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.
Nope. You’re sadly mistaken.
There is no “right to independence”. There is a God-given right to fight for your survival. It’s not the same thing - not even close.
Your God-given rights extend to standing up to oppression - but they do not and cannot guarantee any outcome. Freedom, Liberty, and Independence are all laudable goals but not guaranteed rights.
Brother Joe has posted a Castro-length intertextual analysis of this.
The best way to describe his writings: “I have no idea where BroJoeK got his information from but I suspect it's badly exaggerating the situation.”
Are you sure you want to stake your position on the premise that the original 13 slave states were not serious about preventing slave rebellions, or that they were unaware of the British mischief?
That argument is not even integral to your claim that Lincoln had a right to kill 600,000.
And part of the normal existence in both 1776 and 1861.
No threat where it existed. The Republicans in Congress would do what they could to prevent it from spreading. That's the threat that motivated the South to rebel and start their war.
This claim doesn't survive much scrutiny. Slavery couldn't spread to any appreciable degree to any of the territories which people claim are at the root of this whole dispute. Apart from Salt Mining in Illinois by "rented" slaves, not actual "slave slaves", there doesn't seem to have been much opportunity in the territories to apply larger numbers of forced labor such as would be used for plantation farming.
So if it was not practical, what was it about then? The evidence of which I am aware keeps getting bigger that it was about control of congress. The Northern coalition of states had managed to rig the process so that they could control the flow of money from the trade producing Southern states, and the only way they could keep this control was by preventing any other slave states from being created.
Any new slave states would likely add to the Southern coalition in Congress, and make it possible to repeal laws that were then funneling money into New York. Therefore it was imperative that they use all the means at their disposal to prevent this from happening, because the New York coalition was making quite a lot of money off of the existing system, and so they wanted it to continue just as it was.
They created this "Free Soil" party, which was one of the most powerful organizations dedicated to keeping slavery out of the Territories where it couldn't be effectively employed anyways. Oddly enough, the headquarters of this organization which intended to keep Slavery out of Kansas or Nebraska was in New York. It would have been less obvious what it was about had they located it in Chicago, which is actually somewhat near the area for which they claimed to be concerned about the welfare of slaves.
The "Free Soil" party was like "MoveOn.org". It was an astroturf organization designed to advance the interests of Wealthy Liberals in New York, but to appear like it was some sort of grass roots organization. Oh sure, it had it's Liberal Kooks that dearly believed in it's message, but so do modern Liberal astro turf organizations.
And you keep forgetting that had the South not started the war no armies would have been sent anywhere to subjugate anyone.
And you keep repeating your claim that isn't supported by objective analysis of the facts. Every member of Lincoln's cabinet (save one) said he would start a war if he did what he did in fact do. Major Anderson also said his act would start a war.
Now you come along and dismiss all of that and say the South started it, even though this fundamentally disagrees with the assessment of the Northern Cabinet. Why do you do this? Because that's what you want to believe, and so that's what you've made up your mind to believe.
Having announced their secession and having adopted a constitution that protected slavery far more than the U.S. Constitution did,
Well now, see? Here is where you have an incorrect understanding of how deeply the US constitution protected slavery. An honest reading of it concludes that it was virtually impossible to get rid of slavery, even in Northern States because of that Article IV, section 2 clause. When the Slave Owning states (which were the vast majority in 1789) signed on to the Constitution deal, they saw that clause as providing significant protection to the institution. What they did not count on was Liberal states embarking on this "living constitution" crap where they interpret things differently from what the words actually say.
The "free" states had gotten themselves into the habit of ignoring Article IV, Section 2, and ignoring it's ramifications as well, and had become like modern "Sanctuary Cities" in their thwarting of Federal law. I believe it was Justice Story that gave them cover for ignoring Federal Laws, and so they did. They would simply interpret Article IV as narrowly as possible to give them legal cover to do what they wanted to do anyway, which was to ignore it.
I believe it is for this reason that the Confederate Constitution (mostly copied from the US Constitution) made it clear and explicit so that this trick of ignoring it's meaning could not occur again.
He also said he was going to deliver the mail, and I guess didn't give a F** what the South had to say about that either.
I don't think "delivering the mail" was quite as significant in his estimation as collecting the money which he used to run his government and fund his "Mercantilism" subsidies (bribe money) for favored industries, like the Railroads for which he had been working all those years.
I don't feel embarrassed at all.
Clearly, but we are embarrassed for you.
But stupid enough to launch an armed rebellion that you claim was totally unnecessary.
Let me quote Salmon P Chase. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion."
Did he clear that up for you? Oddly enough, they didn't bring those leaders to trial for "rebellion."
For about two thirds of the population at least.
And where did you get that fraction? (so as to make it into a requirement) Lincoln said it only takes a majority, but what does he know about independence?
And yet the South did. And paid a price for it.
This is why I find you tedious. You keep spouting your propaganda, even when it's refuted by both logic and facts. Again, Salmon P Chase's statement alone should be reasonable proof for rational people, and there is more than that to illustrate that "secession isn't rebellion", but you have to believe that which you wish to believe despite any contrary facts.
Of the first seven seceding states, four issued “Reasons for secession” documents.
1. 1st out, South Carolina (12/20/1860): mentioned no reasons other than slavery.
“On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government.
It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.”
2. 2nd Mississippi (1/9/1981) mentioned no reasons other than slavery.
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world.”
3. Florida (1/10/1861) listed no reasons period.
4. Alabama (1/11/1861) Ordnance of Secession mentions only slavery.
“Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions...”
5. Georgia (1/19/1861) Reasons for Secession focuses primarily on slavery and does not mention either tariffs or taxes, but does complain about bounties for fishing smacks and other such Northern “aggrandizements”.
“A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin.
It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”
6. Louisiana (1/26/1861) listed no reasons period.
7. Texas (2/18/1861) focused primarily on slavery but does also complain, saying Secretary of war Jefferson Davis’ new army brigades (1856 — R.E. Lee 2nd in command) sent to protect Texans against “Indian savages” and Mexican “banditti” did a lousy job of it.
Texans said nothing about taxes, tariffs or bounties to northern industries.
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color — a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. “
There was nothing in Dunsmore's proclamation advocating a "massive slave revolt" and none occurred. This over-reaction and exaggeration reminds me of what you all say about the Emancipation Proclamation.
For all we know, it may very well have unnerved people in the North and thereby triggered the preference cascade that convinced them to get rid of it.
Sure. A proclamation issued 6 months after Lexington and Concord triggered the American Revolution. I'm sure that somehow that makes sense to you.
You are whistling past the graveyard here. Lord Dunmore's proclamation is clearly the source of that line in the Declaration of Independence. You don't want to acknowledge this because it is another one of those inconvenient facts (such as Lincoln urging passage of the Corwin Amendment) that makes it hard to square with your claims about what happened.
It likely was. But even with that I don't see how that supports jeffersondem's claim that the colonist rebelled to protect their slavery.
Actually I feel confident that your claim that slavery was a motivation for the Founding Fathers is without any base in fact and I think I'll stick with it.
If there is no God given right to Independence, there is no God given right to freedom for slaves either, for they are both exactly two sides of the same coin.
Our rights either descend from God, or they descend from the indulgences of men, and if they descend from the indulgences of men, then the desire to put other men in chains is just another such indulgence.
I prefer to believe in an objective right and wrong, not a subjective one, thus rights descended from God are a necessity.
Freedom, Liberty, and Independence are all laudable goals but not guaranteed rights.
In my belief system, slaves still have rights given by God, even though men are refusing to recognize their rights. They do not disappear merely because Oppressors get an upper hand.
I can’t tell if you’re willfully ignorant or just stupid.
If you can’t discern the difference between right of opportunity and right of outcome then you are beyond help.
“In my belief system, slaves still have rights given by God”
What rights do you believe God gave slaves?
Well let's see. It starts out thusly:
The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
Sounds like they are complaining about violations of the US Constitution. Wasn't it to enforce the US Constitution that the North claims to have invaded?
Let's look at Alabama:
Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; therefore,
There is that violating the constitution of the United States again.
Georgie and Mississippi mention the "invasion" of another state, which I take to mean John Brown and his attack on Harper's ferry, and then the non punishment of those who set him up to do it.
They all mention Violations of the US Constitution, and I can see why they might have felt that way, because i've pointed out the same information myself.
But adding up your numbers, even if we accept your claim that "slavery" was the primary cause of their exodus, it still only leaves five states, out of a confederacy of 11.
Does it not strike you as peculiar that we should accept this notion of the minority speaking for the majority?
You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. (Which explains a lot.) I said that the Dumore Proclamation may have unnerved some people sufficiently that they decided to do away with slavery in their state. I said nothing about it triggering the revolution. That is all you.
It likely was. But even with that I don't see how that supports jeffersondem's claim that the colonist rebelled to protect their slavery.
They rebelled to protect everything about their way of life, of which that was also a part at that time in history. I consider it at that time, a lesser splinter component, but it was in there none the less.
Most of their complaint was about taxation. The only reason they wanted "representation" was so they could vote against the taxation, but I fear they would have learned what the Southerners later learned; That in a legislature in which you are a minority being taxed to support the majority, you will always be outvoted.
There is something fundamentally flawed with a democratic system in which a large coalition can take money from a minority because they have more votes. It's the old "two wolves and a sheep" adage made real.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
“Actually I feel confident that your claim that slavery was a motivation for the Founding Fathers is without any base in fact and I think I’ll stick with it.”
Then you need to verbalize, “The word slavery never appears in the DOI, therefore the original 13 slave states never ever etc. etc. etc. . .”
Reminds me: “The word slavery never appears in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the original 13 slave states never ever etc. etc. etc. . . “
Clever words written by a man that owned nearly 700 slaves over his lifetime.
Hypocritical yes, but true none the less. I have studied the issue of Natural Born Citizen quite extensively, and among the other things I learned about it, those words of Thomas Jefferson was the single biggest trigger for the abolition of slavery in the United States.
You may think "natural born citizen" and "slavery" are unrelated, but they are in fact intimately intertwined.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America.
“There is that violating the constitution of the United States again”.
To venture a guess the only violation of the Constitution they were interested in, was Article IV, section 2. If you have any other specific violations of the Constitution that upset these people, would appreciate seeing them.
Yeah, that one gets dragged out a lot too. Still just one man. I imagine the farmers who stood in a line to stop the invasion weren't thinking about slavery. They were thinking about how some @$$holes were coming into their state to force them to be subjugated by other @$$holes in Washington DC.
To venture a guess the only violation of the Constitution they were interested in, was Article IV, section 2. If you have any other specific violations of the Constitution that upset these people, would appreciate seeing them.
Because the way I understand it, all parts are equally valid law, and it is the duty of the government to enforce them all, even the parts they don't like.
Not in the least. Slave was a legal status in the United States. If you were born a slave, whether you were working as a slave or a slave that had been freed, you were not, nor could you ever become a citizen of the United States. That was the ruling by the Supreme Court in the 1857 Scott v. Sanford case. The only way around this decision was to amend the Constitution. This was done in XIV Amendment. Which, in so many word,s says, if you were born in the United States, you were a United States citizen.
“I imagine the farmers who stood in a line” marching up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg was thinking about his countrymen that owned 20 slaves or more didn’t have to be there standing beside him.
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.