Posted on 07/04/2023 11:54:31 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
Today we celebrate the 13 original states seceding from the Union and forming a confederacy. (Articles of Confederation.)
Combine that with this from your post 137: “Sure, you can argue, reasonably, that I should have known or guessed they meant state supreme court, but . . .”
It is a slippery slope, Brother Joe, when you argue that someone else’s truth is irrelevant but your lack of knowledge, or lack of being correct, in some way strengthens your own argument.
That is pretty close to what you are doing here. I recommend you extricate yourself. It is not the worst thing in the world to admit you got it wrong; we've all had to do that.
You always have the high moral ground argument that Lincoln was commanded by a higher authority to use the military to attack and destroy the South and overthrow the U.S. Constitution; "as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." Some of us may question that claim but there is no way we can actually prove you are wrong.
As I recall the South opened fire on Ft. Sumter.
That is an interesting comment; brings to mind what General Grant said in his Personal Memoirs, chapter 4.
In one long paragraph the dying general explains how the U.S. got into both the Mexican War and the war against the South.
“The presence of United State troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, “Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.,” and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated there were but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it. Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate “war, pestilence, and famine,” than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion.”
You may very well say you have no idea what General Grant is saying.
If so, my explaining Lincoln's skillful use of the Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin incident will not help . . . I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.
Lincoln fired first.
That’s a lie and you know it!
The South opened fire on Fort Sumter and started the war.
Prevaricate all you want Reb but nothing changes the truth of what the South did.
Your post 142: “As I recall the South opened fire on Ft. Sumter.”
Later your post 146: “The South opened fire on Fort Sumter and started the war.”
It looks like General Grant’s quote (my post 143) kind of froze you into position.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever put an opponent into checkmate with one post.
You'll never win an argument in this fight with me, not you or the rest of your Copperhead buddies.
Grant was of course, talking about the Mexican War. He didn’t believe we were in the right. He thought it was “one of the most unjust (wars) ever waged.”
Another thing he said about the Mexican War:
“The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”
Something he said about the Civil War:
“The 4th of March, 1861, came, and Abraham Lincoln was sworn to maintain the Union against all its enemies. The secession of one State after another followed, until eleven had gone out. On the 11th of April Fort Sumter, a National fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, was fired upon by the Southerners and a few days after was captured. The Confederates proclaimed themselves aliens, and thereby debarred themselves of all right to claim protection under the Constitution of the United States. We did not admit the fact that they were aliens, but all the same, they debarred themselves of the right to expect better treatment than people of any other foreign state who make war upon an independent nation.”
It would be a mistake to assume that when Grant was writing about the Mexican-American War he was “really” writing about the Civil War. He felt very strongly that the Mexican War was unjustified and wanted to put that in print. He did not feel that the US provoked the American Civil War or that our involvement was unjustified.
That is an interesting comment.
Prevaricate is a synonym for lie; less blunt perhaps, but still accusatory.
Please explain why my post 143 - 90 percent of which was a quote of General Grant was a lie. Was it something Grant said?
I did momentarily confuse the Gulf of Tonkin Incident with the Fort Sumter Incident but I cheerfully corrected myself. I always do.
Yes, in Chapter 4 General Grant was talking about the Mexican War.
Except in one case, which I quoted in my post 143.
“The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it.”
This is a reference to the Union war on the South. And in the context of the full paragraph in which it appears, it is not favorable to northern actions.
It can be debated why in the world Grant would say the quiet part out loud; that he said it is beyond contestation.
Delaware ended slavery in February, 1901.
Having abolished slavery in 1804, or 1809, or from a DeLorean in 1901, New Jersey in 1846 enacted a statute to really, really abolish slavery.
The Northern Yankee Slaver Democrats, emulated by jmacusa, proceeded to demonstrate their ability to abolish slavery without abolishing slavery. In reality, in refusing to ratify the 13th Amendment and carrying on in defiance thereof for a short period, New Jersey won the gold medal for maintaining slavery in the United States. The Northern Yankee Slaver Democrats, emulated by jmacusa and BroJoeK, perservered and ensured that the Southern Rebels could not even claim a Bronze medal in the Slaver Olympic Marathon.
In paragraph 1, the Northern Yankee Slaver Democrats said, "slavery in this state be and it is hereby abolished, and every person who is now holden in slavery by the laws thereof, be and hereby is made free, subject, however, to the restrictions and obligations hereinafter mentioned and imposed; …" And just like that, slavery in New Jersey was abolished forever and ever. Or, in this case, until paragraph 2.
