The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Davy Buck]

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

[antisocial]

“I’m sorry, but to say that blacks somehow share in Confederate “military heritage” is just plain stupid.”

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The North couldn't win the representative republican government game...

Secession was triggered by the election of Lincoln. The pro-slavery element was losing ground, so the secessionists made a power grab to establish a new government conceived in slavery and dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal.

[Idabilly]

Secession was triggered by the election of Lincoln. The pro-slavery element was losing ground, so the secessionists made a power grab to establish a new government conceived in slavery and dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal.

Hold your horses there, Kangapoo poo! What kind of Arianna Huffington impostor do you think you are? Only she is allowed such stupidity!

Have you "yankee doodled" over what your hero has said? Let me remind you:

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

In the Conkling letter before mentioned, I said: “Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free Negroes.” I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, or for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and reunion, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me (…).

"Fellow citizens, I presume you all know who I am-I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My policies are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a National Bank, I am in favor of the Internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected I shall be thankful; and if not, it will be all the same."

“Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between anyother two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while we suffer from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.”

Abrafart Lincoln

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

No, "your's" does NOT say that! That excerpt ends in a semi-colon, not a period. The rest of the sentence you feel the need to omit is:

; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

If you read the Records of the Constitutional Convention, it's clear that they're talking about territories that were claimed by different states (under various colonial cessions) such as the Virginia's claim to the Northwest Territory.

If you read the earlier drafts of that article and the process by which they arrived at the final language, it's obvious. The question was who was going to govern them--the state with a claim or the federal government, and the clause basically says the that Feds will run them but that this doesn't mean that they won't, in the end, be part of the states ("won't prejudice any claims').

In the end, it was all a moot point. Virginia ceded the Northwest Territory to the US government, and Georgia gave up its claim to what is now Alabama and Mississippi in 1803, after the Yazoo Land Scandal. The territories beyond the Mississippi were never claimed by any state, so the clause does not operate on them.

[phi11yguy19]

Though an articulate reply, you’re nonetheless playing games again. Those “CLAIMS not to be predujiced” are referenced specifically in the first half of the same sentence as “respecting the Territory or other Property”.

The unfortunate truth (as culminated in Dred) was slaves were indeed legally viewed as “property” of their masters (just as indentured servants were like Ben Franklin was when indentured to James). The difference being that slaves had no legal status as citizens of any State, and there was no such thing as citizenship of the common government (United States) at that time, which is why Dred was first dismissed for having no standing in the court.

The clause protected against the practice of slaves being “freed” (or “stolen” depending if you’re talking ideology or law) once they crossed State lines into non-slave states or Federal territories - such acts were never done Constitutionally - moral relativism is not the law. That’s why Dred was returned AND that’s why the Northern troops returned THOUSANDS of slaves to their plantations DURING the war.

Territories were not States and held no sovereignty. The laws of congress to control them (often martial at first) until they met the requirements to request statehood were not in antithesis of the restrictions placed upon them in the Constitution. There is not legal justification for the point you’re trying to make in the context of the laws at that time.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The vast majority of "black slaveowners" were mixed race creoles from Louisiana, where the French influence made acknowledging (and leaving estates to) one's children by the slaves more acceptable than in the English colonies. Under the law, quadroons, octaroons, and those with even less black blood were counted as black, and those were almost invariably the slaveowners.

New Orleans, for example, had 3000 free black slave owners. In 1860, South Carolina had 171.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The problem with your reading of the clause (besides the fact that it doesn't jibe with the discussion at the Constitutional Convention) is that slaves were not the property of the state. The clause does not say that the claims of any person not be prejudiced. It's the claim of any state.

The difference being that slaves had no legal status as citizens of any State, and there was no such thing as citizenship of the common government (United States) at that time, which is why Dred was first dismissed for having no standing in the court.

