Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
I’ll weigh in. (Just donned my flame-proof jammies) Everyone who led and/or fought for the Confederacy were traitors to the Constitution and the United States of America. Most of them were racists and were in favor of black slavery, including Robert E Lee.
Your comment in question was: “...and that no state (operating under the Confederate Constitution) could take any action to end the practice (of slavery). That is why the “State Rights” argument is pure Male Bovine Scat.” See your comment #100.
And when you were asked “Where in the Constitution does it deny the states’ right to amend the Constitution?” And where this comment of yours is supported: “... that no state could take any action to end the practice.”
You admitted that: “It does not.” See comment 220.
You used a pejorative (”male bovine scat”) to make your point which you then contradicted.
So, not statement of fact as you asserted.
“...your”? Were you referring to me?
You also said the following. “The militia didn't ‘walk in there to investigate.’ They walked in there to seize the property.”
The OR did not say that. Did you not see that I gave you the direct passage from the OR? Are you going to own that contradiction?
To directly quote the OR: “Just after retreat four gentlemen (three in military clothing) presented themselves at the gate, and demanded admittance as citizens of Florida and Alabama. They were told that by order no person was permitted to enter the fort. They then asked to see the commanding officer. I immediately went to the gate, accompanied by Lieutenant Gilman. Mr. Abert, engineer of the yard, presented Captain Randolph, Major Marks, and Lieutenant Rutledge. After a pause, Captain Randolph said, “We have been sent to demand a peaceable surrender of this fort by the governors of Florida and Alabama.” To which I replied that I was here under the orders of the President of the United States, and by direction of the General-in-Chief of the Army; that I recognized no right of any governor to demand a surrender of United States property; that my orders were distance and explicit. They immediately withdrew.”
Lieutenant A. J. SLEMMER,
You seem to now be posting information that is opinion, and not based in fact.
“To them (the South), slaves were mere property, just like your horse, your dog, or your mule.”
Your claim brings to mind what a foreign, independent observer at the London Spectator wrote about northern attitudes and actions surrounding the Emancipation Proclamation:
“The Government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict . . . the principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Principle doesn't always work in one direction. Consider how defeating racist regimes in WWII eventually made racist policies in the US untenable.
Also, look up all the stuff Britain was up to in the 19th century before you take any moral condemnations coming from London very seriously.
That is exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was all about. The Southern war effort depended on the existence of slavery. Without it the South would have folded a whole hell of a lot sooner than it did.
Not contradictory. The Confederate Constitution did not allow its states to take any action to limit slavery.
The “Pejorative” you refer to in a much earlier thread dealt with “States Rights”. The only use that the Confederate States of America had for states rights was when it was their rights being questioned. The Southern States went on bended knee and begged the Buchanan administration to enforce the fugitive slave act at the tip of army bayonets, if required. Not a strong statement of states rights. In the swoop of a pen all of the enlistment contracts between the Confederate States and their citizens were voided by the act of the Confederate Government. The Richmond Government forbid any state from selling cotton in 1862. All of these actions point to the fact that the issue of “States Rights” as the driving force for secession was as I claimed “male Bovine Scat”.
You referenced two pages from Vol 1. of OR. Here is the copy of the OR I'm looking at, pages 333 and 334 - Link That doesn't say what you say it says.
I found the text that PeaRidge cited here: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=353;size=100;page=root
I also found this on that page:
“We still labored on the 13th strengthening our position, and at night threw out sentinels beyond the glacis. Men stood at the guns as on the night previous. Night very dark and rainy. On the night of the 13th a body of some ten men were discovered evidently reconnoitering. A shot was fired by them, which was returned by the sergeant. They then retreated. Nothing more could be seen of the party that night.”
It wasn’t an organized assault upon the fort and it wasn’t the US firing upon enemy combatants. It especially wasn’t significant or first blood.
“Wrong and shamefully deceitful.”
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data?
No.
“That is exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was all about.”
Then we can forever dismiss the notion that the North was fighting for some moral cause.
The American Taliban will vote ‘Yes!’ as they help their leftist comrades tear down another Confederate monument.
“Everyone who led and/or fought for the Confederacy were traitors to the Constitution and the United States of America. Most of them were racists and were in favor of black slavery, including Robert E Lee.”
Welcome and thank you for your contribution to the debate.
Someone said that President Lincoln was not really from Illinois but that he was born in Kentucky.
This person also said Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
Do you know if President Lincoln was a racist or not?
So you would expect Massachusetts to pass laws against slavery.
Guess what. They didn't.
I can see why you, as an anti-American, would say something stupid like that. Personally I prefer to forever dismiss you.
Still, it is regrettable that the North didn't pass, or at least attempt to pass, a constitutional amendment peacefully BEFORE the war to “free the slaves” and skip all the killings and destruction.
In saying that, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to those that say the North fought the war to “free the slaves” and not for the North's economic and political self-interest.
“I can see why you, as an anti-American, would say something stupid like that. Personally I prefer to forever dismiss you.”
Hatred is not becoming in a man. You should ditch yours, or at least try to disguise it.
Not hate - perhaps disgust. I’ll leave the subterfuge to you.
I’ve read several Lincoln biographies. His main priority was preserving the union. At one time he thought that returning blacks to Africa would be the right thing to do. He was very much troubled by slavery. I believe Lincoln was fundamentally a good and moral man. He tried to do what was best for the country and for both whites and blacks.
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.