Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
In other words, secession would be permitted and welcomed, as long as the Confederacy handed over tribute to Lincoln. It was about the money.
If the states could change their mind about ratifying the 14th - and their LAST vote be legal, why wouldn't their vote in 1861 to leave be legal???? Inquiring minds and all that...
You haven't really read much on this topic have you? I still cannot get over the fact that there are Freepers who have been trained to look at history through politically correct glasses... 99% of the South did fight enthusiastically, but they were fighting for their farms and their families and their states. About 5% were slave owners. The north cared little one way or the other about slavery. Teachers and some modern history books would tell you otherwise.
It was more comical than even that... Only the YES vote was considered valid. Subsequent attempts to revoke it were ignored... On the other hand, initial NO votes were allowed to be overturned.
Of course, you're bound to receive a blog or two on the will of the "American People" as though such an aggregate entity ever existed (prior to the war).
Of course such an entity never existed - James Madison clarified the issue to Mason in the Virginia ratification debates. In the federal debates the delegates refused to even second a motion to submit ratification to the people of the states en masse. Madison also stated in the Federalist Papers that each state would only be bound by it's own voluntary act.
[crickets]
The answer requires a trip to a library - I'll add it to my list.
Speaking of facts...from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-
Ouch. So much for states rights and tariffs. lol
It's been a while since I've read these threads since you guys have been so discredited here, but reading this thread you've definitely went the path of tinfoil. You used to be one of the sane ones but it seems now you are just as out there as some of the other neoconfederates that are notorious for that.
1, I am not aware that "we" had been discredited. 2, specifically what qulifies me for "tinfoil"?
I did stay at a Holiday Inn once ;o)
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.Ouch.
On many threads of other topics then when the Civil War is mentioned or Lincoln, there were always many comments to not get the nuts started.
2, specifically what qulifies me for "tinfoil"?
Making wild claims you can't back up, such as the gold claim. Implying slavery had nothing to do with secession. Implying blacks were in full support of secession. Saying Sherman commited war crimes when about every general in war understands that it's the army's job to disrupt the enemy's war supply. According to your definition of "war criminal", Ike is one, Patton is one, Truman is one, Roosevelt is one, Doolittle was one. They all attacked civilian structures to disrupt enemy supply. Claiming that Lincoln only fought for money.
I wrote, "IIRC his men hung a justice of the Georgia Supreme Court in an attempt to learn the location of his 'gold' (this after taking over $10,000 in cash from him)." IIRC = If I remember correctly. All I have to do is take a trip to the library to find the account again. For clarification, I did not state that the justice was killed, only that he was hung in an attempt to force him to divulge the location.
Implying slavery had nothing to do with secession.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? There were many factors.
Implying blacks were in full support of secession.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? I posted an article about Mr. Winbush, and the fact that his grandfather for the Confederacy - a position Mr. Winbush stated he would take as well.
Saying Sherman commited war crimes when about every general in war understands that it's the army's job to disrupt the enemy's war supply.
Not at that time - until then modern wars were much more "gentlemanly". Sherman instituted the policy of waging war on innocent civilians, to make Georgia "howl". That is, the defenseless old men, women and children. His army could beat them. But please see post 72 - the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue before and after the war. Civilian property could not be seized/destroyed without compensation.
Claiming that Lincoln only fought for money.
By Lincoln's own admission, he was perfectly content for the seceded states to be left alone [''beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere], as long as he could 'collect the duties and imposts'. A demand for tribute.
Link please?
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.