I guess you're dropping you claim that the Hartford Convention Report and Resolutions was issued years (or months) after the end of the war, huh? How many facts have you conceded so far?
- When Roosevelt writes that the Hardford delegates' resolutions were written "as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events (Madison's response to their concessions) turned out", contrary to your assertion otherwise;
Sorry, pal. A resolution justifying something that you might do in the future is not the same as legally attempting to do it. Again, you seem to have a problem telling talking about doing something from actually attempting to do it.
- When Congressmen and statesmen repeatedly plead the case to let the South leave peacefully and avoid war, contrary to your assertion otherwise;
When did I assert that there weren't people who wanted to let the south go?
- When there was no legal ruling DELEGATING the right to leave the contract of the Constitution to the common governemnt, but the opposite DID exist - written ratifications and a 10th Amendment reserving the right to the States (or the people of the States of you will), contrary to your assertion otherwise;
And yet a Supreme Court decision (issued after unilateral secession was actually attempted) found differently.
- When we've all provided countless names, links, books, etc. to support our claims, contrary to your assertion otherwise;
Still waiting for a link to that New York Times article, though.
Because I've tired of providing links for you to ignore?
I don't recall you providing a link to a single thing. Maybe you can tell me in which post on this thread you've done that.
You comically like to focus on topics what you won't research yourself (despite providing enough information to find the PDF on google like I did), topics also COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion since you've ignored every other point presented. How does this conversation pivot on whether or not I hand your YET ANOTHER free piece of research you claim doesn't matter anyway? Guess what, it doesn't. You'll dismiss it, since you've proven that to be to be your obtuse expertise, while blaming me for not playing your game anymore.
My, my. All put upon, are we? I don't blame you for getting frustrated after I've shown your facts to be wrong time after time. Give up yet on your Sumter chronology's problem?
So far, you've shown an ignorance of when the Hartford Convention issued it's report, the sequence of events around Ft. Sumter, the effect of the cotton gin on slavery, the price of slaves in the first half of the 19th Century, when the US instituted conscription, the difference between the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts and where those two million slaves that appeared in the US between the end of the slave trade and the 1860 came from. And yet to you I'm apparently the one who isn't serious about my history.
OK, so whatever happened at Hartford was merely some "muttering". Madison, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt were likewise "muttering".
When I said
"Giddings by the way presented a list of 329 Northern representatives to Congress in 1856 "praying for a dissolution of the Union". Might be a couple in there"you can distort that into meaning I said ALL 329 in the petition qualified against your "three will do" requirement. Forget the fact you're ignoring the other 36 names who dispute your claim I couldn't provide 3, forget the fact that I said "maybe a couple", and forget the fact you still can't find a simple publication by yourself, in which 2 names were mentioned directly (Giddings & Fremont), so you only need to find 1 of 329 to meet your challenge (assuming the other 36 not named weren't good enough, which i haven't heard why).
When did I assert that there weren't people who wanted to let the south go?
When you challenged me to name 3 Republican leaders who wanted to let the south go (aka "secede", aka in favor of their "disunion"), and i named 36 plus a potential 326 more, but definitely gave you your 3 which you still ignore.
And yet a Supreme Court decision (issued after unilateral secession was actually attempted) found differently.
And thus the crux of your defense. A ruling AFTER a president unconstitutionally acts without precedent validates any actions prior. How you consider that ruling to be "law", and how such a law is not
ex post facto - such laws being explicitly unconstitutional per I.9 is stupefying.
I don't recall you providing a link to a single thing. Maybe you can tell me in which post on this thread you've done that.
Direct links in posts #64, 68, 292, 325 and 481 (at least). Citations in at least a dozen others (sorry, you actually have to type those into google like NYT article or pick up a book). Now that i see how poor you are at researching even this thread, I understand the hopelessness on you ever reading anything else we've pointed out.
So far, you've shown an ignorance of when the Hartford Convention issued it's report, the sequence of events around Ft. Sumter, the effect of the cotton gin on slavery, the price of slaves in the first half of the 19th Century, when the US instituted conscription, the difference between the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts and where those two million slaves that appeared in the US between the end of the slave trade and the 1860 came from. And yet to you I'm apparently the one who isn't serious about my history.
Nice list. But the report was released after the war ended. Apparently you counter that by saying people "didn't know" because it "took time" for news of Ghent to get across the seas...like several months in your book. And also, that I'm as ignorant as Teddy Roosevelt for saying it was clearly about secession.
Sumter events? I feel so silly since i have no idea what you're referring to...or how that would actually impact the events as they happened. I asked to correct me if I was worng, but that's too much to ask of too-busy-on-the-weekends Bubba? So sorry.
I can't help you any more with slaves. If you can't look up how the British et al across the world had been harvesting our biggest crops (including cotton) MUCH cheaper than the South, then I guess it really was expanding at unprecedented rates here and destined for a global monopoly. What's more curious is how you know for sure when you refuse to read? Perhaps you care more about being "right" than confirming the truth one way or the other?
Feel free to quote me when I gave a date for conscription. I simply pointed out Union forces weren't joining because of warm feelings but because of bayonets, in response to you proposing it was a Davis-only legislation. Guess Lincoln never did that either.
How did I confuse the militia acts again? i believe it was you who claimed Lincoln was justified by one or the other even though he was never granted the powers by the act.
And again with the slave population. Another broken record. Even though I gave a handful of reasons adding to the concentration in the south, you again fail at context, again assume incorrectly (despite clarification), again fail to read, and assert it was solely a matter of
forced (by the Southerners) breeding, since trade was stopped because the law said it stopped.
Is there anything else you need to mis-characterize of others to build your own credibility? If not, congrats because you've mastered the art of
ad hominem while failing completely to make a credible defense of any of your positions. (Add that to my "link count"!)