Posted on 07/18/2022 1:02:13 PM PDT by Dr. Franklin
Recording made in 1947 when he was 101 years old as an oral history of the American Civil War, (or the War Between the States, as it is known in South). This man joined the 24th Virginia Calvary in 1862 at the age of 16 and and half. He was eventually taken prisoner in the Spring of 1965 at what must have been the Battle of Hillsman's House since her refers to Gen. Ewell's surrender. He was held at Point Lookout, Maryland until the end of the war.
He is quite emphatic that the South didn't fight for "the preservation or extension of slavery", but for states rights. When he begins by reminiscing about the "early 50's", he was, of course, referring to the 1850's.
That was my point - you should direct your comments to the other guy
Certainly won't learn anything from you, that's for sure. Now please go away and bother someone else. Let oorang speak for himself. If he chooses to do so.
(which would guarantee permanent slavery)
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said”
the amendment only restricts the actions of the Congress of the United States. It does not prevent any state in the Union from taking action to end slavery in that state. Nor does it restrict the Congress of the United States from prohibiting slavery in any territory of the United States. So the amendment does not guarantee “permanent slavery” within the United States.
life in any Civil War POW camp would have been a miserable experience, whether it was run by the United States or the Confederate States.
The EM also prevented the British from declaring support for the CSA. It most probably would have been ships of the Royal Navy that broke the blockade it had come to that.
Agree totally - Andersonville comes to mind.
It was probably the worst. Camp Douglas in Chicago was not far behind.
That's why I generally won't bother trying to explain anything to you. You aren't here to get at the truth, you are here to support a narrative.
You are a deluded or dishonest player in these types of discussions.
That's wishful thinking. I do not think you honestly believe that amendment would not have kept slavery going in the USA until it was no longer economically viable.
I try to be honest with myself, and I think you do too.
But why would the Northern states support such a measure?
Yeah - I was down at Point Lookout the other day - I was fishing.
It’s hard to imagine how isolated it would have been down there in the 1860’s.
Just tidal swamp land. One can see Virginia across the Potomac from there but it’s probably 10 miles across.
“That’s wishful thinking.” No just a statement of fact. The Corwin Amendment does not prevent states from outlawing slavery if they so desire.
IMO When the first Southern States withdrew from the Union, member of Congress recognized why they chose to leave. 60 some odd resolutions were introduced into both houses of Congress to try and lure the Southern states back into the Union. The Corwin amendment was the one that the majority believed would work, if anything would. The overwhelming desire was to bring the Southern States back into the Union.
If slavery was allowed to exist in states where legal, so be it.
And yet here you are with what, 11 unsolicited comments on my posts? You bother people because you love showing off, and posting your opinion as if it were fact.
You ignored my question.
*WHY* did they want to bring back in the slave states? Why?
And yet here you are with what, 11 unsolicited comments on my posts?
Oh! That's so cute! You think I am responding to you because I am trying to explain something to you! :)
Nope. It's an effort to make others aware of what is wrong with what you said, and not because I have any hope of convincing you of anything.
I am countering your efforts to mislead people. That's all I'm doing when I respond to you.
Maybe they believed in “United States”
I know that you will poopoo that idea, It will be all about money all about power, all about wealth, all about New England/DC/New York City etc, etc, have heard your arguments on the issue for years. nothing new there.
So what was wrong with believing in a "United Kingdom"?
I know that you will poopoo that idea, It will be all about money all about power, all about wealth, all about New England/DC/New York City etc, etc, have heard your arguments on the issue for years. nothing new there.
Well the math does show that there was a massive money transfer from the South to the North each year, and common sense tells us that would have stopped once the South got out from under the rules imposed by the more politically powerful North in Congress.
So yeah, on the one hand this idea of the "United States" in which people hate each other, and on the other hand, "massive amounts of money at risk".
Rational people will have to decide for themselves which view makes more sense.
Of course i'm not a "pie in the sky" sort of guy, and I suspect most conservatives grasp math and economics.
Just sayin.
“So what was wrong with believing in a “United Kingdom”? Nothing if you are a subject to his most Britannic Majesty. Which has no bearing on the issues at hand.
What the math shows is that New England ports collected most tariff revenue. The Southerners were not the only ones importing into the United States. You have yet to show that it was Southerners that did most of the importing into the United States.
So yeah, on the one hand this idea of the “United States” in which people hate each other. Was that the prevailing opinion in during the Buchanan Administration.
You don't see the dichotomy of supporting Independence from the United Kingdom, but opposing it for Independence from the United States?
To support both sides of an issue makes it appear that there is no definable principle involved, it's just a matter of self interest.
What the math shows is that New England ports collected most tariff revenue.
That's what the data shows.
The Southerners were not the only ones importing into the United States.
And this is where people try to confuse me. Who was producing the European money that buys imports? Clearly the North was producing 28% of it.
They could pay for 28% of the imports.
You have yet to show that it was Southerners that did most of the importing into the United States.
I show that the Southerners produced the bulk of the money paying for imports. Since this is provably true, how does anyone else import (more than 28%) into the US unless they are somehow getting that money away from the Southerners?
Well the answer is they were getting that money away from the Southerners, and they were doing it because they controlled Washington DC and could write laws and implement government policies that pried it away from the Southerners.
Well the answer is they were getting that money away from the Southerners, and they were doing it because they controlled Washington DC and could write laws and implement government policies that pried it away from the Southerners.
How many of the first 16 presidents of the United States owned slaves.
What year did the number of free states out number slave states in the Senate
The South was not politically powerless, most of the legislative items passed by the Congress got passed because Southern states voted for them and a Southern President signed the law.
Why are you responding then? Just to demonstrate how annoying you can be?
Nope. It's an effort to make others aware of what is wrong with what you said, and not because I have any hope of convincing you of anything.
There will always be a minority who fall for your tired old BS, that's true. I'm mildly surprised you haven't dragged out that moronic tariff picture. Did you lose it?
I am countering your efforts to mislead people. That's all I'm doing when I respond to you.
Then ping them and leave me out of it. If they choose to believe your nonsense then that's their problem.
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.