between slavery for those “from among the nations” and for fellow Hebrews when you posted this:

“So clearly, God has a big problem with slavery for his chosen people. He doesn’t want it.”

However the same isn’t true for non-Hebrews as we see from the Leviticus text above. There we see that it permits the buying of non Hebrew slaves, bequeathing them to heirs, and their “possession forever”. That should ring a bell when looking at the practice of slavery in America.

“So there can be no doubt that both Old and New Testaments oppose involuntary slavery to anyone”

It looks to me like the Leviticus text doesn’t fit your claim.

“The New Testament also makes all followers of Christ in effect God’s chosen people.”

Critics of “replacement theology” don’t appear to share that view.


202 posted on 09/01/2013 11:51:57 AM PDT by Pelham (Deportation is the law. When it's not enforced you get California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Good to see that you aren’t disputing the early influence of European radicals and socialists in the founding of the Republican Party. There is a history prof who is a favorite of Glenn Beck who asserts that the American South was influenced by Marx, when in fact Marx and his fellow ‘48ers were ardent supporters of Lincoln. Granted that their heirs changed parties over time.

“Be that as it may, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll in defense of the Democrat Party “

You cannot imagine my relief at learning that. Is that the same Democratic Party that Ronald Reagan belonged to as a young man? I thought so.

” But the rest of your post does beg the question; by singularly bringing up the imperfections of the Republican Party’s history, are you defending the Democrat Party?”

No. FR is a conservative forum, not a Republican Party echo chamber. You may be disappointed if you expect to find fealty to the party of Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and other such luminaries that the GOP thinks ought to be President.


203 posted on 09/01/2013 12:08:31 PM PDT by Pelham (Deportation is the law. When it's not enforced you get California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It’s always amusing seeing Lincoln linked with appeals to God. He was some kind of politician, that’s for sure.

As a student of Lincoln you surely know of his reputation for ridiculing ministers in his youth. You know that he never joined a church. You know that his close friends prided themselves on being infidels, and that they defended Lincoln against the ‘charge’ of ever having been a Christian. Their defenses of Lincoln’s unbelief are easy to find. You know that one of his friends burned a manuscript of Lincoln’s to protect his ability to run for office.

But I digress. While those quotes from the Gospel of Abraham are all very poetic none of them deal with the simple little logical problem that I posted.

Slave owners = Evil.
Founders = Slave owners.
ergo:
Founders = ??

Solve for X.


204 posted on 09/01/2013 12:24:17 PM PDT by Pelham (Deportation is the law. When it's not enforced you get California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
“Good to see that you aren’t disputing the early influence of European radicals and socialists in the founding of the Republican Party. There is a history prof who is a favorite of Glenn Beck who asserts that the American South was influenced by Marx, when in fact Marx and his fellow ‘48ers were ardent supporters of Lincoln. Granted that their heirs changed parties over time.

I know that Marx tried to influence the Lincoln administration; how much is the question. I will not justify any influence that may have occurred; but It was not nearly as influential as the socialism of George Fitzhugh during the Antebellum Era.

“You cannot imagine my relief at learning that. Is that the same Democratic Party that Ronald Reagan belonged to as a young man? I thought so.”

God does call us to forgive those who repent/turn away from evil. I even once supported the Democrat Party (barf) but saw the truth in how evil that Party has been and is. People have a choice of what Party they support – and defend. I, or anyone else for this matter, should not defend and/or justify the evil of the present or past; even if they may have had a legal right to do evil.

“FR is a conservative forum, not a Republican Party echo chamber. You may be disappointed if you expect to find fealty to the party of Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and other such luminaries that the GOP thinks ought to be President.”

Amen to it not being a Republican Party echo chamber, or any of the idiots you mention! But in our argument here you have not once stated anything negative about the Democrats –present or past. The Democrat Party has had many and held on to many evil ideals in their foundation. For this reason; the Democrat Party should be abandoned and never be defend and/or justified.

