Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
Your attempt at a comeback is comical and sad at the same time. Game. Over.
But the secessionists feared that Lincoln and the Republicans would weaken slavery and that would mean its eventual abolition. Also, notice the word “primary.” It means that Lincoln wasn’t opposed to doing things that would weaken “the slave power” if those things didn’t threaten the union.
Again you conflated the Institution of slavery with the individual slave.
The States didn’t fear that the Republicans and Lincoln (who ran on the Whig ticket) AND the Northern Demoncraps would weaken slavery. They feared their livelihoods and their rights were being taken from them by the Federal Government. The Institution of Slavery was the economic factor of slavery, the money.
To think of it this way and to relate to what is going on today, we look at the Gig Economy. The Gig Economy includes anyone who is a contractor for someone else (trying to keep this simple). This would be contractors for hire such as freelancers, wedding planner, mobile disc jockeys, reporters, IT consultants etc. Basically anyone who has a 1099 status. (Now I am not saying these people are slaves I am trying to make a corollary here so that you understand the difference between the Institution of Slavery and Slavery.) The employers are the ones who pay the 1099 Gig worker, even though they are not direct employees of the employer. Thus, the employer does have to include them in certain aspects of the company like benefits etc.
Now California recently passed a law that within its borders, as it has the right to do via Sovereign State’s Rights, that they do not want the Gig economy anymore. And have stated in the law that all 1099 employees must be bonafide employee of the employer and can no longer be a 1099 contractor. California has this right because the inherent rights given by the Constitution on regulating industries within its borders. Other states have balked at this and said they do not want to do this. So in steps the Federal Government trying to pass legislation that in each and every state there will be no more Gig Economy. This violates the State Sovereignty in which the Federal Government has stepped in to stop the gig economy. Meaning no longer can any one be a freelancer anymore they must be beholden to the employer. This usurps State’s Rights.
To corollate this to the Institution of Slavery that would be the Gig Economy and the individual slaves would be the 1099 employees.
Let me be clear here for brevity’s sake that I am not saying a 1099 employee is a slave to the company that has hired them to (even though sometimes it feels like it). The Gig Economy is the economic factor of the Institution of the Gig Economy and the 1099 employees are the moral factor of the Gig Economy. Whether it is right for a company to hire a 1099 contractor/employee is not the issue in this case.
Opponents of the Federal legislation for doing away with the gig economy say the Federal Government cannot do this because each individual state is Sovereign and has individual authority to determine how the gig economy will be run in their state. The Southern States argued this very same concept that the Federal Government is overstepping its Constitutional authority when it interferes with the institutions the states have the inherent right to govern. It is not about slavery and people are quick to say the Secessionists wrote this and that and it is about slavery. IF you go on to read the reason why the Secessionists use slavery as the focal point, it all boils down to intrastate commerce - the money, which is the Institution of Slavery not that slavery was right or wrong. They may have gone to justify why it was right but in the end the Secessionists did not fear the weaking of slavery but the weakening and if not abolishment of said institution.
Something nobody ever goes into was what happened to the plantations after the Civil War. Some plantations were sold for unpaid taxes or were sold to carpetbaggers (people from the North who came to the South). Sometimes the plantation owners would sell or give parcels to former slaves. This had major consequences for plantation owners who in the end was not at fault for losing their business because something that was once legal had now become illegal. They, the plantation owners, on the flip side were responsible for the rough treatment and their handling of the slaves like chattel. Where is their reparations?
It is funny and ironic the plantation owners were in business to make a profit and yes they did it off the back of the slaves. However, these owners did so in a legal manner, right or wrong, and never did they deserve to lose all they worked so hard for. If a Republican owned a business that was legal then lost it because how they ran their business became illegal, that would piss a lot of Republicans off. Why are people crying for states to secede from the Union today? Not in 1860, in 2020? The Federal Government is encroaching on the rights of the states to hold elections and the demoncraps.
Now to the issue of why demoncraps were in power all but 8 years since Jackson, this was because slave states could count, albeit not fully, their slaves as constituents which was written into the Constitution. Since the slave owning states counted the slaves this give the Demoncraps more power in DC until the Civil War.
So when you talk about slavery you are talking about the morality of owning a slave. When you talk about the Institution of Slavery, you are talking about the economic factor brought by the owning of slaves. See why the two are easily conflatd. The latter has no morality associated with it as it is based purely on the profits and losses that is gained by running a plantation/farm or other such measure.
Memoirs of Admiral Porter. He wrote two of them. Here is another. (Go to page 21) There are other sources that confirm he hand carried secret orders for himself and for Captain Mercer directly from Lincoln. The order to Captain Mercer has been made public. Porter never released the order from Lincoln, which makes me think it was pretty bad.
What would have Davis done with Pensacola. It was fully manned, equipped, and armed.