With paragraph 2, the Northern Yankee Slaver Democrats, emulated by jmacusa, substituted one form of slavery for another. The table of contents even said "1. Slavery abolished. 2. Apprenticeship substituted." And indeed, it was apprenticeship for life to their "master or mistress."
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/slavery/acts/A98.html
NEW JERSEY ACT OF 1846 TO REALLY REALLY ABOLISH SLAVERY
An Act to Abolish Slavery, revision approved April 18, 1846, Revision of 1846, Title XI, ch.6, p.382-3901. Slavery abolished.
2. Apprenticeship substituted.
3. How discharged, and form of.
4. By will, when good.
5. By giving security.
6. Apprentice's liability on certain contracts limited.
7. Legal settlement of apprentice.
8. Entitled to a support.
9. Children provided for.
10. Discharge, how authenticated.
11. To be recorded.
12. Record or copy evidence.
13. Clerk's receipt, certificate and fees.
14. Proceedings on complaint made.
15. Penalty for enticing away.
__ " For misusage.
16. For harbouring.
17. Rules concerning sale of.
18. Vendor's estate to remain liable.
19. Not to be taken out of state.
20. Nor exported.
21. Nor sold to non-resident, etc.
22. Nor purchased for exportation.
23. Ship master's liability.
24. May be taken on journey.
25. Master's liability for support.
26. Proceedings on habeas corpus.
27. Privilege of non-resident travellers.1. BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, That slavery in this state be and it is hereby abolished, and every person who is now holden in slavery by the laws thereof, be and hereby is made free, subject, however, to the restrictions and obligations hereinafter mentioned and imposed; and the children hereafter to be born to all such persons shall be absolutely free from their birth, and discharged of and from all manner of service whatsoever.
2. And be it enacted, That every such person shall, by force and virtue of this act, and without the previous execution of any indenture of apprenticeship, or other deed or instrument for that purpose, become and be an apprentice, bound to service to his or her present owner, and his or her executors or administrators; which service shall continue until such person is discharged therefrom, as is hereinafter directed.
[...]
15. And be it enacted, That every person who shall counsel, persuade, entice, aid or assist any such apprentice or servant to run away or absent himself or herself from the service of his or her master or mistress, shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars, to be sued for and recovered by action of debt, with costs, by such master of mistress, in any court of record having cognizance thereof; and such person shall also be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine, of not less than one, nor more than two hundred dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor, not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court before whom such conviction shall be had: and further, if any master, mistress, or other person entitled to the service of such apprentice or servant under this act, or under the act entitled, " An act for the gradual abolition of slavery, and other purposes respecting slaves," passed twenty-fourth February, eighteen hundred and twenty, shall be guilty of any misusage, refusal of necessary provision or clothing, unreasonable correction, cruelty or other ill treatment, he, she or such other person as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding one hundred dollars; provided nevertheless, and be it enacted, that if any master, mistress or other person as aforesaid, shall at the time when any complaint may be preferred against him or her, as is mentioned in the fourteenth section of this act, enter into recognizance to the state of New Jersey, with one good freeholder resident in the county, conditioned for his or her appearance before the next court of general quarter sessions of the peace to be holden in and for the county in which such master or mistress, or other person as aforesaid, may reside, to answer any complaint which may then and there be made against him or her for any of the matters specified in this section, that then the justice before whom such complaint may have been made shall discharge such complaint, and the provisions of the fourteenth section of this act shall be deemed inoperative touching said complaint.
16. And be it enacted, That every person who shall entertain, harbor or conceal any such apprentice or servant, knowing such apprentice or servant to have run away, shall forfeit and pay one dollar for every day's entertaining, harboring or concealing as aforesaid, to be sued for and recovered by action of debt, with costs, by such master or mistress, in any court of record having cognizance thereof.
[...]
[Ultra Sonic 007] No, it doesn't. It simply says, "the supreme court" without making clear which supreme court.[BroJoeK] Sure, you can argue, reasonably, that I should have known or guessed they meant state supreme court, but when you drill down into it, turns out, according to Wikipedia, both state and US supreme courts were involved in making and confirming their Indiana vs. Laselle ruling.
[BroJoeK] Wikipedia tells us that SCOTUS confirmed Indiana's ruling by refusing to accept Laselle's appeal.
[BroJoeK] Woodpusher responds: that's not what happened, and he might be right, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether their words "supreme court" meant the state or SCOTUS.
