Posted on 04/24/2005 6:08:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
"What ruling, exactly? Surely not Scott v Sandford?"
I seem to recall NOT mentioning a ruling. I seem also to recall addressing that this was their LEVEL of awarenss in the world.
And I seem to recall your claiming that the average Bubba in the Civil War WAS complaining about the Supreme Court. So what decision or what actions of the court were they complaining about?
I guess "figure of speech" is not allowable anymore? In the post you ust addressed, I pointed out quite plainly that I did NOT mention any Supreme Court actions.
Did I really need to put in "*figuratively* talking about the Supreme Court"?
If you read the context clues in my post, I was addressing the ability of a CSA soldier to think for themself.
And I would have thought Chrisholm v. Georgia first.
Just as a side-note.
As for those Irish and Scots who did go North, America did what it did with other immigrants. It made them work hard and paid them money. The part about having to work hard was pretty much universal for those who didn't have resources in those days, but the success was exceptional.
Scotsmen and Irishmen worked in mines and mills, as did immigrants from all over Europe, but plenty of those enterprises were owned by Pennsylvania Scots and Irish like the Carnegies and Mellons. The Scotch-Irish were more or less running things in Pittsburgh.
Even with all the country's anti-Catholic feeling the son of Irish Catholic immigrants could become mayor of a large city, governor, or even Senator. Such a rise in the world, clearly wasn't available to a slave or his child, so long as his masters had any say.
By 1900, the sons and daughters of the famine Irish were doing fairly well in the US, lingering resentments not withstanding. How well off were most of the Black sons and daughters of slaves at that time?
I don't make any defense of the treatment of employees by mine and factory owners in the 19th century. Work was hard and dirty and dangerous, but opportunity definitely was there for workers in a way that it wasn't for slaves.
And so far as I can tell the generalization that Irishmen were used when slaves were too expensive to risk is questionable, at least where slave labor was easily accessible. If you were building railroads in the antebellum South the mass of your labor came from slaves, and they did some quite dangerous work indeed.
It's good that you reposted #255 up so that everyone could see the kind of moronic bigotry you give your assent to. I don't know if you and johnb838 are children or idiots, but you're definitely out of your depth here.
"You don't have a clue do you? Most of the Scots-Irish went South to the frontier. By 1830, a Scots-Irishman had been elected President, and by some counts a dozen more would follow."
And Blacks held the majority of the Legislature in the South durring reconstruction. I don't think that means they were treated equal.
Or did th 1960's elude you?
"By 1900, the sons and daughters of the famine Irish were doing fairly well in the US, lingering resentments not withstanding. How well off were most of the Black sons and daughters of slaves at that time?"
Compared to their African brethren? (As you compared the european Irish to the newely Amreican Irish)I'd say the blacks had it good here! Clothing, food, water, freedom. I'd say 1900's American Blacks had a much better upgrade than the 1900's American Scots-Irish.
"It's good that you reposted #255 up so that everyone could see the kind of moronic bigotry you give your assent to. I don't know if you and johnb838 are children or idiots, but you're definitely out of your depth here."
Or perhaps, you simply forgot from whence we came.
You will note that I edited it for my sake as well. I decided to term them int he lowest status for a reason.
Nobody was fighting for their rights THEN. But plenty were activists in Congress to stop slavery.
Stopping slavery is a good thing. A VERY good thing. But no one was speaking for the OTHER little guy(s).
You know Forthe:
I have been trying to be a Christian in our discourse, even though we disagree. It is not right to throw in the little digs like: "Next you will be talking about the curse of Ham." I do NOT believe slavery was right. All I have ever said is that the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it. And you STILL haven't shown me a scripture that specifically does. I have quite a bit of theology training myself. My knowledge of scripture is good as well. What you need to realize is that most Southerners, then as well as today are devout Christians. I believe that if they had been convinced that Scripture was against slavery, they would have abolished it. To imply that I would use that ridiculous theory of "Ham" is not only an insult to my intelligence, but quite rude. I don't think I deserve that from you. Are you aware that there were more people that were saved during the Late War, then any other time? Camp revivals were HUGE, especially in the Confederate Army. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeff Davis were all devoted Christians. Please remain civil in your discourse with me, and be careful of what you imply.
You are REALLY stretching the matter by applying those scriptures. Most slaves were cared for quite well.
He still hasn't responded to this one. I don't think he'll get back to you.
The unfortunate thing is we ALL lost in that war. That is precisely why we have an out of control Fed. Government.
OK, why don't you get out of your tenement slum, and take a trip down South, and quit watching the "Dukes of Hazzard"!
I live in a 200,000 dollar 26 hundred or so square foot home on a golf course. Not a stinking trailer.
I really can't argue with that... although I think the spiraling began when the government overtly got into the private sector (see: Tennessee Valley Authority) in the 30's.
Lincoln took the race issue to its logical conclusion.
He said, let us say that the white race is superior to the black one.
Would not that mean that we should at least leave the black race alone to keep what little it worked for?
Shall the white race take everything from the Negro?
Thank you.
I suppose that the N word was deleted because it is considered to be a "fighting word.", and I understand. But it presupposes that there is only one ethnic group that has a lock on victim status. The fact is that this country was built on blood.
I recently saw Gangs of New York for the first time. I've never seen a movie before that showed just how screwed up it was in the North at the time. And it was mostly showing Irish on Irish violence.
What violations of the Constitution were there?
Please name them.
The only violation that the South could cite was the election of Lincoln, who they saw as a threat to their slave empire.
Well, had the South not seceded there would have been no Northern troops entering into the area to enforce the laws that they were in violation of.
In many ways the Civil war was the beginning of big government encroachment on all of our lives. We should all be Confederates.
Where have you been all my life, I've never even missed you.
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.