Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
“In never ceased to be part of The United States.” (sic)
It was Lincoln that made the Union the first Black Flag Motel for humans.
“You can check in, but you can’t check out.”
To many that sounds like the ideal form of government but after reading the first two million pages of the Federal Register, I question if the continued, unchecked concentration of power in Washington and those 13 surrounding counties is a good thing.
First one, huh? First time in recorded history one people waged rebellion against another? Really>
In a word, yes.
Well, that's a start.
Had the South won, the United States could have negotiated the Treaty of Richmond and received fair market value for their former properties.
Would they now? Why would they pay for something that you claim that they owned the moment of secession? Are you suggesting that the fort really did belong to the U.S. when the South bombarded it?
Or they could have negotiated the Treaty of Washington in 1861, received compensation, and skipped the war entirely
But Davis was having none of that, was he?
But skipping the war would not have resulted in the destruction of the North’s economic and political rivals in the South. And that destruction was a priority of the northern leaders that mattered.
So then why did the South start the war?
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
Fortunate for demojeff he wasn’t using it anyway...
Apparently not. (And, I think you mean “States”, not “humans”.)
Historian Henry Brooks Adams (grandson of "Slave-Power" theorist John Quincy Adams) explained that the Slave Power was a force for centralization.
"Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the slave power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.”
It was definitely in decline in all the states prior to the invention of the Cotton gin. The profits weren't enough to deal with the hassle, especially with the social opprobrium being leveled.
Cotton made the employment of slaves highly profitable. In areas outside of cotton production, it would have gone the way it was going prior to the invention of the cotton gin. It would naturally decline until it disappeared as it did in the Northern states where there was no great profits for the employment of slaves.
Those who they were appealing to, would have been more or less average American voters. A mixture of motives were naturally involved. But the idea that it was all about some elite holding on to power really doesn't fit the situation.
The modern Democrat party is a collection of elites who utilize the poor and the insane to further their power. It seems reasonable to me that a similar system was employed in that era as well. I've read that the "free soil party" was exactly this sort of creature.
More foolishness from you. Do not assume that "New York" always refers to New York City.
I think it is a reasonable point. Why in the world would the headquarters of an organization concerned about conditions in the territories be located in New York? Chicago would have made more sense, because it would have been closer to the actual area of interest, but over a thousand miles away in New York? How does that make any sense?
Some people say it was in Lawrence, Kansas.
Which would have made a helluvalot more sense.
"Virtually no history textbooks mention the fact that each Confederate state retained the right to abolish slavery within its borders, and that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states to the Confederacy. In his analysis of the Confederate Constitution, historian Forrest McDonald says the following:"
" All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy." (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
Slaves should not get uppity against their masters. Right?
Ah the traditionalist Confederate point of view gets aired once again.
You said this was the position of those daring to call someone "rebels." Who are they rebelling from if not their masters?
One does not "rebel" against an equal. One merely disassociates. Rebellion implies an inherent master/slave relationship.
That has proven to be rather accurate.
Nonsensical, even for you.
One does not "rebel" against an equal. One merely disassociates. Rebellion implies an inherent master/slave relationship.
Rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." That is an accurate description of what the South tried to do. Rebellion does not need master or slave, equal or inferior.
That has proven to be rather accurate.
It's a rather narrow definition. Who were the slaves in 1775 and who were the masters?
You are going out of your way to ignore the fact that someone is holding the whip hand.
Read it again. For the first time.
What you leave out is the growth of proslavery sentiment.
Slaveowners and their supporters were a lot more militant and convinced of slavery's rightness in the 1850s than they were in the 1780s.
Their political interests would have kept slavery alive, especially under a government as devoted to the survival of slavery as the Confederacy was.
If you've left the US because of slavery or are thinking about doing so, you aren't going to let slavery just wither and die.
Why in the world would the headquarters of an organization concerned about conditions in the territories be located in New York?
You haven't proved where the "headquarters" of the party was.
You haven't dealt with my objections to your theory.
There were real reasons why people in Western New York State joined the Free Soil Party and you haven't addressed any of them.
And the whole issue is a red herring.
If Virginians or South Carolinians cared about whether Kansas and Nebraska should be slave states, why shouldn't New Yorkers or Wisconsiners care about whether Kansas and Nebraska were free states?