[BroJoeK] Clearly, according to Wikipedia's own claims, in this particular case, "supreme court" could refer to either one.
When one drills down into The State v. Lasselle, 1 Blackf. 60, 62 (1820), one finds the Court to be clear and specific.
We are told that the constitution recognizes pre-existing rights, which are to continue as if no change had taken place in the government. But it must be recollected that a special reservation cannot be so enlarged by construction, as to defeat a general provision. If this reservation were, allowed to apply in this case, it would contradict, and totally destroy, the design and effect of this part of the constitution. And it cannot be presumed that the constitution, which is the collected voice of the citizens of Indiana, declaring their united will, would guaranty to one part of the community such privileges as would totally defeat and destroy privileges and rights guarantied to another. From these premises it follows, as an irresistible conclusion, that, under our present form of government, slavery can have no existence in the state of Indiana; and, of course, the claim of the said Lasselle cannot be supported.
In addition to the fact that the Opinion makes exquisitely clear that the constitution invoked and spoken of is the Indana state constitution, citation to the Federal Constitution is a legal absurdity. Had the Federal Constitution made slavery illegal in one state, it would have made it illegal in all states, and would have struck down any conflicting state law. That such was not the case in 1820 is notorious.
Stating that the high State court incorrectly interpreted State law is not a question for a Federal court. The ultimate authority on interpreting State law is the highest court in the State; not the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews State laws to determine whether or not they are repugnant to the Federal Constitution or Federal law.
It is fun to see how the Northern Yankee Slaver Democrats, emulated by jmacusa and BroJoeK, and their usual unreliable sources, transformed an Assignment of Errors document, an attachment to a document addressed to the Indiana State Supreme Court into the fiction of a document transmitted to the United States Supreme Court.
By separating this secondary document from the primary document it was made to appear as a stand-alone document. In reality, the Assignment of Errors document, claimed to have been sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, indicates it was to be transmitted from Laselle in Vincennes, Indiana to Henry P. Coburn, Esq, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Indiana as an attachment to the Primary Document, a letter from Laselle to Coburn. Coburn was instructed to assemble the Record of Transcript (ROT) of the proceedings up to and including the Supreme Court of Indiana, have the ROT certified by Judge Scott of the Supreme Court of Indiana, and send the required complete package in the mail to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be paid for later on demand by Laselle. There is no evidence any of this assembling, certifying or mailing took place beyond the Laselle letter indicating Coburn as the intended addressee, and indicating the attachments of the Assignment of Errors, Body, Writ of Errors, and citation.
There is no evidence that a ROT was produced, or certified, nor that anything was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, or anybody.
Notably, the Laselle letter to Clerk Coburn makes no mention of any writ of certiorari. There is no evidence that any such writ was drafted, referred to, or transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, much less acted upon by the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16066coll38/id/27
[woodpusher transcript of hand-written document at link]
07-27-1820Hyacinth Laselle vs. Polly, a woman of color In error
The Clerk of the Supreme Court of Indiana will file in his office the accompanying Assgnment of Errors, Bond, writ of error & Citation (signing his name to the Duplicate Citation and returning it in the express). He will make out a complete Record of the above cause, attaching the assignment of errors, have it certified by his Honor Judge Scott, and then transmit it via mail (paying the postage, which together with the fee for the Record, I'll pay his order on sight of to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington City.
Vincennes, July 27, 1820
/s/ H. Laselle
Henry P. Coburn Esq.
Clk Sup Co.
of Indiana
The fact remains, obfuscate and blow as much smoke at it as you wish, Indiana's 1820 Laselle ruling effectively made slavery illegal and resulted in Indiana's slave population being reduced by 98% over the next 10 years.
In fact, Indiana erected a memorial which states explicitly,
Strong appealed to Indiana Supreme Court in Corydon which ruled in State v. Lasselle, July 22, 1820: “slavery can have no existence” in Indiana. This decision did not free remaining slaves in Indiana; it did establish 1816 Indiana Constitution as the authority for decisions in Indiana courts regarding slavery and involuntary servitude, including 1821 Mary Clark case.
Who are we to believe? Numbnuts with Wikipedia and unnamed sources, or the Indiana Historical Bureau?
The applied Northern Yankee Slaver Democrat logic of BroJoeK is equivalent to saying that the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA Championship in 2001, resulting in the twin towers being attacked in September. There is no cause and effect demonstrated. The claimed effect is explicitly denied by the Indiana Historical Bureau.