Don't know. I guess it would have depended on how much of a disruption it was.
He could Let a Foreign power occupy a portion of the Confederate States of America or take action to eliminate that situation.
Well they allowed that for 4 months in the case of Sumter, so they may have allowed it longer for Pickens. Who knows? Doesn't really matter. Lincoln was going to have his war.
Read what Porter did in his own memoirs from the links I supplied to you. It is hard to conclude anything other than that Porter was deliberately trying to start a war in Pensacola.
Their primary industry was making ships and using ships, so they were pretty much constrained to carrying some kind of cargo, and of course their cargo was human beings.
Had they decided they could work hard and prosper on their own, then the need for slaves would have been greatly reduced.
You should read George Washington's memoirs of his usage of slaves. He lamented that it was difficult to find tasks for them to do that were worth the cost to him of keeping them. This was the reality in 1790, not just for him, but for most of them. Eli Whitney changed all that.
Lincoln and the Republicans were open to plans for gradual, compensated imagination and proposed such plans in Congress. Russia was working out similar plans to end serfdom at about the same time. The American slaveowners weren't interested in getting money in exchange for giving up their slaves. The reasons were many and complicated. But it's true that they had power and control and regarded themselves as righteous and didn't want to lose any of that.
But, no, it didn't have to end with poverty and humiliation, unless the loss of power was in itself humiliating. I should note, though, that in the end, things didn't work out well in Russia either. Neither the serfs or the former serf holders were satisfied.
You keep repeating that assertion because that's what you have been taught to believe all your life. I was taught to believe that too, but I started questioning that theory when I started noticing bits and pieces of history that didn't make any sense in the context of what they had told me to believe. (Like the Corwin Amendment.)
Did the Southern States not have representation in government as did the colonies?
The declaration does not declare that "representation" is sufficient to ban people from exercising the God given right to have independence. It says that people can have independence if they want it.
Representation does a people no good if it cannot protect them from the majority which wishes to exploit them. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, and the sheep's "representation" will do it no good at all.
“The US was going to preserve slavery indefinitely,”
Really? Ever heard of the 13th Amendment?
Yes, I have heard of the original 13th amendment. It proposed to extend protection of slavery in the US forever. It passed both houses of congress with mostly Republican support, and was ratified by five Northern states. Lincoln's secretary of state William Seward assured everyone that it would be ratified by New York as well, and then all the satellite states would have fallen in line.
This amendment was intended to preserve slavery in the United States of America. Lincoln continuously stated that he had no power to abolish slavery, and therefore slavery would have continued in the United States of America for at least another half century, even without the passage of the Corwin Amendment.
A desperate attempt to prevent the Civil War when it was obvious that war was coming.
There was no war proposed at the time the Corwin Amendment passed both houses of Congress mainly with Republican votes and 5 northern states ratified it. Therefore your claim that it was intended to prevent "war" is incorrect. It's intent was to convince the Southern states not to secede.
Funny, no one tried the line that "You can't secede because that's illegal!" routine on them. They tried to persuade them not to secede with this Amendment, but it didn't work. War wasn't in the cards until Lincoln decided he was going to start one with his war fleet.
And all the South Carolina militia that were mobilized and the artillery positioned to threaten Fort Moultrie wasn’t hostile?
Artillery wasn't brought up to threaten Anderson until *AFTER* Anderson committed several belligerent and violent acts against the confederates. *THEN* they brought up artillery.
If you read Abner Doubleday's account of the events, he says the locals cat called and mocked them, but offered no real confrontation or threat.
...that had dared defy the corruptocracy running Washington DC for the betterment of the Northeastern elites who are still running it today.
You’re nuts, plain and simple.
Primary source of all news liars is New York. The January 6th protests were an "Insurrection!" People being held in solitary confinement for six months on phony trumped up charges. Joe Biden got the most votes of any president in American history. Black people are constantly being murdered by the police.
Have you even been watching the news for the last several months?
If you haven't figured out where these lies are coming from, and why they are coming, then you don't have a grasp of what is going on nowadays.
If you are going to argue with me, you need to at least get the facts straight. Should I bother providing you with a link? Are you unable to look up the facts yourself?
Stop repeating crap people have told you. Look up the truth yourself.
Leaving the Corwin Amendment completely out of the picture, in 1860 there were 33 states. 15 of those states were slave states. To abolish slavery would have required a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths of all the states to pass it.
In a Union of 33 states, it would require 25 states to vote in favor of an amendment to pass it.
33-15 = 18 states in favor of abolishing slavery. The amendment fails massively.
But wait! There's more!
In order to override the votes of 15 states, we would have to have a union in which 15 states represents 25% of the vote. It would require a Union of 60 states with 45 states voting to abolish slavery, while the 15 voted to keep it.
