Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’m sorry. It’s you who are wrong here.
At least today, the slave states are all in the North!
I mean as the law of the land. Dred Scot unsuccessfully appealed to the rule explicated by Lord Mansfield that any slave brought to the free soil of England could claim his freedom as a subject of the King.
It was the law of the land and permitted long after the Colonies were established. Wilberforce challenged the laws by demonstrating that they were legal persons and met the same requirements as everyone else.
I can bring up his arguments in Parliament. They are the same ones advanced by the abolitionists in the States. Again - the difference there is compensation - they negotiated beforehand as many prominent slave owners sat in parliament.
And, there stood Jackson like a stonewall....
That's what some African-Americans say about slavery.
There are no slave states. The 13th Amendment prohibits it.
Then why aren’t all states right to work states?
You are slaves - to the unions who own you and your labor.
Black folks born abroad do better than black folks born in America. The same is not seen for any other demographic.
You gave your opinion, not an answer. It would have worked because you say it would. Not a single quote from the period supporting your claims.
And I suppose white folks born abroad do better than white folks born in the South? What with the lingering effects of reconstruction holding them down and all.
Some delegates to the Hartford Convention grumbled about secession, but it never went any further. Certainly it never appeared in the convention's final report and was never taken up by any governmental entity. Nevertheless, the south screamed "treason" and the taint was enough to destroy the Federalist Party. I guess it's more of that southern double standard.
In historical fact, several plans were suggested, and none accepted.
This particular source mentions two different Jefferson plans, both of which involved gradual reductions in slavery and neither required freedom or government payments for working age slaves.
But I have another book which does discuss Jefferson's calculations on the cost then (early 1800s) to purchase freedom for all slaves.
It was a seemingly astronomical cost, which turned out to be markedly less in both blood and treasure than the Civil War.
None of Jefferson's several plans to free slaves was ever approved by slave-holders themselves.
The next proposal at that high government level was Lincoln's in 1862 to purchase freedom for slaves at $400 each.
Here we have a number which is perhaps too low for male slaves in prime condition, but might work for an overall population including women, children and old people.
In any case, it was certainly negotiable if there had been serious interest -- but there was not.
Between Jefferson and Lincoln, any number of other lesser mortals suggested plans, none of which got anywhere in Congress, for a not-surprising reason that: the Slave Power imposed a "gag rule" on any discussion of slavery in Congress.
So no such proposals of any kind could be mentioned there.
Still many people, especially abolitionists, had ideas on how slaves might be freed, and what should happen to them afterwards.
Among these were plans to settle & offer transportation to Liberia, Africa supported by Southerners like President James Monroe and Kentucky Senator Henry Clay.
But O.E.O.'s analogy of a government offer to buy guns is pretty good, because at a certain level, guns are not for sale to government at any price.
The historical record shows that's also just how slave-holders felt about their "property".
I hold no allegiance or obligation to any trade union. I come and go as I please.
“Excuse me but that’s just retarted....sir!”
LOL
Mr Az-hoe
“The next proposal at that high government level was Lincoln’s in 1862”
1862?
Yeah, I think that’s negotiating in good faith. ;)
So between Jefferson and Lincoln there was nothing? That’s a long time with nothing at all.
There’s a big difference between scribbling down how much buying them all would cost and between actually going out and getting it done.
JCBreckenridge responding: "So you find state’s rights irrational I see."
Don't be silly.
Any states have the same "right" to start and declare war on the United States -- the same right as the United States has to defeat them and make them wish they had been a whole lot smarter.
I mean, just how smart do you have to be to start a war with a country that outnumbers and out-produces you by factors of several to one?
And now consider that at least half your population (slaves) supports the Union and will fight for them if offered the chance -- what sense does that make?
Of course, extreme courage is admirable, but stupidity, well, not so much.
Goose/Gander. New England was willing to secede to avoid fighting the United Kingdom. I daresay that would have been regarded as treason on the part of the South had they done the same.
Apparently New England didn’t like being the battlefield. Imagine that.
Of course it is negotiating in good faith. Especially when you consider that the insurrectionists began their treason even before he assumed office.
“I mean, just how smart do you have to be to start a war with a country that outnumbers and out-produces you by factors of several to one?”
Perhaps the answer is that they never started the war at all and were invaded by the much larger and stronger power who sought to subjugate them.
Not in ‘62. Negotiation in good faith would have been a decade earlier. But, again - there never was a desire for a peaceful solution.
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.