Posted on 06/22/2018 11:46:12 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
That was according to my 8th grade history teacher-retired military. The only one who came close was MacArthur. That brings up the politics of the left. If it is true that Lee was a great General isn't it at least worth acknowledging? This tearing down of statues should stop. Educated persons should acknowledge the truth. It's the left that's the intelligent ones as they would have us believe. I see no conservatives standing up for this truth. The Senate GOP candidate in Virginia should start an 'intellectual' conversation on Lee and let the left react. Don't wait for a baiting reporter to to knee-jerk him into a quick response that they can interpret their own way.
So you keep saying.
If you have a different set of facts, post them, along with the links to their source.
Did the founders approach parliament? Then stop bringing it up.
LOL! Only in your opinion.
If you have a different set of facts, post them, along with the links to their source.
I have disputed your opinions on any number of occasions to no avail. I can't see it making any difference now.
It is not an opinion that you can look them up. It is in fact a reality that you can look them up.
I have disputed your opinions on any number of occasions to no avail.
I have no recollection whatsoever of you posting data regarding the export value of the various regions. How about you post it again?
The numbers are there. The interpretation of those numbers is yours alone. And is based solely on your own opinions.
I am quite certain that if you were to just scratch the surface a little bit, you would find that any Southern business man who was worth his weight in cotton, opened up shop in NYC. Sorry. NYC was the place to do business (for all sorts, not just northerners).
Lot of different ways.
Of course they did, Benjamin Franklin spent eleven years attempting to negotiate with parliament & others.
It was not until he returned to Philadelphia in defeat, in 1775, that the Revolution seriously got underway.
By sharp contrast, Confederate emissaries spent fewer than 11 weeks in Washington and never once engaged Congress.
In 1860 the Deep South exported ~$200 million in cotton, about half of total US exports in 1860.
The Upper South and Border South states also produced exports, notably tobacco the 2nd largest.
But it's important first to remember that half of these exports shipped from New Orleans, not New York, and that the return of imports first to New York was a function of NY's central location for railroads, canals & coastal shipping to other regions, plus its huge infrastructure of harbors, warehousing, banking, insurance and... ahem, unmatched recreation for sailors.
More important is the fact that except for cotton, everything classified as "Southern products" turned out in 1861 to be produced in Union states, especially the number 2 "Southern export", tobacco.
When Confederate tobacco was deleted in 1861, tobacco exports fell only 15%.
Other alleged "Southern products" like hops and clover seed, multiplied exports in 1861.
Point is, regardless of how often DiogenesLamp posts them, his claims about "Southern exports" paying, what is it now, 80% of US tariff revenues? -- that's just bogus.
Fifty percent is about right, but even there, remember the North and West "exported" hundreds of millions of dollars (from railroads to beef) per year to the South.
In those "exports" the North & West earned currency from the South to pay for the vast majority of foreign imports.
Further, remember the 1860 total US GDP was $4.4 billion dollars, so the $200 million which DiogenesLamp thinks sooooo important were actually only 5% of the US economy, or less than the amount of a typical recession or panic of the time -- meaning hardly reason enough to start a war.
Finally consider the stated purpose of the new Republican Morrill Tariff was to vastly reduce US dependence on foreign imports by protecting US manufacturers.
How can we then claim that Republicans "started Civil War" to protect the very imports their new Morrill Tariff was intended to vastly reduce?
DoodleDawg: "Lot of different ways."
Starting here: DiogenesLamp's numbers are false.
According to this source, page 605, total 1860 US exports were $400 million including specie (of $4.4 billion GDP).
Of that, Deep South cotton was about $200 million, specie was $67 million and all other exports $133 million.
How much of that $133 million was "Southern products"?
About $30 million so classified, of which nearly $20 million was tobacco.
But 1861 clearly proved that 80% of that $30 million was not "Confederate products", but rather was produced in Union states & regions.
The numbers show that Union state exports were about half of the total in 1860.
But that's just for starters.
The second key point is that Union states "exported" about $200 million per year to the South, see this source.
That's another great source for money to pay for imports through New York.
Finally, about half of Southern exports shipped from New Orleans, not New York, but imports came back through New York because no other city had transportation infrastructure and finances to handle such volumes.
But the key point here is DiogenesLamp's claim that this $200 million in Southern exports caused "Northeastern Power Brokers" to "pull Lincoln's strings" to "start Civil War" at Fort Sumter!
But there's no actual evidence of "string pulling" and the most we can say for these Southern export numbers is they help explain how Northeastern Democrats flipped from pro-Confederates to pro-Union (however reluctant) for the war's duration.
Otherwise, DiogenesLamp's "theory" is pure fantasy.
No. Read the amendment that “outlawed slavery”. It’s still technically legal, as punishment. I suspect this fact has not escaped our betters, especially leftists. We’re all guilty of something.
you are right, constitutionally, prisoners are considered Slaves of the State.
I doubt if the word “slave” appears in any criminal law except as a crime to be punished.
Nowhere does any law define convicts as “slaves” of the state.
So the term applied to convicts is simply a colorful metaphor.
Indeed, we are all arguably “slaves” to some passion or other.
As Jesus said (paraphrase): If you commit a sin you are a slave to sin.
Finally, I think the courts have ruled that states cannot, in effect, treat their prisoners like slaves, not certain just where they draw the lines.
Article XIII (Amendment 13 - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude)
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. affects 11
Of course, understood, I'm simply saying there's no place I've ever heard of which uses the word "slave" or "slavery" as a punishment for some crime.
And if you think about the other term, "involuntary servitude", in today's world you might say that punishment goes by the name "community service", but really, a few hours of community service at, say, a homeless shelter is a far cry from what our ancestors understood by "involuntary servitude".
Bottom line: yes, the 13th amendment allows for some form of slavery as punishment for crime, but in fact the term is not used these days so far as I've ever seen.
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.