Posted on 08/06/2010 9:54:52 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Grand Old Partisan salutes John Bingham, principal author of the 14th Amendment and a great REPUBLICAN.
Writing yesterday in The Washington Monthly, Steve Benen accused the GOP of going "From the Party of Bush to the Party of Jefferson Davis." His point, it seems, is that questioning whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the USA of people here illegally is akin to advocating slavery. Such absurdity is not worth refuting. I will, however, point out a fact that Benen overlooks -- the Party of Jefferson Davis is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Indeed, the Democratic Party was the Party of Slavery, and Democrats were known as "Slave-ocrats" by the GOP. Yes, Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, as were all the Confederates. Not one Republican fought against the Union during the Civil War.
In yesterday's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne accused the GOP of shedding a birthright. Like Benen, he argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment -- all Republicans, by the way -- had in mind what Dionne and Benen and so many other Democrats say they intended back in the 1860s.
The Democrats opposed the 14th Amendment yet now assert that they know best what Rep. John Bingham (R-OH) meant when he wrote it.
By ignoring the heritage of our Grand Old Party, Republicans place themselves on the defensive and make themselves vulnerable to Democrat demagoguery, such as the latest from Benen and Dionne.
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Passage was possible because many low-tariff Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to protect and encourage industry and the high wages of industrial workers.
Wars are expensive.
The main problem with the neo-Yankee is the concept of the republic as originally founded is so alien to them that it is inconceivable that any state would want to get out of this “perfect union”. It is so hard not to hate “those people”.
What you neglected to mention was that Grant purchased Jones so that he could manumit him.
I was going to respond for you to stick around and you might see some idiots here espouse similar statements, but I see I'm already too lat...;-)
Well said.
“What you neglected to mention was that Grant purchased Jones so that he could manumit him.”
Oh please. He let him go just in time to join the new Republican Party and to “fit in.” He showed no signs of remorse prior to ‘59. In fact, he gloated:
“He is a very smart, active boy, capable of making anything... I can leave him here and get about three dollars per month for him now, and more as he gets older.” - US Grant 1858 (Simon, v1. p344)
Julia Dent Grant came from a slave-owning family and was an apologist for slavery throughout her life and the Civil War. The Grants owned slaves that came from Julia’s father and Grant himself was responsible for supervising them. These slaves were not freed until 1865 when Missouri officially abolished slavery.
Grant actually owned one slave himself as well:
Grant himself owned a slave named William Jones, acquired from his father-in-law. At a time when he could have desperately used the money from the sale of Jones, Grant signed a document that gave him his freedom.
Grant freed this slave in 1859.
Robert E. Lee came from a slave-owning family, but upon his father-in-law’s death, all those slaves were freed (this was 1862 before the Emancipation Proclamation). In a letter to President Pierce, Lee wrote that “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
So what is comes down to is the Grant family owned slaves longer than the Lee as the slaves in question were from Julia’s family, not Grant’s personal slaves. That being said, of course, in that day and age, that meant Grant was in control of them. It is interesting to see that both of these men - the two opposing Civil War generals - were slave owners at one point or another in their lives.
http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html
“What you neglected to mention was that Grant purchased Jones so that he could manumit him.”
What YOU neglect to mention is that he didn’t “buy” Jones ... Jones was given to him ... and he accepted. He also thought quite a lot about the money to be made with him;
“He is a very smart, active boy, capable of making anything... I can leave him here and get about three dollars per month for him now, and more as he gets older.” - US Grant 1858 (Simon, v1. p344)
He was part of the dozens of slaves that he managed for his wife’s father for several years, when his distaste for slavery was never apparent:
Slaves lived and worked on the nineteenth century farm owned by his wife’s family, known as White Haven. During the years 1854 to 1859 Grant lived here with his wife, Julia, and their children, managing the farm for his father-in-law, Colonel Dent.
He did NOT free Jones because he was against slavery; he freed him because HE was moving to a free state, IL; they left the plantation to go to IL and Grant knew this would not work because instead of just being the slaver, he was actually the man’s owner.
I noticed from your previous postings that your sole purpose on this site seems to be as an apologist for Federal usurpation; that of course, is your right. But at least have the decency to stay within the bounds of reality and facts of history, not your wishes and “surmises” to defend Federal usurpation.
Nice lie to justify Federal usurpation, statist fanboy...
There. Fixed that last post for ya.
“To counter that very notion is the purpose of my book and blog.”
I’ll bet your readers are delirious with joy at your defense of statism ... both of them. Do they get propellers for their beanies if they subscribe?
The Confederacy was far more centralized than was the Union government. “Look Away” by William C. Davis explains this well.
The JACKASS party is the same as it has always been.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1499184/posts
The DUmocrat party is the party of slavery, sedition, subversion, socialism and surrender aligning themselves with America’s enemies.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/indianapolis_speech76.html
The Confederacy was far more centralized than was the Union government. “Look Away” by William C. Davis explains this well.