Your posts have tried to defend and justify the Democrat Party, so I will ask again; Why would you still want to defend this evil Democrat Party of then and now?

205 posted on 09/01/2013 1:18:19 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; Sherman Logan; celmak; 1010RD
Pelham: "BroJoeK, I think that you noted that the OT makes a clear distinction between slavery for those “from among the nations” and for fellow Hebrews"

Pelham: "However the same isn’t true for non-Hebrews as we see from the Leviticus text above."

Pelahm quoting BJK: "both Old and New Testaments oppose involuntary slavery to anyone"

Pelham: "It looks to me like the Leviticus text doesn’t fit your claim."

Obviously, since even a FRiendly poster like Sherman Logan doesn't seem to grasp the concepts, I can't really expect somebody in opposition, such as yourself, to "get it" the first time.
So I'll be patient.

The operative word in my quote above is "involuntary" slavery.
How could there possibly be "voluntary" slavery, you ask?
Well, that's what you have to "get" here.
The Bible applies the word "slave" to people we would call "indentured servants", meaning people who, in effect, contract to be "slaves" for so many years (usually seven) in order to, typically, pay off some debt.

Indeed, when Jesus says, "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors", those are some of the people He's talking about.

And the Bible is quite clear about involuntary slavery, even of non-Jews.
I refer you again to Exodus 21:16 ESV

And Deuteronomy 23:15 ESV:

So while the Bible permits involuntary slavery of non-Jews, it condemns precisely those practices which were major political issues from the time of our Founders to that of secessionists.

Pelham quoting BJK: "The New Testament also makes all followers of Christ in effect God’s chosen people."

Pelham: "Critics of 'replacement theology' don’t appear to share that view."

But we're not talking about "replacement theology" (whatever the h*ck that is), but rather the simple fact that the New Testament is a new covenant between God and Christ's Church.
It in effect makes Christians also God's people.
Less than Jews? Greater than Jews? Equal to Jews?
I'd say that's for theologians to argue, but we can be pretty sure: whatever they decide will almost certainly be wrong.
There are two covenants, that's all we need to understand.

And anyway: the issue of "replacement theology" is irrelevant to the politics of slavery in the 19th century.
What matters is that politicians of that time quoted both Old and New Testaments to justify their positions on slavery.
Nobody claimed that some Old Testament rule on slavery applied to just Jews and not to Christians.

Indeed, one major point of my argument here is that while race-based permanent chattel-slavery might possibly be justified biblically, based on such quotes as have been posted here, once slaves have converted to Christianity, then there's no biblical justification whatever for keeping them permanently enslaved.

Six years then free: that's God's rule for His people.
And you better not have forced them into slavery in the first place (or you die), and you better not return escaped slaves to their masters.

Otherwise, sure, the Bible is "OK with slavery".

206 posted on 09/02/2013 5:17:26 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; Sherman Logan
Pelham: "Slave owners = Evil.
Founders = Slave owners.
ergo: Founders = ?? Solve for X."

Come on pal, read the posts.
Your question here is fully answered in my post #160 above, among others who also addressed it.

207 posted on 09/02/2013 5:35:36 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; celmak
Pelham: "Good to see that you aren’t disputing the early influence of European radicals and socialists in the founding of the Republican Party."

Nonsense.
The fact is, in terms of the overall size and cost of Federal Government, there was not much change between the Presidency of George Washington (2.2% of GDP in 1788) and that of Howard Taft (2.5% in 1912).
In all those 124 years, excepting the cost of various wars, Federal spending remained around 2.5% of the nation's GDP.

So you can talk about whatever "socialist influence" on Democrats or "Marxist influence" on Republicans, or any others, the fact is our Federal Government remained much as it was Founded until the "Progressive Era" beginning, really with President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 -- 100 years ago.

At that point (1913) "socialism" or "statism" or "progressivism" or whatever you wish to call it (I call it fascism) exploded on America with much the same force it had hit Europe some years earlier.
Its three chief enablers were the 16th and 17th amendments, along with the new Federal Reserve.