This notion that there was no such thing as US citizenship, only state citizenship is another falsehood I've seen repeated on these threads. The fact is that the Constitution refers to US citizenship several times, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifies the process:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

The clause protected against the practice of slaves being “freed” (or “stolen” depending if you’re talking ideology or law) once they crossed State lines into non-slave states or Federal territories - such acts were never done Constitutionally - moral relativism is not the law.

No. That would be Article IV, Sections 1 and 2.

[mojitojoe]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Way to tell of that re-tread liberal, pro-DADT, banned twice troll- ......k-stater=non-sequitur.

[phi11yguy19]

The problem with your reading...? Granting your understanding of the syntax, did I miss the part of IV.3 where the power to affect the property of the people was delegated to Congress??? Otherwise, I believe that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

My "notion" that there was no such thing as national citizenship at that time is with respect to slaves (the context of my entire last post, but i'll use it as every other word in my post if need be). The Naturalization Act of '70 (and later '75) applied to "any Alien being a free white person", so quoting that is of no help to the discussion of slaves.

------
No. That would be Article IV, Sections 1 and 2.

I wrote (and you quoted) "or Federal territories". That has nothing to do with the first two sections. Sections 1 & 2 discuss only the scope of the new Congress with respect to existing States, and nothing concerning territories. Section 3 exclusively discusses Territories and Congress' ability to create new States therein.

I believe all three points you objected to still stand.

[CodeToad]

Thanks. Glad you liked it. He annoys me. Bigotry combined with ignorance and laziness is really annoying.

[mojitojoe]

No, what is sad is that you have flown under the radar for so many years and not been detected by the mods. Maybe we will just have to bring it to their attention a little more often.

[mojitojoe]

I75 still heads north...take it..
____________________
Damn right!

[mojitojoe]

I notice as soon as you mentioned the zotted name, NS thought he was taking too much flack and took off.

[mojitojoe]

Ring a bell?

Southern terrorists
Monday, October 27, 2003 12:40:09 PM • 200 of 271
Non-Sequitur to HenryLeeII
Before getting all uppity with me...

I’se so sorry, Marse HenryLee suh. I won’ do it no more.

[mojitojoe]

Sound familiar?

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:04:47 PM • 200 of 1,915
Non-Sequitur to TomServo
Well golly-gee, NS. How could we ever forget our racist past with ya’ll preaching from your mighty pulpit and sitting atop your high horses...
Especially when y’all hang on to it so tightly.

Monday, November 10, 2003 2:32:36 PM • 492 of 515
Non-Sequitur to HenryLeeII
Southern white trash is southern white trash regardless of where they live

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:58:04 PM • 356 of 448
Non-Sequitur to bjs1779
I hardly think that the south had to take lessons from anyone when it came to denying blacks basic rights and suffrage.

Monday, October 28, 2002 7:30:27 AM • 32 of 216
Non-Sequitur to thatdewd
You must be the product of the southern public school systems.

Non-Sequitur to seemoAR
There is a very old saying in the South about people who are as dumb as a fence post or a rock. It does as much good to argue with a post as it is does with some people. The results are the same.
And I imagine that the Southern population is equally divided between the two types.
you folks down South did just fine in the hate department without any coaching from us.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

It must make you happy to be able to pull out all the research you’ve done on Non-sequitur’s old postings again. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

[K-Stater]

I must say that Non Sequitur was an eloquent and very observant individual. And he clearly had you pegged.

[rockrr]

I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Perhaps, but why do you suppose he deliberately chose a perverse and pathetic one?!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Granting your understanding of the syntax, did I miss the part of IV.3 where the power to affect the property of the people was delegated to Congress???

Your point was that the clause protected the property of individuals when, in fact, it never mentions individuals or their property, only the territory and property of the United States and the claims of states upon that. Again, you have apparently failed to read the Records of the Constitutional Convention that I linked to.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Dred Scott was a good ruling? Because you seem to be making every point Taney did.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Pure meanness, I suppose.