Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
ROTFLMAO!!!! I didn't notice monorprise whining or complaining about being picked on. And if they were then I'd suggest they call for competent help rather than you.
First of all, the South's oppression was NOT "wholly imaginary". John Brown was no figment, nor "bleeding Kansas", nor the "Secret Six". Neither were the sinister black-clad companies of the Wide Awakes, who'd already drawn arms from federal stocks in Illinois, and crossed over to Missouri to take part in the overthrow of the State government and the MMV, the Missouri Militia.
How many false premises can I roll into one sentence? Not as many as you apparently. The question was how was the South oppressed? You dredge up a single lunatic and his crew, a couple of rich guys who sent him money, and anti-slavery armed groups who were more than offset by pro-slavery armed groups and somehow conclude that this meant the South was oppressed? Oppressed how? Oppressed in what form? It was an easy question and only a complete boob could make as big a mess of the answer as you did.
The Texans erased all the evidence for this conspiracy by hanging everyone in sight -- including their witnesses for the prosecution.
Of course they did.
The Texans erased all the evidence for this conspiracy by hanging everyone in sight -- including their witnesses for the prosecution.
They should have availed themselves of the services of Col. Lee, who'd hanged Brown, to help them with their Wide Awake problem; at that time, he was stationed in San Antonio.
Lee didn't hang Brown, the commonwealth of Virginia did after convicting him of the asinine crime of treason against the commonwealth. And Lee was busy figuring out how he could return home and continue working his chattel.
And we've all been through your piffle about secession "destroying the Union" and the rights of the other States.
Why not puke up some of the pro-rebellion piffle that you're known for? I don't think that monoprise has had the pleasure, and based on his past posts I'm sure he'll lap it right up.
You might as well argue that my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, should be abrogated by you, unilaterally, because my silence deprives you of your "right" to justice, i.e. revenge. Sound about right?
Sounds absolutely ridiculous. But so much of your stuff does.
The States that remained in the Union continued to enjoy the benefits of their association undisturbed by the absence of he Southern States. Hell, they even managed to fight a huge war without the South!
Fight, and win, the rebellion that the South forced upon them.
The first thing Lincoln did in office after giving his inaugural was to refuse to receive the South Carolina commissioners who wanted to talk to him about apportioning the federal debt. Lincoln. Refused. To. Talk. To. Them.
Because. That. Wasn't. What. They. Were. There. For. The Southern crew was there to deliver an ultimatum. Offers to pay for the debt they owed or the property they stole were not part of their instructions. Certainly not the copy sent to Lincoln. They were there with demands only, and as a smokescreen to cover the rebel desire for armed conflict.
But then, you have been told that before, by presenters of argument as cultivated, resource- and quote-rich as rustbucket and 4CJ/4ConservativeJustices, and here you are again, running your cheesy grift on a new guy de novo, as if you had never heard of the Civil War before, and had just discovered your beeves in a book.
And here you are, regurgitating the same old, same old. Nothing new. Nothing factual. Nuttin' but nuttin'.
Yank, ya got a reference for that statement?
I can't see SC, one of the least populated states handing the Feds an ultimatum.
Interesting, now reference that.
Sure. Davis's letter to Lincoln. The one where he said that the bunch were there "For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States..." Not to negotiate. Not to listen to Lincoln's position; those were not even on the table. No offer to pay for debt repudiated or property stolen. Only a vague offer to talk about "matters and subjects interesting to both nations..." So if paying for the debt was not if interest to the confederacy then it wasn't on the table. If paying for stolen property was not of interest to the confederacy then it wasn't on the table either. There was nothing for Lincoln in that letter. Nothing but an ultimatum and veiled threat.
I can't see SC, one of the least populated states handing the Feds an ultimatum.
SC didn't issue the threat. The confederacy did.
Uhm.....you might just be injecting your opinion as to what is, or is not, in this letter.
From the letter (emphasis mine):
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
It is very clear...the purpose was to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate and everything was on the table. What isn't in this letter is an ulitmatum and veiled threat.
Nonsense. They were there for recognition and recognition only. That vague offer to talk would have happened only after Lincoln capitulated to rebel demands and agreed to recognized the legitimacy of the Southern rebellion. An end to secession wasn't open for discussion. Any of Lincoln's positions were not on the table. Only recognition. And only had Lincoln caved was there a possibility of discussing payment for debt and stolen property...but only if the matter was of interest to the confederacy. By that point, having gotten what they wanted, the odds of serious discussions on those matters was likely zero.
Where do you get that? Have a source?
That vague offer to talk would have happened only after Lincoln capitulated to rebel demands and agreed to recognized the legitimacy of the Southern rebellion.
Where do you come up with That vague offer...? The letter is very clear, it isn't a vague offer.
Any of Lincoln's positions were not on the table.
How do you know this? Any sources?
And only had Lincoln caved was there a possibility of discussing payment for debt and stolen property...
How do you know this? Any sources?
By that point, having gotten what they wanted, the odds of serious discussions on those matters was likely zero.
How do you know this? Any sources?
Is that the whole letter? Can somebody give me a link to the reference?
From the letter. "For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed..." Not for the purpose of negotiating. Not for the purpose of discussing anything. They were there to obtain Lincoln's recognition of confederate sovereignty. To get his surrender to rebel demands. It's right there in the first sentence.
Where do you come up with That vague offer...? The letter is very clear, it isn't a vague offer.