From that day until this, the Federal Government doubled in size (to 5% of GDP by 1932), then doubled again (to 10% by 1940), then doubled again (to 20% by 1952 -- mostly military spending) and is now trying to double yet again, with military reduced below 5%, Government grew to 25% in 2011 and Obama-care expected to take us to 30% in the next few years.
Add to that state and local spending in the 15% range, and now government-in-general consumes nearly half of US GDP.

None of this had anything to do with supposed Marxist or socialist influence on either Democrats or Republicans of the 1860s.
All of it came nearly 50 years later, and it did drive both parties, beginning with Southern Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
Government was curbed somewhat under Republicans Harding and Coolidge, but then increased under Hoover and went wild under Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt.

Indeed, that's the pattern today: relatively small increases under Republican Bush II followed by explosive government growth when Democrats controlled all of Congress and Presidency.

208 posted on 09/02/2013 6:31:01 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Pelham; Sherman Logan; celmak

Keep in mind that the OT laws were very innovative for their time. The eye-for-an-eye justice was actually an improvement over the previous ‘law’ which was blood feud that ran for generations in some cases.

What do you do with a conquered people? Realistically the choice is death or involuntary slavery. You can’t just release them into the territory you’ve just conquered. They don’t believe what you believe. They’re still functioning under blood feud and living, like you are at subsistence.

The kind thing in that instance and time would be involuntary servitude with the opportunity to convert. There is a solid tradition in the Bible of non-ethnic members rising up to positions of secular authority and also as prophets of God.


209 posted on 09/02/2013 6:50:49 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Joshua was instructed to exterminate all Canaanites. One group, the Gibeonites, tricked him into making a treaty.

So he didn’t kill them, just enslaved them and their descendants. They were much later slaughtered by King Saul.

I think it’s also relevant to point out that in the ancient world few people were really “free” in the sense we use the term. They were enmeshed in webs of obligation and duty, even if not in legal servitude. The actual condition of women in most societies differed little from what we would see as slavery.There were also intermediate conditions between slavery and freedom.

So slavery was not viewed, probably not even by the slaves, with the horror we view it. It was just a fact of life, one of the bad things that could happen to anybody that was unlucky.


210 posted on 09/02/2013 8:33:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You are right and liberty is a very fragile, modern concept. People move toward it, seemingly instinctively, but why do they vote to enslave themselves? Is there some internal conflict between being liberated and being paternalized?

Jude Wanniski described this as the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party and that people were attracted to each as they saw their advantage there.

One other item that I think about, particularly when God orders someone killed, is what was their conversation with God? Had God warned the Canaanites for generations that they needed to move, that this was not and would not be their land?

We live in a world of lost knowledge which the Scriptures repeatedly emphasize. It is obvious to us in our modern world that a lot of knowledge gets lost.

Opening Stanza from Choruses from "The Rock"

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven, The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,

O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,

O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action, Endless invention, endless experiment, Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness; Knowledge of speech, but not of silence; Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word. All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance, All our ignorance brings us nearer to death, But nearness to death no nearer to GOD. Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

T. S. Eliot (1888-1965), The Rock (1934)

211 posted on 09/02/2013 10:18:25 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Can’t agree with you. Continuing slavery flew in the face of the Declaration. Fundamentally, both revolutions were against a “foreign” centralized government meddling with the domestic affairs of the aggrieved populations, neither of which viewed slaves as other than chattel. I think the revolution was ultimately to our benefit, but we romanticize it by pretending that the Founders really believed “all men are created equal.” It’s just not true, as evidenced by the fact that the slaves were not emancipated at once. If the principles expressed in the Declaration are the standard by which we deem a revolt justified, then to a certain extent the Declaration condemns the very revolution it announced. No, I see no moral difference. Both the colonies and the south retained slavery for economic reasons.