Huh? You contend, then, that the South was trying to usurp the North with Federal authority? Or, do you not understand what Federal Usurpation means?
“The JACKASS party is the same as it has always been.”
Primarily located in the Northeast, with a predilection for socialism and with the intention of federally usurping the power of state’s rights?
You need to study some history ...
"How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw – A Government that has abandoned all its powers – The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights – without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards – still you keep barriers – pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm youselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . "
The CSA government exercised much more control over the rebel states than the USA government exercised over the Union states.
If you think the Southern states of the CSA post victory(hypothetical of course) would put up with Federalism as played out during the war you are sadly mistaken. A lot of leeway was given to the Davis Administration due to desperate times.
Love Patrick Henry. One of his houses is about 10 miles form my house.
Hahahahaha....you are comparing the exercise of governmental control over states who are willing members to the total domination of those who wished to leave? REALLY? Hahahahaha...who are you, sir? Surely you can not really be writing a book on this subject? Are you mad?
Tell me, sir, in this gentle Northern Republican fictional government of yours, were there draft riots when the people found out about the Northern agenda?
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union...still a union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets,and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charms for me. If the Union is dissolved and the Government dispersed I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people and, save in defense, will draw my sword no more." - Gen. Robert E. Lee
I could not be more in agreement with the above. I will trouble you to explain this half-assed non-answer of yours to the issue of usurpation or just go away and leave me alone. You are defenseless in an argument on this subject, that much is clear. You are an author of a blog and a book that treats this period of our history? It is like finding Pee Wee Herman authoring a book on manliness.
By the way, Marse Robert freed his slaves in 1962. The Great and Wonderful Grant finally got around to freeing his 1n 1865. You ignore this. I mention again because of your non-sequitir and stubborn clinging to the fallacy of the war being a single issue; lavery.
If that is the core of your "BOOK" I suggest you write a pamphlet; you are leaving out the other issues. As for your asinine assertion that the North was somehow benevolent remember this; no more barbaric campaign has ever been waged in America than that of the Devil Sherman:
Source: William T. Sherman, Personal Memoirs of Gen'l W. T. Sherman (written by himself, with an appendix, bringing his life down to its closing scenes, also a personal tribute and critiques of the memoirs, by Hon. James G. Blaine), Volumes I and II, Fourth Edition, revised, corrected, and complete; Charles L. Webster & Co., New York, 1892.
"I propose that we break up the railroad from Chattanooga forward, and that we strike out with our wagons for Milledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless for us to occupy it; but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people, will cripple their military resources. By attempting to hold the roads, we will lose a thousand men each month, and will gain no result. I can make this march, and make Georgia howl!" --from a telegram, dated 9 Oct 1864, from W.T. Sherman to U.S. Grant. Vol II, p. 152
Hahahahaha....you are comparing the exercise of governmental control over states who are willing members to the total domination of those who wished to leave? REALLY? Hahahahaha...who are you, sir? Surely you can not really be writing a book on this subject? Are you mad?
Tell me, sir, in this gentle Northern Republican fictional government of yours, were there draft riots when the people found out about the Northern agenda?
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union...still a union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets,and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charms for me. If the Union is dissolved and the Government dispersed I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people and, save in defense, will draw my sword no more." - Gen. Robert E. Lee
I could not be more in agreement with the above. I will trouble you to explain this half-assed non-answer of yours to the issue of usurpation or just go away and leave me alone. You are defenseless in an argument on this subject, that much is clear. You are an author of a blog and a book that treats this period of our history? It is like finding Pee Wee Herman authoring a book on manliness.
By the way, Marse Robert freed his slaves in 1962. The Great and Wonderful Grant finally got around to freeing his 1n 1865. You ignore this. I mention again because of your non-sequitir and stubborn clinging to the fallacy of the war being a single issue; lavery.
If that is the core of your "BOOK" I suggest you write a pamphlet; you are leaving out the other issues. As for your asinine assertion that the North was somehow benevolent remember this; no more barbaric campaign has ever been waged in America than that of the Devil Sherman:
Source: William T. Sherman, Personal Memoirs of Gen'l W. T. Sherman (written by himself, with an appendix, bringing his life down to its closing scenes, also a personal tribute and critiques of the memoirs, by Hon. James G. Blaine), Volumes I and II, Fourth Edition, revised, corrected, and complete; Charles L. Webster & Co., New York, 1892.
"I propose that we break up the railroad from Chattanooga forward, and that we strike out with our wagons for Milledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless for us to occupy it; but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people, will cripple their military resources. By attempting to hold the roads, we will lose a thousand men each month, and will gain no result. I can make this march, and make Georgia howl!" --from a telegram, dated 9 Oct 1864, from W.T. Sherman to U.S. Grant. Vol II, p. 152
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.