Why are you caterwauling everyday about slights and affronts to slave owners and slave states if you aren't a slave owner and don't live in a slave state?
Why is it that everything you believe in is a bedrock principle and everything you don't believe in is a cynical conspiracy to pick your pocket?
That has proven to be complete twaddle.
Slaveowners and their supporters were a lot more militant and convinced of slavery's rightness in the 1850s than they were in the 1780s.
It has been my observation that when opinion is connected to money, the most lucrative opinion is considered to be the "right" one. Upton Sinclair put it this way:
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’
If you've left the US because of slavery or are thinking about doing so, you aren't going to let slavery just wither and die.
You will when the economics of it no longer work.
You haven't proved where the "headquarters" of the party was.
The party originated in New York after the state Democratic convention refused to endorse the Wilmot Proviso, a proposed law that would have banned slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico in the Mexican–American War.
There were real reasons why people in Western New York State joined the Free Soil Party and you haven't addressed any of them.
Why does it matter why people in New York State joined the Free Soil Party? At the very least they are busybodies involving themselves in other people's lands. The people who should have made up the free soil party (if it wasn't astroturf) should be the people living in Kansas and the western territories. Not people in New York.
If Virginians or South Carolinians cared about whether Kansas and Nebraska should be slave states, why shouldn't New Yorkers or Wisconsiners care about whether Kansas and Nebraska were free states?
One is a reaction to the other. If the first minded it's own business, the second wouldn't have been concerned. Restricting slavery in the territories was seen as a deliberate anti-constitutional violation of the Federal Compact. It was a renege on the deal. It was an end run around article IV, section 2. It was in fact "Living constitution" crap of which we have became so familiar from Liberals.
Here is John Calhoun addressing the point in 1850.
The legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three heads: The first is that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all the States as members of the federal Union--which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North. And the last is a system of political measures by which the original character of the government has been radically changed. . . .
Why are you caterwauling everyday about slights and affronts to slave owners and slave states if you aren't a slave owner and don't live in a slave state?
This is why. If you won't protect the constitutional rights of one group, we will all lose in the end. I asked Bull Snipe about the rule of law. What do you say about the rule of law?
That doesn't mean the party was "headquartered" in New York, or that it was founded in New York City, to represent New York City financial interests. State conventions were held in places like Utica, Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse, and reformist sentiment and opposition to the expansion of slavery were strong there.
One is a reaction to the other. If the first minded it's own business, the second wouldn't have been concerned. Restricting slavery in the territories was seen as a deliberate anti-constitutional violation of the Federal Compact. It was a renege on the deal.
"Reactions" usually go both ways. The deal -- the Federal Compact -- included the Northwest Ordinance, which was contemporaneous with the Constitution and reflected the views of the founders. Pro-slavery forces were trying to overturn the Ordinance (Dred Scott decision) and the Compromise of 1820. They were even trying to make state laws against slavery null and void. Free Soil was a response or a reaction to that aggression.
This is why. If you won't protect the constitutional rights of one group, we will all lose in the end.
Yeah, first they came for the slaves. You weren't a slave so you did nothing. You even turned them in. Then you started bitching about the rights of slave owners. Shameless!
Given that the system began as a coalition of 13 slave owning states, it is no great mystery as to why slave states had power, but slowly lost it. When they were in the majority, they could protect their right to own people under the US Constitution. But when they became a minority, this right was threatened.
Now you may not like the fact that they had this right, and I don't like the fact that they had this right, but the difference between you and I is i'm not going to pretend they didn't have it because it makes me feel good to believe that.
By the way, what is with the bolded part of your rant?
It is a quote. I almost always put quotes in italics, but in order to distinguish your quote from the subsequent quote, I put it in bold. The next quote after that was back in non bolded italics.
Is that your inner voice?
No, it's a quote, which I would have expected you to realize if you were quicker on the uptake.
To whomst do we attribute that?
To this guy right here, whom I had just found earlier today.
Read it again. For the first time.
It still says that you are attributing the "statist" position to the Confederacy that is clearly the property of the Lincoln government.
So you do not believe that Lincoln and the North was the master of the South? Their position clearly resembles: "Come here you runaway slave!"
So who held the whip hand in 1861?
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.