212 posted on 09/03/2013 1:25:50 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I keep bringing it up in a hopeless effort to steer things back on course...you “agree” but keep arguing around the issue. I made a pretty simple, truthful, initial comment that people have, for some reason, pounced upon and run into an endless discourse. Why do anti-South types keep doing that?


213 posted on 09/03/2013 1:32:31 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
I don't fault the southern states for launching a rebellion and trying to establish their independence. What I object to is the notion that it wasn't a rebellion and was instead some irresistible legal process that no one had any right to oppose once they said the magic words.

A fair comment. I agree, and I believe the same reasoning applies to the rebellion of 1776.
214 posted on 09/03/2013 1:43:34 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Disagree. They would be correct in stating that it became the ultimate stated justification for the slaughter, but you must know that, from the Union perspective, it was about territory. You may believe the stated purpose at the end is more important, but if that is the case then why take issue with my brief statement about the context of the beginning of the war? What the war may have ultimately become in the minds of some is wholly irrelevant to what drove events early on. Suppose the southern states had seceded for other than reasons of perceived economic necessity, slavery having been obviated by technology or an economic shift. You think Lincoln would have said “Aw shucks, well at least they don’t hold slaves anymore.” and waved goodbye and wished them well? Of course not.


215 posted on 09/03/2013 2:04:36 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

It was Lincoln’s decision whether to allow the peaceful secession to stand or whether to retain the South by force. His insistence on maintaining Union forts within the territory of the former states cannot indicate anything other than that he intended to retain them by force. The Confederacy may have fired the first bombardment, but Lincoln was strolling down the path of war by refusing to abandon Sumter once South Carolina left the Union.


216 posted on 09/03/2013 2:23:20 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon

As I understand it, here’s the difference between us.

You say the war was “not about ending slavery,” because that was not an initial war goal in April of 61.

To my mind, while accurate, that is intentionally misleading, because it ignore the Fact that the goals and purpose of the war changed over time. Little more than a year after the start of the War, in summer of 62, universal emancipation was an explicit goal of the Union, as shown in numerous military regulations, executive proclamations and acts of Congress.

To say “The war was not about slavery” is therefore to me just as dishonest as to claim it was only about slavery, or was a primary war goal from the start.

I’m just trying to be accurate here.


217 posted on 09/03/2013 3:27:41 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Anyone who wonders why the states of the South attempted to "secede" should just read Mississippi's Declaration of Secession. Slaves were considered the most valuable asset class in the world (described as "property worth four billions of money"). The slaveholders were desperate, describing "secession" as "not a matter of choice, but of necessity" to protect their lives as slaveholders.

No disagreement that any threat to slavery would be viewed as an existential economic threat in the southern states...my whole point wan't about why the South left but rather why Lincoln chose war, and that was to retake the territory.

So, there's really no mystery about what happened. "Secession" was designed to protect slavery and the Union's response was to protect the United States and to protect the rights of American citizens who lived in Southern states.

This despite Lincoln's inaugural statement? It was about retaining territory and population.

Nowadays, nearly everyone opposes slavery and most people are very grateful that it was abolished. Slavery wasn't good for the slaveholders and it certainly wasn't good for anyone else. And, now it's gone for good.

Except that it continues to this day, all over the world. Overtly in parts of Africa and the Middle East, where it is old-fashioned theft of physical labor, and covertly in the more developed world, where it is mostly girls forced into prostitution. I'll agree that it is good that the legal institution is gone in America, but slavery is still with us and will continue long after you and I are gone.
218 posted on 09/03/2013 3:41:39 PM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon
Lincoln was strolling down the path of war by refusing to abandon Sumter once South Carolina left the Union.

Lincoln (and Buchanan) did not recognize that SC had left the Union.

Here's the rub. You and I (and Lincoln and Buchanan) are all in agreement that any people anywhere have a legitimate moral right to revolt against their rulers if they feel they are oppressed. But what you are saying is that if anybody else (of the same People) disagree, they must simply submit and not have the same right to fight for what they believe in.

