Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
What principle was established other than "If you have the power, you can rule over others" ?
Bloodshed for power. Bloodshed to continue ruling. That's the lesson of the Civil War.
“Massachusetts was the first colony in New England with slave ownership and was a center for the slave trade throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. No legislation was passed that abolished slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 was ratified by the state. Instead, the practice of slavery was ended through case law; and as an institution it died out in the late 18th century through judicial actions litigated on behalf of slaves seeking manumission. These court cases, starting in 1781, heard arguments contending that slavery was a violation of Christian principles and also a violation of the constitution of the commonwealth. 1783 saw additional high-profile court cases that began a general trend of slaves winning their emancipation on a case-by-case basis through lawsuit. As slavery dwindled in the last decade of the 18th century in Massachusetts, many of the instances where it remained, the slaveholders sometimes applied semantics of a name change to indentured servitude to maintain their property. The 1790 federal census, however, listed no slaves. Massachusetts was a center for the abolition movement in the 19th century.” Wikipedia
Are you perhaps on the prod with your “13 Original Slave States” b*llsh*t? You have become lame, tedious and predictable. And another thing; with your George Washington and Abraham Lincoln trashing and bashing, I think you are on the wrong website. Sod off, mate. Go polish your bollix and stop playing the fool here. You are an embarrassment.
Obtuse again. I wish you could have been around to tell the Confederate troops that they were "weaker men" than the Yankees. See what they would have done to you.
You can't think of every war in terms of victimization. We didn't victimize the Germans or the Japanese because we conquered them. Jefferson Davis in 1861 wasn't a poor victim of the evil Yankees. He was a powerful player who gambled and eventually lost.
What principle was established other than "If you have the power, you can rule over others" ?
Yet millions of people were freed in the Civil War. And that "principle" had been established long before the Civil War. Ask the Indians or the slaves. The Mexicans and Mormons might have had something to say about it as well. And millions of people around the world living under slavery or feudalism or despotism wouldn't have seen in our Civil War the beginning of some age of arbitrary rule. Quite the opposite. That's a big reason why so many of them came here.
Bloodshed for power. Bloodshed to continue ruling. That's the lesson of the Civil War.
The lesson of the Civil War was "Don't be a fool and go to war with those who were once your countrymen for 'light and transient causes'; if you've got a representative government, you work within it to achieve your ends or a workable compromise, rather than treat your fellow citizens as enemies." That won't fit on a bumper sticker, but most true lessons won't.
My great grand pop was there. Thanks for the post.
Clearly that doesn't work. It's not working now that is painfully obvious.
The South never threatened to conquer the North, that thought is preposterous now as it was then. A dividing cell doesn't destroy the original cell. Think of the secession in 1861 as cell division.
“You have become lame, tedious and predictable. And another thing; with your George Washington and Abraham Lincoln trashing and bashing, I think you are on the wrong website. Sod off, mate. Go polish your bollix and stop playing the fool here. You are an embarrassment.”
I leap to the conclusion you are sensitive about slave ownership in Massachusetts and the state’s representatives voting to include slavery in the constitution of the United States.
If you don’t want word to get around, just tell me.
There was no act making slavery legal in the US. Some state laws allowed slavery. Others didn't. You seem to be saying that the Constitution permanently committed the country to keeping slavery and giving it every advantage. It didn't. Concessions given to slaveowners were not an endorsement of its existence and value or a guarantee that it wouldn't ever be challenged.
If any state "freed" the slave, that state was in violation of Article IV, section 2. Article IV, section 2 does not have an exception clause. It specifically says that no state law can free a slave held by the laws of another state.
It says nothing of the sort.
How do you get around article IV, section 2?
Uh ... by reading it?
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The key word is "escaping" I don't see anything in there that says that you can bring your slaves to another state, be resident in that state, keep and work your slaves and then bring them back to your slave state with you.
If you move to another state, you have to respect and obey its laws, and if those laws forbid slavery you are in violation of the laws. That state may not choose to take away your slaves, but they have the right to sue, and courts have every right to recognize their freedom.
Maybe you are referring to this part:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
That does not mean that Wisconsin has to give visiting South Carolinians the "rights" Carolinians claim for themselves at home. It means it has to grant those Carolinians the rights that Wisconsiners have.
Apparently, Wisconsin will have to allow a slaveowner to take slaves through the state, but if the slaveowner establishes residence in the state, he can't remain the owner of slaves without making a mockery of states rights and the Constitution.
I did find your reference to Asperger's, but won't quote it here. It's not an advantage to be on the spectrum. Trust me. You have no idea how negatively people react to those who are too obsessional, narrowly focused, and fanatical.
But let's stop with the bullsh*t. You give me an example of how a state can free a slave held by the laws of another state in such a manner that it doesn't violate Article IV, section 2.”
Um. George Washington made darn sure that he didn’t bring any of his slaves into Pennsylvania for longer than six months. Otherwise they would have become free under the Laws of the State of Pennsylvania. He was advised on this matter by his own Attorney General who had the first hand experience of having his own slaves freed by the Laws of the State of Pennsylvania when he kept them there for longer than six months. I would venture to guess that George Washington had a better perspective on Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 than you.
By all means keep “leaping to conclusions”. I will just picture a pretty ballerina.
Going forward I will attempt to imbue your social identity with a sense of gravitas.
The reason: partly because I like you and partly because it does neither me nor you any good for you to continue playing Tadpole to Brother Joe's Frog Millhouse.
I see the statement has been made: “You seem to be saying that the Constitution permanently committed the country to keeping slavery and giving it every advantage.”
The fact is, from the beginning it was known the Constitution would only enshrine slavery as long as the Constitution remained unaltered.
Everyone knew it could be legally and peacefully altered to abolish slavery using the amendment process.
Later some would advocate abolishing slavery by using bayonets to overthrow the constitution’s pro-slavery provisions. Of course, that could only be done after 600,000 men were safely buried.
“There you were referring to the U.S. as the “former owners” implying that change of ownership had taken place.”
Under the concept of eminent domain the Sovereign has a right to take possession of any property within its jurisdiction - and to negotiate the price afterward.
The South offered to negotiate this on the front end, and any other U.S. government claims, in a good faith attempt to avoid war.
Remember, states are the parents. States create counties. States create cities.
And states created the federal government. You seem to have forgotten that, as has Washington D.C.
“There you were referring to the U.S. as the “former owners” implying that change of ownership had taken place.”
Under the concept of eminent domain the Sovereign has a right to take possession of any property within its jurisdiction - and to negotiate the price afterward.
The South offered to negotiate this on the front end, and any other U.S. government claims, in a good faith attempt to avoid war.
Remember, states are the parents. States create counties. States create cities.
And states created the federal government. You seem to have forgotten that, as has Washington D.C.
Boy. Believe it or not dude but I’m always willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but you really are as stupid as many here say you are. The Nazis lost, the Jews survived. Jewish Americans served in the US armed forces to defeat the Nazis and Jewish resistance fighters fought against the Nazis. Blacks fought in the Union Army for their freedom. As usual your analogies are skewered. What I posted is a very, very condensed version of the events of 1861 to 1865 and the outcome .
Do you deny it?
In what universe? Ignoring for the moment that eminent domain allows government to take private property for public use, doesn't the Constitution require the government to pay "just compensation"? Doesn't any rule of law require payment first and then possession? How can taking first and negotiating and paying later be legal?
The South offered to negotiate this on the front end, and any other U.S. government claims, in a good faith attempt to avoid war.
Saying, for the sake of argument, that your statement is true, how could they legally take Sumter without compensation or without the agreement of the owner even if that owner didn't want to sell? What rule of law allowed for that?
Remember, states are the parents. States create counties. States create cities.
Since the federal government creates states then does that make them the super parent? Does super parent trump parent?
And states created the federal government. You seem to have forgotten that, as has Washington D.C.
Not forgotten. But you seem to forget that for the majority of the Confederate states it was the other way around, wasn't it?
Except for the fact that southern states that rebelled sent representatives to other states to try and get them to rebel. And that, good sir, is plain old fashioned treason.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that makes secession an act of treason, it is silent on the subject. And in addition to that fact Jeff Davis DEMANDED a trial after the war and was not granted one. Do you know why?
“I don’t have to make personal attacks on the guy. He’s capable of making himself look like an *** all on his own.”
This is a personal attack. Will you deny that too?
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.