Happy Secession day!

When did I repudiate Grant on this site?

I can't speak for all of New Jersey. I speak for myself. As I stated I support trump is just about every thing except for his support for Robert E. Lee, a traitor who could easily have been hung but wasn't. Don't attempt to patronize me Reb. You make yourself like an idiot. Your side lost the war. And by you're continued support of the Confederacy you've not only shown what an historical ignoramus you are but you show off to the entire site. You, in short are a loser backing a losing army that was defeated on the field of battle. You've also refuse to answer the question I've asked you before. : If the South had won the war would it have freed the slaves? If I'm the historically ignorant person you claim I am then it should be easy for you to answer this question. Why won't you?

Slavery ended in NJ in 1809. So who do you think you’re schooling Reb?

https://nj.gov/state/historical/his-2021-juneteenth.shtml

New Jersey, The Last Northern State to End Slavery

[excerpt]

Slavery’s final legal death in New Jersey occurred on January 23, 1866, when in his first official act as governor, Marcus L. Ward of Newark signed a state Constitutional Amendment that brought about an absolute end to slavery in the state. In other words, the institution of slavery in New Jersey survived for months following the declaration of freedom in Texas.
To understand this historical development, one needs to take a step back to 1804 when New Jersey passed its Gradual Abolition of Slavery law—an act that delayed the end of slavery in the state for decades. It allowed for the children of enslaved Blacks born after July 4, 1804 to be free, only after they attained the age of 21 years for women and 25 for men. Their family and everyone else near and dear to them, however, remained enslaved until they died or attained freedom by running away or waiting to be freed.

Gradual emancipation did not abolish slavery or free the slaves. It did nothing for adult slaves.

The owner could wait until the child turned 21 or 25 and became free, or he could sell the slave to another state. While not freeing slaves, it worked for ethnic cleansing.

Yes, when the 13th Amendment was ratified Your point?

It wasn’t NJ that started the war, now was it?

Yes, when the 13th Amendment was ratified Your point?

You stated "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809." My point is that January 23, 1866 did not occur in 1809. The date of January 23, 1866 is linked and quoted from the official New Jersey state website.

What was your point in claiming slavery ended in New Jersey in 1809 when it didn't? 13A was ratified without New Jersey.

https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey

Comprised of three short sections, the 1804 law declared children born to enslaved women after July 4, 1804 to be “free,” but required that they “shall remain the servant of the owner of his or her mother . . . and shall continue in such service, if a male, until the age of twenty-five years, and if a female until the age of twenty-one years.” The law effectively invalidated partus sequitur ventrem, or the rule that a child’s enslaved status followed their mother’s; the act itself, however, did not actually emancipate any slave. The law was first and foremost meant to protect the property rights of slaveholders, allowing them to continue to exploit the labor of any children enslaved women produced. The extended “apprenticeships” these children served differed little, if at all, from slavery and one historian has described them as “slaves for a term” rather than apprentices.
The gradual abolition act also contributed to the growth of the interstate slave trade, as slave-owners sold their human property down south in order to either covertly keep their property or profit off the institution before it ended in New Jersey.
[...]
It was not until April 18, 1846 that the state legislature passed “An Act to Abolish Slavery,” declaring:
That slavery in this state be and it is hereby abolished, and every person who is now holden in slavery by the laws thereof is made free, subject, however, to the restrictions herein after mentioned and imposed.
This act, like the Gradual Abolition Act of 1804, did not actually emancipate enslaved people in the state. It instead turned the remaining enslaved peoples into “apprentices for life.” Thus, "New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."

The New Jersey farce about eliminating slavery was like the Illinois farce. Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude.

woodpusher: "The New Jersey farce about eliminating slavery was like the Illinois farce.
Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude."

{sigh} Here we go, yet again, teaching simple lessons to deaf children...

First of all, gradual abolition was the ideal solution proposed and supported by nearly all of our Founders.
At the times of the Declaration and Constitution, only a very few in the North wanted immediate abolition and only a very few in the South opposed all forms of abolition.
Gradual abolition was seen as the compromise which could accomplish every goal with a minimum of unpleasant side effects.