IOW, if in 1968 there had been a true attempt at revolution by lefties, or if there were one today, those of us who prefer the Constitution and the system it set up would have had no right to resist them.

The Loyalists of 1776 had every bit as much moral right to fight for their beliefs as the Patriots did. Some Loyalists no doubt fought on the side they did out of impure motives, such as who they expected to win. But then so did some of the Patriots.

Similarly, in 1861 there were honorable men and scoundrels on both sides, but the men of honor on both sides had a legitimate moral right to fight to defend what they believed in.

See that's what happens when you "appeal to arms," as the secessionists called it. Sometimes you lose the appeal, and when you do, you have no right left to claim the moral high ground.

Or, as Arnold put it in Twins, "Negotiate first, attack last."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGstM8QMCjQ

The CSA chose to attack instead of negotiating, because they needed to knock the Upper South and Border states off the fence. It didn't work out any better for them than it did in the movie. Just took longer.

219 posted on 09/03/2013 3:45:33 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon
It’s just not true, as evidenced by the fact that the slaves were not emancipated at once.

IOW, you believe the Dred Scott decision was legally correct.

If the principles expressed in the Declaration are the standard by which we deem a revolt justified, then to a certain extent the Declaration condemns the very revolution it announced.

True, and the Founders were well aware of it. They just didn't know how to resolve the contradiction safely.

They expected, reasonably enough based on trends at the time, that the problem would resolve itself within a generation or two, without bloodshed. They had absolutely no way of knowing that slavery would suddenly become wildly profitable, with the result that getting rid of it became more difficult over time, not less.

220 posted on 09/03/2013 3:48:55 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon
Lincoln was pretty clear in his first inaugural address that the United States government would not recognize as legitimate any state's attempt to secede from the Union and that he would abide by the Constitution's command that he faithfully execute the laws of the United States in every state in the country, north, south, east and west. There was no mistaking his intention.

The states which had declared a "secession" had thereby threatened to immediately strip every American citizen in those states of both their American citizenship and their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Those American citizens living in Southern states had direct Constitutional and political bonds with every other American citizen in the country ("We the people of the United States") and those bonds could not be legally severed by any group of other people living in those states.

I recognize that slaveholders were only attempting to protect what they viewed as their human property (slaves). I recognize that they honestly believed that their position as parasites was threatened. I recognize that they had become addicted to their indolent lifestyles and that many were afraid that they could not make their way in this world without the support of their slaves. I do recognize that they were desperate and felt they had no choice. I do recognize how dependent they had become.

Nowadays, nearly everyone in the South is grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaves. Most are also grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaveholders from their addiction to slavery. Granted, some of the slaveholders were unable to make it on their own, but most regained their self-respect and were successfully reconstructed.

221 posted on 09/03/2013 4:22:08 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Trod Upon
IOW, if in 1968 there had been a true attempt at revolution by lefties, or if there were one today, those of us who prefer the Constitution and the system it set up would have had no right to resist them.

From a legal standpoint, there was no difference between the South's rebellion in the 1860's and the Watts Rebellion in 1965 or the Detroit riots in 1967. The Union went into the South to restore order and the LAPD and California National Guard did the same thing in Watts. In both cases, civilians were killed.

The strategy of "secession" was to reduce the power/influence of the government in Washington and to increase the power/influence of the state governments because the slaveholders needed the machinery of the state governments to perpetuate their abuse of human rights (slavery) and the slaveholders were concerned that they could no longer count on support from the government in Washington.

To hear some folks nowadays, "secession" was supposedly about about protecting human liberty and personal freedom from a tyrannical government in Washington. In fact, "secession" was actually about increasing the power of the government at the state level so that slaveholders could continue to suppress human liberty and personal freedom. The slaveholders were Statists with a capital S.

222 posted on 09/03/2013 7:37:22 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Ahh, but my post discussed moral right to revolution, not legality.

Revolutions are by definition illegal, the violent overthrow of law in the service, at least in theory, of a higher good. The Founders never claimed their revolt was legal, since they knew it wasn’t.

