Posted on 07/05/2015 3:24:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
No, you're wrong again. That's a bad habit with you.
No, I point out the axiomatic consequences of their own statements.
Again, the Union condoned Slavery for the five Union states throughout the war. They didn't invade to abolish slavery, they invaded to abolish independence.
You simply want to keep focusing on the Slavery, instead of the Union's indifference to it until it later became a war tactic, and then even later a political tactic.
How is anyone supposed to interpret this? You didn't care about slavery when the Union was doing it, but you make it a HUGE issue years after the war had been in progress for awhile.
You simply won't get the "We Invaded to Abolish slavery" fiction out of your head. Every point that is presented to you is rebutted with "Slavery bad. Slavery very bad. I don't like Slavery. Slavery bad. Did I mention Slavery Bad? I just want you to know that Slavery bad. "
Yes, we all know "slavery bad", but it isn't the reason the Union sent an army to fight. They sent an army to stop Independence, they did not send it to stop slavery.
What, he expected more rocks to get destroyed or something? Sending 35,000 men to invade others is hardly a "defensive" move. Some bold folk might even characterize it as "aggressive."
I’m not surprised that you have no concept of duty or honor.
When in Rome.
The Highest law of our land was the Declaration. It was the founding document. Our citizenship is counted from the day of it's signing. You cavalierly accept the violation of the primary principle upon which this nation was created, and you talk to me about duty or honor?
Your argument is "might makes right" and you talk about duty and honor?
Oh, now, you can't mean that. "Eternal Vigilance" is utterly convinced the primary purpose of the "Grand old Army of the Republic" was to abolish slavery, and it would be a total crime to disabuse him of this dearly cherished belief.
You should take that back. You should take that back and admit the invasion was sent for the purpose of freeing the slaves. You know it's true. Admit it.
You’re not that stupid - you play at stupid pretty darned well, but you can’t be that stupid....can you?
Go back and read my #391 - the only ones violating the spirit as well as the letter of that document were the slavers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3308080/posts?page=391#391
We didn’t have the consent of the English, no.
But we had a moral basis for the dissolution, unlike the Confederacy.
And so, God saw fit to move His providential hand on behalf of our arms.
Once again, you demonstrate your bad habit of putting words in the mouth of others.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Five Union states, 1/4th of the Union were also slavers, so there is enough moral outrage to go around.
The 13 Slave holding colonies had a right to leave the English Union. The 11 Slave holding States had the exact same right to leave the US Union.
You just don't want to accept this because you were raised to believe that they didn't have such a right, and besides, "Slavery!"
What so greatly empowers this revisionist history is an unawareness of the zeitgeist of that era. People simply cannot get over their need to apply modern ideas to old times. They can't think outside their own little box.
Their version of History is like the movie "A Knight's tale" in which modern(ish) Rock and Roll sets the mood for the story. No, it really wasn't like that.
The Average Union citizen, a sh*t did not give for the existence or continuance of Slavery in the South. What got them riled up was the outrage ginned up by the propaganda streaming out of Washington D.C. That and their draft notice.
Those five states didn’t go to war against the United States. The south could leave the union one of two ways - either negotiated with their partners or by waging war in which case all bets are off. They chose war.
And ruin.
Right. And the dictators in Richmond engaged in no propaganda. You betcha. They were pure as the driven snow.
/s
The 13 colonies all had slavery. What was their moral basis again? You know, those five words you keep reading out of the Declaration?
13 Slave holding Colonies vs the English Union which offered Freedom to the slaves. Which one was the morally superior in your "OMG! IT's all about Slavery!" calculus?
I put nothing in, I simply remove the blathering. I concentrate the essence of their point.
They chose to leave. They chose to take back their own property. They didn't kill anyone.
The Union chose to invade, and it chose to kill people.
You have a funny way of characterizing who chose what.
It's not a contest. You don't get a reward for being more wicked than the other guy.
Actually they killed a lot of people. it was in all the papers.
Final thought. Keep your history in sequence. Don't get things out of order. Make sure cause precedes effect.
Again, those are your words, not mine. You’re dishonest.
Now we see that even Obama would qualify for using Diogenes’ name.
As to your question, no treaty that I am aware of prohibited blockades of one's own ports. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was there any "law" that the US signed to that effect. But that does not exhaust your inquiry. As you may recall, prior to the War of Northern Aggression, Brittania ruled the waves. Just as Great Britain gave us the system of common law (made by judges ruling on actual cases and controversies). Likewise, the British admiralty had an interest in having naval controversies governed by a common law of the seas.
Since there was no constitutional authority to blockade what Dishonest Abe claimed were American ports, his declaration of blockade was illegal (see the 10th Amendment) and conferred absolutely NO AUTHORITY on anyone to stop or search any ships of any nation whatsoever.
There was an instructive incident involving a British mail ship plying the waters of the Carribean before heading home to England. On board HMS Trent were two important Confederate diplomats, Slidell and Mason, who had been appointed by Jefferson Davis to be ambassadors to Great Britain and France. They carried with them diplomatic pouches containing confidential documents. The US Navy under a Captain Wilkes (?) stopped the Trent, searched her, found Slidell and Mason and their diplomatic pouches, placed them under arrest and brought them to the brig at the Boston Navy Yard.
The diplomatic community of many nations exploded in response to such an unheard of interference with diplomats. The infant New York Slimes editorialized in admiration of Captain Wilkes. Lincoln called a cabinet meeting and asked the cabinet members present to vote on whether to free the diplomats and their pouches. All 8 cabinet members voted to keep them in jail. Lincoln disagreed and announced that by a vote of one in favor of their freedom and eight against they would be freed.
Lincoln also had no authority to close any port claimed to be American.
You made that part up, didn't you?
Lincoln also had no authority to close any port claimed to be American.
Lincoln had the authority to put down an insurrection. He did.
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.