Second, as practiced, gradual abolition began in states with the fewest slaves and proceeded, one by one, to states with ever more slaves.
In 1799 it was New York's "turn", in 1802 Ohio's new state constitution abolished slavery, in 1804 it was New Jersey's "turn", 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.
Virginia's turn came in the 1830s, but by then our Founders had nearly all passed, there was a slave revolt (1831) and Virginians balked, refused to begin gradual abolition, broke the Founders' understandings and soon after, Southerners began to argue that slavery was not a necessary evil which should be abolished gradually, but rather that it was a positive good thing for everyone, including the slaves and so must be constantly expanded.

Today our Lost Causers hope to flip the tables entirely and claim that Southern slavery proves Southerners loved their slaves while Northern gradual abolition proves that Northerners hated African Americans!

Finally, indentured servitude was also abolished by the 13th Amendment, in 1865, but is a very different matter from African slavery, since something like half of immigrants from Europe arrived here under some form of temporary indenture.
So US census which did report the numbers of slaves did not report on indentured servants, or if any previous African slaves had been converted to an unlimited indenture.

What we know for certain is that Illinois' first census in 1820 reported 917 slaves, in 1840 331 and none after.
In the meantime, Southern slaves increased over 5 times, from 694,000 in 1790 to 3,950,000 in 1860.

But hey! So long as there was even one slave in the North, even if now an indentured servant, the South still holds the moral high ground here, according to our delusional Lost Causers, right?

You need to look at the post below mine son and get an education.

“It (slavery) was struck out (of the Declaration of Independence) in compliance with South Carolina and Georgia who never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves.”

That is an interesting comment. But is it the whole story?

No.

The preeminent historian Carl Becker in his 1922 book “The Declaration of Independence” (reprinted by the National Rifle Association) documents Jefferson's more robust account of those events. Read Jefferson's words with me on page 171:

“The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

I call to your attention a couple of items. It was not just South Carolina and Georgia that opposed Jefferson's philippic; the northern states wanted the direct reference to slavery toned down as well because of their mercenary complicity in the slave trade. Think New Jersey.

Another point: although the word slavery does not appear in the signed DOI, the grievance of the states against the King for freeing slaves remained - “He has excited domestic insurrections among us . . .”

I have read of northerners claiming this grievance was a reference to “Indian Savages” or some such but it is not.

I know history is not being taught in blue-state schools - and not much anywhere since the 1960s - but the facts are still available.

Why not get it right?

The Confederacy enshrined slavery in it's Constitution.

So did the US Constitution. Look up Article IV, Section 2. It is about requiring the return of escaped slaves to their masters.

In 1787, when the US Constitution was written, the vast majority of states were slave states. New Jersey was a slave state at that time.

The North went to war to preserve the Union AND bring and end to slavery and it did just that.

When the North went to war, it went to war to "Preserve" Washington DC control over all Southern economic output, and it did not care at all about slavery.

Almost two years later, it started "caring" about slavery, but not in any Union states, it only cared about slavery in Southern states not yet under its control.

Which means that it didn't really care about slavery.

And now Mr. Coward I answered your question, answer mine. If you have the decency . Or guts to.

What particular question have you asked me that I have not answered? If its the one about if the South would have kept slavery, I did answer that.

If its something else, I must have missed it.

History does record this: Virginia approved the 13th amendment before Ohio, Indiana and Nevada.

Louisiana approved the 13th before Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont.

Tennessee and Arkansas before Connecticut and New Hampshire.

South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia before Oregon and California.

Florida before Iowa and New Jersey.

Texas before Delaware.

Well of course they did. Vichy governments do what they are told to do by the dictators controlling them.

The Southern states all had Vichy governments. They didn't have *REAL* governments elected by the citizens.

These were ostensibly free and fair approvals by the states as required by the U.S. Constitution.

If you call ratifications made under an occupation army "free and fair", which I don't.

The people who think the North was in the right would have us believe the South fought for four years to keep slavery legal, and then just gave it up on a vote?

That's nonsense. Clearly this was a ratification made under duress.

Slaves who made their way to Union lines were freed as early as Summer 1861.

It is my recollection that the US government owned slaves for a month or so at the beginning of the war. (Captured Contraband.)

Then they decided it was embarrassing, so they freed them.