They just claimed that when an existing government is using law to oppress the people, they have a moral right to overthrow that government and its laws and replace them with one that more effectively protects their inalienable rights.


223 posted on 09/04/2013 2:27:17 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
In fact, "secession" was actually about increasing the power of the government at the state level so that slaveholders could continue to suppress human liberty and personal freedom. The slaveholders were Statists with a capital S.

Most people are happy to be, if they are in control of the State.

From the Founding thru the election of 1860, the South had dominated the Federal Government. Secession took place in 1860 because they recognized they had finally lost that control.

They believed, probably correctly, that control was necessary to protect slavery.

Lincoln and the Republicans spoke a good bit about having no constitutional right to interfere with slavery within a state, but there was a great deal they could do to gum up the slaveworks without entering a State.

For instance, Congress could perfectly constitutionally prohibit the interstate commerce in slaves, even between slave states.

If effectively enforced, this would immediately result in a huge rise in price of slaves in the Deep South and a catastrophic drop in price in Upper South and Border states. Virginia in particular had supported itself for decades primarily by selling slaves South.

The Constitution requires return of fugitive slaves, but not how the return be performed. Congress could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which by default would have returned the process to the states, which would be free to introduce such onerous procedures as to in practice prohibit return. Or Congress could "reform" the FSA and add procedures in Federal courts that would have the same effect.

The Congress elected in 1860/61 would have not had anywhere near the votes to pass such laws, but pretty obviously it was only matter of time till one did.

224 posted on 09/04/2013 2:44:03 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Ahh, but my post discussed moral right to revolution, not legality.

Revolutions are by definition illegal, the violent overthrow of law in the service, at least in theory, of a higher good. The Founders never claimed their revolt was legal, since they knew it wasn’t.

They just claimed that when an existing government is using law to oppress the people, they have a moral right to overthrow that government and its laws and replace them with one that more effectively protects their inalienable rights.

Well, I guess I'm having trouble finding any "higher good" (even in theory) that "secessionists" were pursuing. As I've said, I think that the slaveholders, like all parasites, were with each generation becoming more and more dependent upon their slaves to care and provide for them and in that sense, weaker and less capable. I believe that they correctly foresaw that the United States government might soon represent a threat to their addictive lifestyle. They knew that without the assistance of government, they faced rejection by their host in the form of slave revolts. "Secession" was designed to eliminate that federal threat and to increase the power of the more local state governments which could be counted upon to protect their addictive, parasitic relationship.

These addicts were sick people. I can't find any "higher good" (even in theory) that was associated with their desperate desire/effort to perpetuate their addiction, their parasitic behavior, their increasing dependence and their physical, moral and mental deterioration.

What slaveholders needed was outside help and that's what Lincoln and the Union wound up giving to them. Addicts never like forced abstinence and rehab and the slaveholders didn't all like abolition and reconstruction. But, the South is much the better for it. And, most Southerners know that.

Southern slavery is gone, gone for good. It's not coming back, and I think it's important for everyone to know and accept that.

225 posted on 09/04/2013 6:31:14 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Well, I guess I'm having trouble finding any "higher good" (even in theory) that "secessionists" were pursuing.

I quite agree. However.

As I've said, I think that the slaveholders, like all parasites, were with each generation becoming more and more dependent upon their slaves to care and provide for them and in that sense, weaker and less capable.

Those "less capable" slaveholders proved remarkably capable at the hardest task of all, war against a superior foe. Not capable enough, as it turned out, but as valiant an effort as any group in the history of the world.

"Secession" was designed to ...increase the power of the more local state governments which could be counted upon to protect their addictive, parasitic relationship.

I don't think so. State governments would merely retain their existing powers under the CSA, not gain new ones. Except of course the obvious recognition that they could split whenever they felt like it.

226 posted on 09/04/2013 6:40:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
From a legal standpoint, there was no difference between the South's rebellion in the 1860's and the Watts Rebellion in 1965 or the Detroit riots in 1967.