[BroJoeK #85]: in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana, in 1827 New York freed any remaining slaves and in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves."
The U.S. Supreme Court played no role whatever in the case. According to the Indiana Historical Bureau, the decision in LaSelle did not free remaining slaves in Indiana either.
All of Crazy Roger's words are insane, none are rational and if you think they make sense, then there's something wrong going on inside your brain, woodpusher.
I note that you are still too afraid and gutless to cite and defend a single claimed example of Taney insanity.
I will cite one example of Taney Insanity Syndrome, with which you are infected. Those infected like to claim that, in his Opinion of the Court in Scott, Taney offered his opinion that Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. There is no evidence that Taney held such opinion, and he certainly did not state that he did.
Only non-dicta which is supported by a majority vote of the justices establishes any Supreme Court language. Dicta and minority statements may not properly be attributed to the court.
None of that matters, none of it is relevant to the facts of history which include Crazy Roger giving Southerners what they wanted -- Supreme Court language justifying slavery under virtually all conditions.
An example of Taney Insanity Syndrome. Existing law in the colonies justified slavery in all of the colonies. That existing law was carried over into the 13 states when they declared independence. From then until the ratification of the 13th Amendment, slavery was notoriously justified by United States law.
The Constitution provided, at Artcle IV, Section 2, "No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
A Lincoln proposal of November 1861, during the Civil War, states,
Be it enacted by the State of Delaware that on condition the United States of America will, at the present session of Congress, engage by law to pay, and thereafter faithfully pay to the said State of Delaware, in the six per cent bonds of said United States, the sum of seven hundred and nineteen thousand, and two hundred dollars, in thirty one equal annual instalments, there shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, at any time after the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety three, within the said State of Delaware, except in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; nor, except in the punishment of crime as aforesaid, shall any person who shall be born after the passage of this act, nor any person above the age of thirty five years, be held in slavery, or to involuntary servitude, within said State of Delaware, at any time after the passage of this act.
General Hunter proclaimed on May 9, 1862:
Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these three States---Georgia, Florida and South Carolina—heretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free. DAVID HUNTER,
Lincoln proclaimed on May 19, 1862:
And further, that neither General Hunter, nor any other commander, or person, has been authorized by the Government of the United States, to make proclamations declaring the slaves of any State free; and that the supposed proclamation, now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void, so far as respects such declaration.I further make known that whether it be competent for me, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the Slaves of any state or states, free, and whether at any time, in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintainance of the government, to exercise such supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I can not feel justified in leaving to the decision of commanders in the field.
In May 1862, Lincoln proclaimed that orders to free slaves under the authoirty of martial law were invalid, null and void because he had not yet decided such to be a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the government.
Other than via the infection of Taney Derangement Syndrome, how is the lawfulness of slavery questioned in 1857?
The South opened the ball when it opened fire on Fort Sumter.
Lt. J.H. Gilman, U.S. Army, second in command to Slemmer, With Slemmer in Pensacola Harbor.
https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/battles/vol1/027
On January 8th the first step indicating to outsiders an intention on our part of resist was taken, by the removal of the powder from the Spanish fort to Fort Barrancas, where on the same might a guard was placed with loaded muskets. It was none too soon, for about midnight a party of twenty men came to the fort, evidently with the intention of taking possession, expecting to find it unoccupied as usual. Being challenged and not answering nor halting when ordered, the party was fired upon by the guard and ran in the direction of Warrington, their footsteps resounding on the plank walk at the long roll ceased and our company started for the fort at double-quick. This, I believe, was the first gun in the war fired on our side.
With all of you Lost causers it wasn’t about slavery it was about’’ Southern independence’’ it was the “War Of Northern Aggression’’ and therein is your prevarication, therein is your lie.
It was a war to preserve slavery.
“It was a war to preserve slavery.”
Lincoln took an oath - twice as president - to protect and defend the pro-slavery United States Constitution.
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
No, it is a reference to the Copperheads, Northerners who supported the Confederacy. That was another bee in Grant’s bonnet, and, as people do, he linked the two preoccupations in his mind and writing.
For Grant, both those who provoked the Mexican War and the Copperheads supposed unjust causes, so it’s natural that he would link the two. He did (at the moment of writing at least) find outright rebels preferable to those groups. Was anything more than that involved, consciously or unconsciously? You’d have to have more evidence to make that conclusion.
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.