Is my recollection somewhat accurate on this point?

The clause prohibited the Federal govt from from limiting the importation of ‘’persons''. It does not use the word ''slave.

Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude."
{sigh} Here we go, yet again, teaching simple lessons to deaf children...

You couldn't teach anybody anything unless it appears Wikipedia.

https://www.propublica.org/article/slavery-existed-in-illinois-but-schools-dont-always-teach-that-history

But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois. It’s fine. Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.” Some contracts were for 99 years.
But most indentured people really weren’t given a choice. If your master, or someone who’s claimed to be your master, or has told you they were your master for, you know, 20, 30, 40 years, tells you to put your mark [signature] on a paper that says you’re willing to continue as my indentured servant, it’s not likely that someone would refuse.

The Illinois slaves were like Etheldred Scott. They worked in Illinois but were the slaves of another state. In other words, after Illinois proclaimed itself slave-free, slaves in Ilinois were sheep-dipped in another state.

https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey

It was not until April 18, 1846 that the state legislature passed “An Act to Abolish Slavery,” declaring:
That slavery in this state be and it is hereby abolished, and every person who is now holden in slavery by the laws thereof is made free, subject, however, to the restrictions herein after mentioned and imposed.
This act, like the Gradual Abolition Act of 1804, did not actually emancipate enslaved people in the state. It instead turned the remaining enslaved peoples into “apprentices for life.” Thus, "New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."
At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.” A Princeton professor, Albert B. Dod owned a slave as late as 1840, one of the last men in the state to do so.
Because of these limitations on emancipation, it was not until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865—which New Jersey reluctantly ratified in January of 1866—that the remaining sixteen slaves in the state were forever freed.

Perhaps you should have tried reading my linked paper from Princeton University. I know Princeton is not up to your usual Wikipedia standards, but some of us make do.

What I responded to was a claim that "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809." You could try to address the actual topic rather than just deposit your usual pile of bullsplat.

Finally, indentured servitude was also abolished by the 13th Amendment, in 1865, but is a very different matter from African slavery, since something like half of immigrants from Europe arrived here under some form of temporary indenture.

A lifetime apprenticeship of New Jersey differed so little from African slavery that the official census ignored the bullflop and listed them as what they really were — slaves.

https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey

At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.”

- - - - -

Gradual abolition was seen as the compromise which could accomplish every goal with a minimum of unpleasant side effects.
Second, as practiced, gradual abolition began in states with the fewest slaves and proceeded, one by one, to states with ever more slaves.
In 1799 it was New York's "turn", in 1802 Ohio's new state constitution abolished slavery, in 1804 it was New Jersey's "turn", 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.

Not one of your alleged court cases was linked, cited, or quoted. It is very doubtful you even know what cases you are talking about, much less what is in them.

Of course, slaves in New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, not to mention Washington, D.C., are inconvenient facts.

The fact that the 1860 census showed more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states gives the lie about the northern slaves having been set free. They were not living as free men in the North. They were sold South.

Another inconvenient fact is that the Underground Railroad ran all the way to Canada for some reason.

in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana

Nonsense. Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did this. Where did you cut and paste this crap from? Let me guess. Wikipedia? On what legal basis did the Federal U.S. Supreme Court free any slaves in Indiana? The fact is that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Let me help a brother out. Below is a link to a full copy of U.S. Reporter, Volume 18, which contains the official published opinion of every U.S. Supreme Court case in 1820. Select the one you think did what you claim.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/united-states-reports/?fa=partof:u.s.+reports:+volume+018

You need to look at the post below mine son and get an education.

Nobody will ever get an education from that goober. It's too bad you couldn't attempt to defend your palpably false claim that "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809."

Maybe you can help him find his mythical U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1820. I provided a convenient link to 18 U.S. Reports which holds all the official publicly reported U.S. Supreme Court opinions from 1820.

Another point: although the word slavery does not appear in the signed DOI, the grievance of the states against the King for freeing slaves remained - “He has excited domestic insurrections among us . . .”

The DoI declared, and the Paris Peace Accords established, thirteen free, sovereign and independent states dating from July 4, 1776.