The legal POV of the South was that the states were sovereign, and therefore secession was merely an act of state sovereignty, not of individuals engaging in insurrection.

I disagree with that opinion, but it was not an wholly illegitimate one at the time.

Some issues are too fundamental for compromise, so by definition the only way to settle them is by war. Sad but true.

227 posted on 09/04/2013 7:34:59 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Those "less capable" slaveholders proved remarkably capable at the hardest task of all, war against a superior foe. Not capable enough, as it turned out, but as valiant an effort as any group in the history of the world.

That's just so much baloney.

Most addicts are grateful to be free of their debilitating addictions, even if they were forced to give them up. But, perhaps you've heard a few say things like, "I was doing fine, it wasn't hurting me a bit. I was really in full control of all those things in my life that might have looked like chaos." Or, maybe you've heard some say, "I could have quit whenever I wanted to. " Or, "I was just getting around to quitting myself. You didn't need to force me." There's always a few who say things like that and some of them even believe it. Some of them just miss in some sort of sick, romantic way, the old addictive habits and lifestyle.

Slaveholders as a class had become sick, weak people by the 1860's and that weakness was reflected in the weak, incompetent decisions that they made. Their eventual doom was inevitable, whether at the hands of some outside force like Lincoln and the Union or at the hands of the slaves and serfs that surrounded them. This world eats the weak and that's what happened to the slaveholders. Any fight you saw was attributable to the courage shown by some of the serfs and others who were either forced or duped into fighting what nevertheless always remained a fight to protect the lifestyles of slaveholders.

And, yes, the slaveholders were Statists. They were dependent upon government to protect their lifestyles just as members of our current welfare class are dependent upon government to protect their lifestyles. A culture of dependency is never a good thing. There isn't anything noble or romantic about dependency.

228 posted on 09/04/2013 7:45:26 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: DManA

It’s never too late to re-fight the Civil War.


229 posted on 09/04/2013 7:48:25 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

I’m no fan of the CSA by any stretch, but anybody who thinks the following men were “sick, weak people” is delusional.

RE Lee, NB Forrest, JEB Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, Patrick Cleburne, JS Mosby, Richard Taylor, JB Hood, Raphael Semmes.

And there are literally many thousands more. I’ve been called anti-southern on this forum, but I recognize and honor the valor of those who fought for what they believed in, however much I disagree with their cause.

I suspect you would find it quite impossible to find any of their opponents who ever referred to them as “sick, weak people.” LOL


230 posted on 09/04/2013 8:35:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Sherman, i acknowledged in my last post (228) and elsewhere that there were individuals who in battle displayed great ability and courage. You will find such people in any signigicant population.

I said that "[s]laveholders as a class had become sick, weak people by the 1860's and that weakness was reflected in the weak, incompetent decisions that they made." I don't know how anyone can read Mississippi's declaration of "secession" and conclude otherwise. The slaveholders go on and on and on in that document about their parasitic institution of slavery (by which they lived off the stolen labor of others), that they had become totally dependent upon their slaves because "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun," that their parasitic relationship to slaves was being threatened by "mandates of abolition," and that they felt that they were being forced to choose between "submission to the mandates of abolition" or "dissolution of the union." Then, toward the end of the document, they confess that it wasn't really even a matter of choice ("[Secession] is not a matter of choice, but of necessity.") That's the language of an addict - "I cannot give up my habit." As a class, the slaveholders could see no way forward in a world without slaves to take care of them, a world in which they would have to become self-reliant and capable of caring for and supporting themselves. .

These people were so enveloped in their culture of dependency that they were prepared to risk the lives, the property and the individual rights of each of their neighbors (many of whom had nothing to do with slavery) so that they wouldn't have to stand on their own two feet and face the world without their slaves to care for and support them. It doesn't get much sicker than that. If at times you forget just how weak and pathetic this class of people had become, then just pick up their declaration of "secession" and read it again.