An offer to "...to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations? If something wasn't of interest to the confederacy then it clearly wasn't open for discussion. If it had said 'for the settlement of all questions of disagreement' then that would have been a serious offer. That is, in fact, the wording the congressional legislation authorizing the group used. But in his letter Davis watered it down. If he was serious about negotiating then why did he do that? The answer is that he wasn't serious.
How do you know this? Any sources?
The letter itself.
For something as insignificant as this, why did the Goon feel like it was SO HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT to refer to it in his second inaugural, second paragraph?
MONTGOMERY, February 27, 1861.
The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens, as special commissioner of the Confederate States of America to the Government of the United States; and I have now the honor to introduce him to you, and to ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent. Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping that through his agency. &c. [sic.]
JEFF'N DAVIS.
_________________________________________________________
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.
JEFF N DAVIS.
ROBERT TOOMBS, Secretary of State.
Even when the facts are placed right under their noses, the typical liberal will still deny their existence.
From the letter:
"meet and confer with any person"
"and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations"
Just in case you're interested:
confer - to have discourse; to consult, discuss; to compare views; to deliberate
Your state of denial is certaintly analagous to a black hole; you have been sucked in so deep that even the light of truth can't escape.
You couldn't recognize a fact if you tripped over it. You breezed right past this part explaining their business: "For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States." So that explains what they are there for. Not to negotiate. Not to discuss or treat. To demand recognition of confederate sovereignty and the legitimacy of their actions. Unless Lincoln agreed to that requirement, and completely caved in to rebel demands, then what was there to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' on? And again there's that qualifier, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations." Why should we believe that paying for the debt that they repudiated or the property that they stole would be of interest to the confederacy? Because wouldn't agreeing to pay for property stolen or debt repudiated be an admission that their actions were illegal in the first place?
I can see where negotiating a peaceful settlement was insignificant to you, what it it getting in the way of Davis' war and all. And why not mention that while he and others were trying to preserve the country, other's were in town to tear it apart. And the war came. Just as they wanted it to.
Friendly relations is much better than war, eh? You don't appear to be taking the whole letter into consideration. Negotiate, discuss, and treat, are in the letter. The three gentlemen named in this letter have the authority to do each of these. There are no conditions placed on negotiation, discussion, or treating, in this letter. Your opinion appears to be that conditions must be met, however, this letter contains no such conditions.
Unless Lincoln agreed to that requirement, and completely caved in to rebel demands, then what was there to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' on?
There was PEACE to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate'.
And again there's that qualifier, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations." Why should we believe that paying for the debt that they repudiated or the property that they stole would be of interest to the confederacy?
I believe those, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations," are discussed in the resolution behind this letter, no?
Because wouldn't agreeing to pay for property stolen or debt repudiated be an admission that their actions were illegal in the first place?
No. Secession was not illegal.
The way the south practiced it it was.
If their intentions were to 'demand' recognition of Confederate sovereignty it would have been in the document.
Since it wasn't in the document, your insistence that they intended to 'demand' sovereignty recognition is just absurdly wild speculation on your part.
and the legitimacy of their actions.
Secession was not/is not illegal.
Unless Lincoln agreed to that requirement, and completely caved in to rebel demands, then what was there to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' on?
Wildly fanatical speculations of a grossly delusional madman.
Why should we believe that paying for the debt that they repudiated or the property that they stole would be of interest to the confederacy?
First, no property was stolen.
Second, history would have proven the Confederacy's honorable intentions if Linkln hadn't insisted on invading us.
Because wouldn't agreeing to pay for property stolen or debt repudiated be an admission that their actions were illegal in the first place?
Again, there was no stolen property involved, at least not south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Furthermore, since when does acting honorably and straightforward become admissions of some sort of guilt? A yankee trait, perhaps?
Playing the victim has become totally ingrained in you.
On what? On the whole question of secession? Do you honestly want us to believe that if Lincoln had said he wanted to negotiate based on an end to secession and a reunification of the country, that Davis' minions would have sat down at the table with him? Not a chance. The purpose of the group was stated at the beginning - establish relations between countries. Surrender to our demand and recognize the legitimacy of our actions. Nothing else was acceptable. So when that is your only position, your requests don't become negotiations but ultimatums.
There was PEACE to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate'.
There is no peaceful intent in ultimatums. The mealy-mouthed offer to talk would come only after Lincoln had surrendered to the southern demands. There was no peaceful intent on the part of the South.
I believe those, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations," are discussed in the resolution behind this letter, no?
No they aren't. There was authorization for the "settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments" but no specifics on what those idemts And why didn't Davis use the same wording as the legislation authorizing the dispatch of the ultimatum? Why water it down? The whole history of the confederacy on this topic is one continuous weakening of language. Where the provisional constitution was specific in calling for take the government to take "...immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them" by the time Davis dispatched his minions all reference to debt and stolen property had been removed and all comments about it being their "...wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liability, and common obligations of that Union, upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith" had been replaced with a vague suggestion that they talk, but only if it was of interest to both sides. Those changes were obviously intentional and meant to remove any chance of serious negotiations that might have gotten in the way of the war.
No. Secession was not illegal.
Actually I was thinking more of the illegality of their stealing government property and repudiating responsibility for debt. But now that you mentioned it, their acts of unilateral secession were illegal as well. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
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.