Posted on 07/04/2011 6:57:54 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
In his Gettysburg Address, …… Abraham Lincoln found the precise words to describe America’s dire situation. Here they are. Hear them, and savor them. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
“But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Actually, they did not. The constitution provided for the banning of the slave trade 20 years after instituting the constitution (the trade was given an extra 20 years on the insistence of the New England states who made big $$$$$$ from the trade), but the Founders did not call for slavery to be banned at that time.
RE Lee did own slaves. He had a female slave, Nancy and her 4 slave boys. He filed his will in western Virginia, so that her identity would not become known to his wife, or his creditors in eastern Virginia. His will gave her and the boys her freedom. He never updated his will after the war, and it was not consulted when he died, his relatives not knowing about it.
It is suspected, though not known for sure, that she was his concubine in Texas, and the children are suspected of being his male offspring by her.
Kind of conflicts with the “marble man” so beloved of the neo-confederates.
Your assertion is that Stephens, the Vice President of the pretended confederacy was the dupe.
The fact is, he was a key participant, and those who fought for slavery were the dupes.
Government of the people by the people, except in South Carolina where half the people were slaves. Except in Mississippi where nearly that many were slaves.
Of course the south was also opposed to free states forbidding slavery. The south was opposed to the election and service of the president in accordance with the Constitution. How does that align with being for self government?
And? There were also quite a few loyalists who served under the British during the American War for Independence. I guess there was not total, complete uniform enthusiasm among the colonists.
:-)
BS. I’d like some proof of that.
The north would not let the south leave because the south was part of the People. The south was guaranteed a republican form of government, not an oligarchy.
The southern states could have left legally, by constitutional amendment, by successful supreme court case brought against the federal government, or perhaps by legislation. Such a form of secession would have required broad agreement of the whole people, and would have been in accordance with the principles of self government.
Rather, the southern oligarchs decided upon secession, had conventions where those opposed did not speak, or could not speak, had referendums where votes were supervised and no opposing view were permitted in the local papers.
Per Texas v. White, the southern pretended secession was illegal and had no legitimacy.
The south was opposed to the election and service of the president in accordance with the Constitution.
The South was opposed to what the Founders had always feared: sectional parties. Before this, all parties had been national and received votes from all over the country. The Republican party was the first major sectional party and not a single Southern state voted for it. If you look at the election map you can see that only the Northern states voted Republican. Being a sectional party interested in only the interests of the North, the Republican government was not going to be representative of the South at all.
How does that align with being for self government?
Hello. Not a singe southern state went to the republican party in that election. The South seceeded and chose self government right after that election because they were afraid of what a sectional party that did not represent them at all might do to them.
True.
had conventions where those opposed did not speak, or could not speak
Untrue. Records have been maintained of the various secession conventions. I believe only South Carolina was unanimous for secession. Virginia voted against secession before war broke out, then revoted for it. Here are the various convention votes.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=34
had referendums where votes were supervised
True, but then the secret ballot hadn't been invented yet. Several states had quite significant votes against secession, as in up to 1/3.
http://cenantua.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/state-by-state-comparison-of-secession-referendum-numbers/
no opposing view were permitted in the local papers.
Possibly true. However, it would be due to public opinion, which was often riotous, not legal action.
I would like to find the descendants of Nancy and compare their DNA to descendants of the Lee family, as has been done with descendants of Thomas Jefferson.
His will was apparently written in 1846, before his deployment to Mexico, and according to this article, I was wrong, was indeed probated in 1870 after Lee’s death.
I thought that the RE Lee will was a more recent discovery, in part justifying the frequent ignorance of Neo-confederates on the subject.
Lee had apparently freed his personal slaves with those of his father in law, and arranged for their freedom along with the slaves of his father in law in 1862.
There was no one American People at that time. There wasn't even such thing as an American Citizen at that time. You were a citizen of your State, not of the Federal Government.
American independence was not granted to a central government or to the American people en masse, but to the individual states.
The States were sovereign and did not give up their sovereignty when they created the Union. The states had every right to seceed.
As Alexander Hamilton said, "The attributes of soveriegnty are now enjoyed by every state in the Union."
Oliver Elsworth said that: "The Thirteen States are Thirteen Sovereign bodies."
Daniel Webster said that, "The States are Nations."
Webster also said in the US Senate in 1833 that the Union was created by the accession of the States and that the States had every right to seceed from the Union.
Btw, secession is not just a southern thing. Did you know that the New England states were the first to hold a secession convention? The convention was held at Hartford Connecticut for the purpose of discussing the possibility of seceeding because of the unpopularity of the War of 1812.
Also, did you know that the states Of Virginia, New York, and one other state reserved in their ratification of the Constitution the right to seceed from the Union if they wanted to? The fact that the other states accepted this without question is reason enough to maintain the assertion that they were in agreement with Virginia. And since all the states are equals, if one state has a right to seceed, they all do.
But they did try to destroy the union. They illegally fled from their responsibilities and obligations, they stole from the union, they fired upon their erstwhile countrymen, they seized mutual territories, and they placed themselves in direct competition with the union for the rest. They even attempted to take over the nations capitol.
Actually they did. Surely you are familiar with the term dual sovereignty? The states maintained their individual sovereignty, but were subordinate to the federal union they voluntarily joined.
Interesting. The common claim is that REL never personally owned slaves. This is apparently untrue.
Still have seen nothing resembling proof that Nancy was REL’s concubine or that her children were his offspring.
Signing statements are like crossed fingers - the may make you feel better, but they don't carry any weight of law.
Lee didnt know what to do with them.
"However it is clear that from the outset Lee saw his servants as an uncomfortable stewardship. He declined to attend the meeting called to allocate his mother's servants, sending Smith (brother) as proxy."(p 148 Reading the Man ...Pryor)
"once given his share, he did not know how to employ this new property."
"As he departed for the Mexican War, Lee wrote a will in which he freed the much maligned Nancy and her children...."
"Douglas Southall Freeman thought that he liberated all of his slaves after 1847, since he found no tax listing for them after that date." ibid
Lee JR. writes that he consulted with his brother, GWC Lee, who said that "General Robert E Lee inherited three or four families of slaves and 'let them go'" without formally manumitting them in the county records to avoid "being compelled to leave Virginia." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4245920)
He inherited a domestic and consequently her three children...and had no use for them.
Did he ever actually buy a slave? Did he ever seek slave ownership?
As for your claim that Nancy was his mistress, you need to prove that before you start libeling.
Anyway, at the time of the War, Lee did not own any slaves. And that was the point.
Don't know about the other states. But here's the VA resolution ratifying the Constitution.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.aspPlease point out the section you reference.
Besides, as John Randolf of Roanoke said, "there is no magic in the word union." I would rather have no union and liberty, than a union held together by bayonets.
they fired upon their erstwhile countrymen, they seized mutual territories, and they placed themselves in direct competition with the union for the rest. They even attempted to take over the nations capitol.
That was after the war started. Duh. Armies do that in war. The Yankees fired on our men too and seized mutual territories and tried and eventually succeeded in capturing Richmond.
The unanimous SC convention mostly means to me that noone suspect was permitted to attend.
In Texas, Sam Houston was opposed to secession, and recommended against anyone opposed even attending.
Apparently some did not take his advice.
and over half of southern soldiers were conscripts. See how the slave owners use law to force others to protect slavery for them?
It is the right of the people to change it. The whole people, not any small splinter that demand special rights at the cost of others.
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.