Reluctantly, Lincoln rescued the slaveholders from their addiction to slavery. It's a shame that he wasn't around to personally assist with the reconstruction of these folks because I think he would have done a much better job of that than the Congress which survived him.

Like I say, most Southerners today are very grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaves and most are also grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaveholders from their own sick addiction to slavery. Descendants of slaveholders can thank Lincoln for any self-respect and self-reliance that they now enjoy.

Again, there simply was nothing that was noble or romantic about the slaveholders' role in any of this. I feel very sorry for anyone who worships them or their cause.

231 posted on 09/04/2013 4:29:31 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

If you live in or traveling to the Atlanta area be sure to visit Sweetwater State Park located west of Atlanta. It contains ruins of a cotton mill destroyed during the Civil War.

In July 1864 Union forces reached the mill. The mill was burned down and civilian mill workers (only women and children) were arrested and the women charged with treason. Eventually they were sent North, most to Indiana. Few returned to Georgia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetwater_Creek_State_Park


232 posted on 09/06/2013 10:39:22 AM PDT by Atlantan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon
Trod Upon: "It was Lincoln’s decision whether to allow the peaceful secession to stand or whether to retain the South by force."

Sorry, but you have it backwards.
Federal property remained Federal property regardless of what certain secessionists declared.
Secessionists' early 1861 seizures of Federal properties were all acts of rebellion or war.
Then Confederates' April 12 military assault on Federal troops in Federal Fort Sumter was a major act of war against the United States, equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

And Lincoln's original proclamation after Fort Sumter specified only

To which the Confederacy responded with a formal declaration of war against the United States on May 6, 1861.
At that point, Lincoln's only decision to make was: victory or defeat.

Lincoln chose victory.

Trod Upon: "Lincoln was strolling down the path of war by refusing to abandon Sumter once South Carolina left the Union."

Remember, the British held onto forts in United States Northwest Territory for over 30 years -- from the end of the Revolutionary War until the end of the War of 1812.
However irritating those forts might have been to our Founders, they never made British-controlled forts an excuse for starting war.

So the choice for war was made by Jefferson Davis, eagerly pushed on by Fire Eaters and many others of the Southern Slave Power.

233 posted on 09/06/2013 9:54:59 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Atlantan
Atlantan: "If you live in or traveling to the Atlanta area be sure to visit Sweetwater State Park located west of Atlanta."

Thanks, I've never actually lived in Atlanta, but years ago spent many happy weeks working there.
Did not know then to look up Sweetwater State Park.

Atlantan: "In July 1864 Union forces reached the mill. The mill was burned down and civilian mill workers (only women and children) were arrested and the women charged with treason."

Remember that much of Atlanta was destroyed not by Sherman's Union troops but by Confederate General Hood's efforts to deny military supplies to the Union.

And if these so-called "civilian mill workers" were in fact slaves, or former slaves, then their failure to return might be understandable.
I'm only saying, there's obviously more to this story than meets the eye here.

234 posted on 09/06/2013 10:06:28 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The mill was built by slaves, but the mill workers were probably white.

Scroll down for info on a History Walk of the mill ruins at Sweetwater State Park. The tours will be on Saturdays 11am-12:30 am Sept. 7-Sept. 28.

Also there will be a 2-day Civil War encampment with firearms and black powder demonstrations Sept. 14th -15th.

http://gastateparks.org/SweetwaterCreek


235 posted on 09/07/2013 7:05:38 AM PDT by Atlantan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Atlantan
Atlantan: "The mill was built by slaves, but the mill workers were probably white."

Your word "probably" here speaks volumes.
It tells us we don't really know what happened, to whom or by whom.
The "fog of war" covers up important details, and so people can spin the truth to support their own political agendas.

But the important point alleged here and in other threads is "mass atrocities" against Southern civilians.
Even at it's worst interpretation, your story here does not support such claims.

And thanks for the information about the Sweetwater Creek History Walk!
I only wish I could be there to enjoy it. :-)

236 posted on 09/08/2013 7:01:22 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson