Posted on 09/19/2021 7:31:37 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Why? If was September 1862 and an armed rebellion was going on. Members of the Maryland legislature advocated joining that rebellion. What do you think should have happened? More to the point, if in September 1862 members of the South Carolina legislature advocated rejoining the Union what do you suppose would have happened to them?
You are a real state-ist thug.
“Not a very nice subject, treasonous secession and slave owing.”
I leap to the conclusion that you think advocating consent of the governed is treason, and that any people with a connection to human bondage are disqualified from self government.
I respect your opinion. But to be clear, are you making a reference to the first American revolution or the second?
“”It was claimed early by . . . Lost Causers the war would be fought to collect taxes.” Fixed it for you.”
Actually, the man said: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
A war started by Southern plutocrats and slave holders bent on maintaining an economic system based on the use of slave labor. A civil war isn't a ''revolution''. That's what Marxists and Democrats call it. The American Revolution was a breaking away from the tyrannical grip of the English monarchy. Abraham Lincoln was the duly elected president of The United States. King George was a British aristocrat granted ''the divine right'' to be a tyrant.
Not taking your meds, are you?
Doing what? Pointing out that in September 1861 Jefferson Davis and jeffersondem would be pleased with the course of the civil war Davis started at Fort Sumter.
First & foremost Davis got four new seceding Confederate states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas -- nearly doubling the Confederacy's population & military manpower.
Then Confederates successfully invaded Union New Mexico, winning both battles there, so far.
Confederates have made alliances with Indians in Union Oklahoma.
Confederate invasions of Union Missouri have produced major victories, including Wilson's Creek and Lexington.
In Kentucky, Confederate invaders have "now" won their first battle there.
In Virginia, Confederates have so far won every major battle and are "now" camped on the Potomac across from Washington, D.C..
Only in West Virginia has the Union defeated the Confederacy's most illustrious generals -- Jackson & Lee -- but that matter will have to wait until RE Lee fixes a small concern near Hatteras, North Carolina.
Now, in September 1861 a Confederate raid into St. Albans Vermont seems to be much on jeffersondem's mind, but it didn't happen until October, 1864, so is doubtful if Jefferson Davis was thinking about it "today".
Assuming, that is, a metaphysical distinction is possible between the mind of Jefferson Davis and jeffersondem...
“A war started by Southern plutocrats and slave holders bent on maintaining an economic system based on the use of slave labor.”
That is an interesting comment and prompts me to ask: does a country that allows legal slavery disqualify itself from the right of self-government. Would people who make up such a country be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I’m asking you this in the context of 6,000 years of human history. When answering, just use your own words.
correction: “relativism’’.
Professor, fhe War Between the States still, after 160 years brings out the vitriolic rhetoric and raw emotions as if today were September 22, 1861. (Autumn Equinox)
Jesus once said I desire scholarship, not emotional bloviating.
Incoming...
5.56mm
Why the very narrow focus? Is it because you prefer to live in a vacuum?
I would like to discuss with you slave states prior to the 1861 war; specifically the slave states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island.
Let's also discuss the slave states of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. I always like to cast four- thirteenths responsibility in that direction.
I value your personal opinions. Do you think the citizens in all those slave states were entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Some people don't you know; and if you don't just say so.
Yes, those people deserved their freedom and human rights. So lets look at it.
Slavery ended in the following Northern states: NJ. 1804. The last four ‘’slaves’’,actually four indentured servants were free in 1866.
NY- 1827.
NH.- 1783.
Mass.- 1788.
Conn.1784. Slaves comprised about 1% of the total population in Connecticut at the time. PA.- 1780. RI.-1842 Delaware.- 1865. Slavery was ended in the South 12/18/1865 after a war to end it. The ''narrow focus'' is nothing about prevarication but what the subject is being talked about here. You on the other hand keep running off on relativist tangents trying to steer away from the fact that the South choose a war of secession to maintain the use of slave labor.
“Yes, those people (citizens of slave states) deserved their freedom and human rights.”
For the purpose of this discussion, let’s stipulate you are correct: citizens that make up a slave state are not disqualified from invoking their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So far, you and I agree.
I will go further - and perhaps here is where you will reject my thinking: That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
At the time of ratification slavery was a contentious
subject and an embarrassment to the Northern states.
However slavery had given the South an extremely successful and rich economy. Something they did not want to lose. In order to agree to ratification the South argued to maintain it's ''institution''. The infamous ''3/5ths Compromise in effect did that and gave the South a great deal of influence over the presidency, the SCTUS and other areas of the government.
It looks like I have already got “it” whatever “it” is.
Your desperate attempt to limit discussion to only what is inside your suffocating vacuum is too clear to deny. Look no further than your post 29: “Listen smart ass, those are my words . . . Let's stick to the subject at hand.”
It seems you don't want to discuss the fact that of the 13 original states, 13 of them were slave states. And of those 13 slave states, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution where it remained well after the Emancipation Proclamation.
If for any reason you want to keep this a secret - just tell me.
I am fully aware that the northern states gradually decided they wanted to restrict slavery to the cotton states; and that the northern states would probably have attempted to eliminate slavery entirely except for the fact it was not in their economic and political best self interest to do so before 1865.
I see that the fool is still peddling his lies about “enshrining”. Not very intelligent, not at all original, but certainly persistent.
At Gettysburg, Lincoln went further and suggested that from the beginning, the war was fought for racial equality.
West Virginia was not admitted to the Union as a State until 30 June 1863.
What is now West Virginia was then part of the state of Virginia.
The Act of 31 Dec 1862 approved admission of the new state of West Virginia conditional upon adoption of an amendment to Article IX, Sec. 7 of the proposed West Virginia state constitution which read, "No slave shall be brought, or free person of color be permitted to come, into this State for permanent residence." Wow, a supposed Union state/territory supposedly fought for racial equality and created a constitution that prohibited free Blacks from entering for permanent residence. The 1863 amendment deleted the prohibition upon any free Black person entering the new state for permanent residence.
Perhaps they had listened to Lincoln when he said, "And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?"
And as usual, you simply ignore the fact that the Northern states voted to continue this very thing.
You do this because you don't mind being a hypocrite so long as it allows you to believe what you wish to believe.
Perhaps you should get off your "meds". Doctors have such a crude understanding of how the human body works that their efforts are akin to working on a watch with a Bowie Knife.
The Body regulates it's own chemicals far better than any crude approximation created by physicians. More often than not they simply cover up symptoms of ill health with their medications and do little to actually improve the health of afflicted people.
If you are on meds, I advise you to learn what they are and how they are expected to work. You are the person who is primarily responsible for your own health, and I advise you to take it seriously.
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.