Slave property existed in colonies, and their declaring independence from the king did nothing to destroy such property rights. The primary writer of the DoI drafted the document while assisted by his slave Jupiter. Washington was a colonial slave owner, continued to be a slave owner in the state of Virginia, and died a slave owner, having never freed his slaves. Thomas Jefferson was similar. Chief Justice John Marshall was a slave owner. President John Tyler had slaves work in the White House. Andrew Johnson was a slave owner up until August 1863. It is patently obvious that slave property rights were not extinguished by either the DoI, the AoC, or the Constitution.

Slavery was not mentioned by name in the Constitution until 1865 and the 13th Amendment which abolished it. One cannot abolish something that does not exist. The earlier wordsmithing, avoiding the explicit use of the word, did nothing to abolish the institution which the states inherited from the colonies.

Art. I, §9
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Art. 1, §2, Cl. 3
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Art. IV, §1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Art. IV, §2, Cl. 3
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.

The property right was in the service or labor of the person. Slaves were persons under the Constitution. See Article I, §2, Cl. 3 reference to three-fifths of all other persons. In the census, slaves were counted as five-fifths of a person. The slave persons were counted as slaves and did not add to the free population, but they counted as a full person in the enumeration of the population.

As opposed to citing what is not in the DoI or the Constitution, one may better rely on what is actually in the text of those documents and the AoC.

The use of wordsmithing was employed in the AoC, informing the authors of the Constitution on how to do it.

Articles of Confederation, Art. IV, Cl. 1
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Free inhabitants and free citizens as opposed to the unnamed other.

Having imported their (slave) property into another state, they could not be prevented from removing said (slave) property.

In the DoI,
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…

It did not refer to a domestic insurrection by the Amish.

Attempts to make anything of the deliberate absence of the words slave or slavery in the AoC or Constitution is fruitless. It is merely an object lesson in wordsmithing, saying all that was needed without explicit use of words which would invite international criticism.

Everyone that tries to make it about slavery is just a liar trying to lie their way out of the bloodshed they committed over a fake, made up "concern" for slaves.

Having allegedly gone to war to end slavery, the North could not make slavery illegal in the Union states where it was legal until after the 13th Amendment. Had the North won the war in a week or a month, it would have had no way to legally prohibit slavery in any of the slave states absent a constitutional amendment.

Emancipation Proclamation:

[excerpt]

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Lincoln expressed his war power as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The Proclamation alleged a fit and necessary war measure to suppressing rebellion. The same Lincoln had rejected this as a fit and necessary measure at the outbreak of the war.

There was absolutely no legal bar to abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. At any time, all it took was for Congress to act. It took a year for the Union to abolish the slave trade in D.C. The public sale of slaves down the street from the White House was going to be embarrassing if the basis of the war changed from saving the Union to freeing the slaves.

In point of fact, the Union purportedly fighting a war to end slavery, did not legally abolish slavery in D.C. until April 16, 1862 (12 Stat. 376), and did not legally abolish slavery in the Union states until December 1865. Despite the 13th Amendment, New Jersey stubbornly resisted abolition until January 1866.

It ended none the less, resistance or not. NJ contributed to fighting to preserve the Union and ending slavery.

Why not get it right yourself. Your side choose to fight a war to preserve slavery.

Own it.

“When did I repudiate Grant on this site?”

It is probably more accurate to say Grant repudiated you; or at least your Won Cause Myths.

According to the Won Cause Myths Lee should have been tried for treason and hanged. You have said this.

General Grant vigorously opposed this treachery and said so in no uncertain terms. In a letter to Secretary of War Stanton General Grant wrote:

“In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox C.H. and since upon the same terms given to Lee, can not be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole…. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood in Norfolk has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.”

General Grant’s views prevailed but not until the bloody shirt was swung around by demagogues for several years. And a little bit after.

Yes Lee and Davis should have been hung for treason.

Political expediency and the fact that the nation was in no mood for such a trial and what would be perceived as a sort of revenge prompted Lincoln to tell grant on his way to Appomattox to ‘’let them up easy''. Try as you Rebs might I found you to be a bunch of moral relativists and revisionists who try like heck to obfuscate the reason for the war- the Souths determination to preserve slavery. Refresh my memory: Was it the North who was trying to do this or was it the South?

No you didn’t. Answer the question.