We still do not yet have a Union of 60 states. We only have 50. It was therefore literally impossible to legally abolish slavery in the United States.
So when I tell you that slavery would have continued indefinitely in the United States, I am telling you the truth, not some made up bullsh*t that makes me feel good because I like the way it sounds.
So long as the Southern states remained in the United States, slavery would have been fully preserved by the laws of the United States.
If necessary, I can show you the math again, but it's pretty simple, and I think you can understand it.
BZZZZZZZTTTT!!!
The contestant is incorrect!
The North was running up the bills, the South was paying for them. Even BroJoeK has admitted that at least 50% of US revenue came from Southern trade. Once I got him to even admit it was as high as 60%.
1/4th the population paying 50% of the bills (really it's 73%) while the other 3/4ths of the population pays only 50% of the bills?
...when the husband tried to keep one last piece of property she grabs a shot gun and shoots at him.
A gunshot is fatal. What, pray tell, did the South ever do that could be compared with being fatal to the North? You are excessively and massively over exaggerating the significance of Fort Sumter by comparing it to a life ending event. Fort Sumter is more akin to a slap. It never had a chance of seriously hurting the North other than ego.
And you think my analogies are bad?
All the economic data for that time period backs it up. You just don't want it to be true, because it puts a different light on the relationship between the North and the South.
Kinda like that other race obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois. Obama did everything he could to undermine the rule of law regarding things he disagreed with. Lincoln could have been counted on to manipulate enforcement (In the manner that Antifa burning buildings, cars and assaulting people in Washington DC doesn't get prosecuted, but standing on the grounds does) to favor his preferred outcome.
Eisenhower didn't agree with the Supreme court decision forcing that college to accept black students, but he sent troops there to ensure the rule of law would be enforced. He did not try to undermine the rule of law through the levers of government power.
I suspect he also appointed judges who enforced the desegregation orders. That was what segregationists feared in his day and what slaveowners feared a century before.
Ike was very much following in Lincoln's footsteps, as was recognized at the time.
Lincoln even signed an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the supreme court, but thankfully his federal marshal, body guard and friend, chose not to enforce it.
Lincoln was the closest thing to a dictator this nation has ever seen.
Eisenhower enforced a court decision with which he did not agree. Lincoln simply ignored court decisions with which he disagreed, and then tried to arrest a judge that gave him a court decision with which he disagreed.
Eisenhower was nothing like Lincoln.
Clearly Johnny Reb was not as confident that slavery would always be legal. They said otherwise in their secession documents.
I’m game. Who gave the order, Abe Lincoln?
There are other sources that confirm he hand carried secret orders for himself.
Reading the link you gave, Porter could have been referring to the original orders signed by Lincoln. These orders were in fact “confidential” and signed by the President. It you have sources, other than Porter, for “secret orders by Lincoln to Porter” would appreciate links to them.
Their primary industry was making ships and using ships, so they were pretty much constrained to carrying some kind of cargo
?
“ To abolish slavery would have required a constitutional amendment. ”
Hmmm, it had already been outlawed in several states without one. How was that possible?
It's true that Ike didn't wholly support the desegregation decisions. He didn't even talk much about them for three years, but when Governor Faubus directly challenged federal authority, Ike called out the National Guard. In this too, he was following in Lincoln's footsteps. People at the time -- both those who supported him and those who didnt-- recognized that.
The American slaveowners weren’t interested in getting money in exchange for giving up their slaves.
How idiotic does one have to be to see this statement is full of horse malarkey. The slaveowners din’t want compensation for their slaves, they wanted to remain in business and produce a good. It’s all they have wanted because that is where the money was. Your drawn out inference was wrong. A plantation owner, who also happened to be a slave owner as the slaves were his labor force, wanted to produce and manufacture a good to sell in an open market to produce a profit. That is all they wanted. It took vast amounts of land to do that and it took vast amounts of labor to sow and plant those fields. You want an analogy, the demoncraps are importing America’s next slave labor force. Although no one calls them slaves, they call them cheap immigrated labor. Something most people on this board have been fighting against for a very long time. Low wages, poor living conditions are exactly what the plantation owners of the 1800s provided to the slave. Only difference is the slaves were not free. If you think this is another wrong analogy, you would be wrong because I have seen the conditions these cheap immigrated laborers work and live in. Sure they have four walls, a roof and a cot but so did the slaves. Just because you refuse to see the corrollation between what was happening in this country in the 1800s and what is happening in this country today, doesn’t mean it is wrong. Open up your eyes. Or not it is your choice. But you better make a choice soon because America of today is actually repeating the history of the 1800s, only the names and dates have changed. Demoncraps have never let go of the loss of the Civil War and they have worked very hard to get here. How hard will you capitulate to the repeated history of the 1800s?
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.