Posted on 06/08/2021 7:16:33 AM PDT by rebuildus
Darwin was not a factor in 1860 US politics, period.
Marx did write columns for the New York times, but almost all discussed world affairs, not US politics, and none, for example, called on US workers to unite and throw off the chains of American capitalism.
No major American politician in 1860 acknowledged either Darwin or Marx as a source or authority for his own political opinions.
As for a "purely White 'workers' paradise' ", Illinois might be a typical example -- Southern sympathizing Democrats in southern Illinois wrote state laws to keep blacks out of Illinois, but northern Illinoisans often ignored such laws, with the result that the freed-black population in Illinois grew at a faster rate than in any other state from 1820 to 1860.
So our Lost Causers make a big, big deal over alleged Northern "hatred" of African Americans, but I think closer analysis shows such Northerners were Democrats, allied to their racist Southern Democrat partners in politics and, for example, in the KKK.
You know he lost a slave case. And from what I remember reading of it at the time, it looked to me like he deliberately threw it.
If you see him as an unethical opportunist, a lot of what he did starts to make sense.
Anyone who needed to have the rumor spread about how "honest" they were, is probably a con man of the first order.
No, I didn't. The only case I'm aware of was his defense of Marvin Pound on the charge of harboring a runaway slave and he won that case. He also once represented a slave owner in a runaway slave case and he lost that one. So maybe you can provide the details of the case he 'threw'?
If you see him as an unethical opportunist, a lot of what he did starts to make sense.
LOL! Of course it would make sense. To you.
+1.
And the G*dD@mn history revisionists would have us believe that the slave trade would not have continued exactly as before under Union rule.
As the London Spectator noted, the moral point here is not that one man cannot own another, it's that he cannot own another unless he is loyal to the United States.
Do you like your Joe Biden puppet Presidency? He was put in there by the corrupt power structure.
Deep state crony capitalism is a legacy of Lincoln.
Lie. They already had it. It would remain legal with no secession, claiming they went to war to preserve it is just a lie.
Slavery lasted in the Union for 8 months longer than it did in the South. Even then, they couldn't have abolished it without the corrupt gun pointed at people's head coercion fake ratification con they pulled.
Wish in one hand...
Groups of people are not like individuals — there is no intelligence, no decision making. The actions of groups largely represent the collective character of the people that make them up. An awful lot of “us” have no character at all. We are not the same literate, moral people that founded this nation.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but if this nation avoids some form of national crisis it can only be by the grace of God.
If you stretch the definition of "started" far enough. Yes, they threatened the money streams of the powerful corrupt cartel controlling Washington DC.
They should have just let these men keep stealing through the color of law.
That was the first attack. The Confederate bombardment of Sumter was the response to that attack.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 29, 1861 HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR:—I desire that an expedition to move by sea be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached, and that you cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy for that object.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[Inclosure.]
Steamers Pocahontas at Norfolk, Paunee at Washington, Harriet Lane at New York, to be under sailing orders for sea, with stores, etc., for one month. Three hundred men to be kept ready for departure from on board the receiving-ships at New York. Two hundred men to be ready to leave Governor's Island in New York. Supplies for twelve months for one hundred men to be put in portable shape, ready for instant shipping. A large steamer and three tugs conditionally engaged.
Who’s “he”?
You are either deluded or a liar. Secession was peaceful, Lincoln made it violent. The economic system of slavery would have been preserved by the Union had the south not left. (It was making too much money for Washington and New York.)
To make it simple, *YOU DON'T GET TO USE SLAVERY AS AN EXCUSE FOR THE BLOOD YOUR HEROES SHED FOR AN EVIL CORRUPT CAUSE.*
I know why you keep trying to pretend that slavery had something to do with the invasion of the south, because if you don't have that (and you really don't have that) you have nothing to justify all the people you killed to prop up a tyrant and cartel ran government.
Take away your "slavery" fig leaf, and the actions you defend are shown to be nothing more than unjustifiable bloodshed to establish a despotic rule over people who just wanted self determination.
And you have to keep telling yourself that you have the slavery excuse, though it isn't at all true.
I knew when I saw you repeat that error over and over that you were in for a shelling from those that study history.
I should have probably said something at the time but figured you would resent it.
If you are thinking I deliberately led you into an ambuscade, I strongly deny it.
Well, I somewhat deny it.
“I never suggested such a take nor would I. I love our constitution . . .”
Let me come straight to the point: I understand you to say you do not believe that states and nations that historically enshrined slavery into their constitutions forfeited their right to exist.
Thank you for answering in a manly way.
If others disagree, let them say so.
[jmacusa #123] Lincoln had sent resupply ships.
[jmacusa #314] Sorry Reb.
Sorry ignunt. I'm a natural born Yankee, just not an ignunt Yankee.
[jmacusa #314] Licoln, as CIC sent resupply ships and troops
Lincoln sent an invasion force to South Carolina and Florida as as I linked and quoted from the Official Records of the Civil War at my #302.
Have some more of the Official Records.
THE SENATE ADJOURNED
March 28, 1861
SENATE JOURNAL, March 25, 1861
Resolved, That the President be requested, if, in his opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command at Fort Sumter.
SENATE JOURNAL, March 27, 1861
The following message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Nicolay, his Secretary:
To the Senate of the United States:
I have received a copy of a resolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me, if, in my opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command of Fort Sumter.
On examining the correspondence thus called for, I have, with the highest respect for the Senate, come to the conclusion that, at the present moment, the publication of it would be inexpedient.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Washington, March 26, 1861.
END of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Senate will adjourn without day at four o'clock this afternoon.
The Senate proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the said resolution; and, having been amended on the motion of Mr. Hale, it was agreed to as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate do now adjourn without day.
Whereupon
The President pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned without day.
Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.
March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the NavyI desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
The memorandum attached called for:
From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.
From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. ArmyYou have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham LincolnApril 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de CampThis will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
O.R. Navy, Series I, Vol 4, pg 107:
Cooperation of the Navy in the relief of Fort Pickens, April 12 and 17, 1861.Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command
Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.
Headquarters of the Army,
Washington, April 1, 1861.Sir: You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reenforce and hold Fort Pickens, in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed with the least possible delay to that place, and you will assume command of all the land forces of the United States within the limits of the State of Florida. You will proceed to New York, where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged, and, putting on board such supplies as you can ship, without delay proceed at once to your destination. The engineer company of sappers and miners; Brevet Major Hunt's Company M, Second Artillery; Captain Johns's Company C, Third Infantry; Captain Clitz's Company E, Third Infantry, will embark with you in the first steamer. Other troops and full supplies will be sent after you as soon as possible.
Captain Meigs will accompany you as engineer, and will remain with you until you are established in Fort Pickens, when he will jeturn to resume his duties in this city. The other members of your staff will be Assistant Surgeon John Campbell, medical staff; Captain Rufus Ingalls, assistant quartermaster; Captain Henry F. Clarke, assistant commissary of subsistence; Brevet Captain George L. Hartsuff, assistant adjutant-general, and First Lieutenant George T. Balch, ordnance officer.
The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you, and to afford every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the object of the expedition, which is the security of Fort Pickens against all attacks, foreign and domestic. . . .
O.R. Navy, Series I, Vol 4, pg 115
U. S. Frigate Sabine, Off Pensacola, April 12, 1861,Sir: I have to request that all the marines which you can spare from the squadron, with their officers, may be landed to reenforce Fort Pickens at as early a period as possible. . . .
O.R. Navy, Series I, Vol 4, pg 115
Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present, off Pensacola, of the successful reenforcement of Fort Pickens.U. S. Frigate Sabine,
Off Pensacola, April 14, 1861.Sir: I have the honor to inform you that immediately on receipt of your order by Lieutenant Worden, on the 12th instant, I prepared to reenforce Fort Pickens. It was successfully performed the same night by landing the troops under Captain Vogdes and the marines of the squadron under Lieutenant Cash. . . .
And the important supply business....
O.R. Navy, Series I, Vol 4, pg 116
Letter from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Fla., to Captain Adams, U. S, Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, making requisition for men and stores.Fort Pickens, April 13, 1861.
Dear Captain: Here we are all safe. The enemy did not evidently deem it prudent to attack us. I am going to call on you for a large requisition. I have first to request that you will land 250 sailors, with the proper number of officers. Next I have to request that you will let me have the following articles: Four barrels whisky, . . . .
And as we can see from the official records, the mission to reinforce deliver bread having been successfully completed, the first thing on the to do list was to submit a large requisition request. The first items on the list were 250 sailors and four barrels of whisky. The previous mission had been a supply mission (disguised as an invading armada of naval ships and marines), with design to deliver bread. But man cannot leave by bread alone. He needs whisky. Don't forget the four barrels of whisky.
O.R. Navy, Series I, Vol 4, pg 210
USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861
210 OPERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.Abstract log of the U. S. sbip Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding.
April 11. -- At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens.
The start of the April 1861 events in Florida is officially documented as commencing before the events in South Carolina, landing troops and marines late during April 11 or in the dark early morning hours of April 12, 1861.
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4]”
I presented the complete, official Mandate issued by the Scott Court. You respond with anonymous garbage from Wikipedia. You should read the actual court opinions; you might learn something. But that would take effort on your part. You prefer something akin to the 1619 Project.
Nine seperate opinions were filed in Scott. Which five justices do you claim "held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them?"
The Wikipedia article gives scant mention of the actual opinions. Footnotes 3 and 4 do not reference any actual (or even imaginary) court opinion. The Wikipedia article does include a footnote 36 that references, as an authority,
Don E. Fehrenbacher (1978/2001), The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, reprint, New York: Oxford, Part 3, "Consequences and Echoes", Chapter 18, "The Judges Judged", p. 441; unpublished opinion, transcript in Carl B. Swisher Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
In Fehrenbacher's book at 324 he includes a "Box Score" of the opinions of the nine justices.
For the most part, however, historians have been unwilling to accept Taney’s opinion as a definitive statement of what the Court decided. Instead, they have examined all of the opinions and endeavored, in effect, to count the ‘votes’ of the justices on each of the major issues. This calculation of box scores began with contemporary critics of the decision and has continued over since, with a variety of results that is in itself indicative of the difficulties involved. The most common summing-up appears to be as presented in the box score that follows.BOX SCORE
1. Four justices held that the plea in abatement was properly before the Court (Taney, Wayne, Daniel, and Curtis).
2. Three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States (Taney, Wayne, and Daniel).
3. Six justices held that the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid (Taney, Wayne, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
4. Seven justices held that the laws of Missouri determined Scott’s status as a slave after his return to that state from Illinois (Taney, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
5. Seven justices held that Scott was still a slave, though there were differences on what the final judgment of the Court should be (same as in number 4).
From these tabulations it has been easy enough to infer that “there was no judicial decision on the question of Negro citizenship.” For Taney’s pronouncement on this issue appears to have been extrajudicial (because only a minority of justices thought that it was before the Court), and, in any case, only two other justices explicitly endorsed his ruling.
Only three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States. The Court did NOT make any such holding.
Also in his book, at page 446-47, Fehrenbacher exposes the slanderous misrepresentations of what Taney wrote, which appear to be carried over to the present day.
Taney then devoted most of his paper to demonstrating that the racial attitudes of colonial America reflected those of the mother country. Pointing to the notorious Asiento and related agreements whereby three British monarchs participated personally in the slave trade with Spanish colonies from 1713 to 1750, he concluded:“It is impossible to read these treaties, and not feel convinced that . . . the English government and people acknowledged no rights in the negro race which they were bound to respect. . . . The British law regarded them as absolute property, to be traded in like any other merchandise.Thus Taney was plainly determined to defend the most controversial passage of his Dred Scott opinion as a statement of unpleasant but verifiable historical fact. It will be remembered that in the aftermath of the decision he had been quoted in some antislavery newspa pers as having said, “Negroes have no rights which a white man i« bound to respect.” This misrepresentation was promptly exposed the Democratic press and has been, as we have already noted, i source of scholarly sympathy for Taney ever since. For instance George T. Curtis, counsel for Dred Scott, declared in his Constitu tional History of the United States:
The calumniators of the chief-justice entirely ignored the fact that he spoke of a past state of opinion and feeling, and imputed to him as his personal opinion the atrocious sentiment that a negro has no right which a white man is bound to respect. The slander had its effect, and it is probable that there are multitudes at this day who believe it.
Taney, it has been pointed out over and over again, was not in this passage making a ruling about Negro rights in 1857; he was not expressing his own personal view; but instead he was talking about the racial attitudes of the founding fathers and their generation, which presumably no longer prevailed. His language was “simply that of historical narration.
you are full of BS. What is the old expression? “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b*llsh*t.”
Read the court opinions for the first time and get back to me with the five justice majority to support your equine excrement.
Don E. Fehrenbacher (1978/2001), The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, reprint, New York, at 324:
For the most part, however, historians have been unwilling to accept Taney’s opinion as a definitive statement of what the Court decided. Instead, they have examined all of the opinions and endeavored, in effect, to count the ‘votes’ of the justices on each of the major issues. This calculation of box scores began with contemporary critics of the decision and has continued over since, with a variety of results that is in itself indicative of the difficulties involved. The most common summing-up appears to be as presented in the box score that follows.BOX SCORE
1. Four justices held that the plea in abatement was properly before the Court (Taney, Wayne, Daniel, and Curtis).
2. Three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States (Taney, Wayne, and Daniel).
3. Six justices held that the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid (Taney, Wayne, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
4. Seven justices held that the laws of Missouri determined Scott’s status as a slave after his return to that state from Illinois (Taney, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
5. Seven justices held that Scott was still a slave, though there were differences on what the final judgment of the Court should be (same as in number 4).
From these tabulations it has been easy enough to infer that “there was no judicial decision on the question of Negro citizenship.” For Taney’s pronouncement on this issue appears to have been extrajudicial (because only a minority of justices thought that it was before the Court), and, in any case, only two other justices explicitly endorsed his ruling.
Try not being too lazy to read the court opinions you blather about.
I said not implied any such thing you have twisted what I said to mean what you want
Intellectually sloppy and dishonest
“In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the US Constitution requires for a US federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.[3] After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the US Congress's constitutional powers.”
You want how many names? ...5? .....7? You can go look up all the names you want for yourself. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Dred Scott. Read it and weep.
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.