Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
You realize Lincolm shared almost such a view of group superiority? As did many others who were Abolitionists. They objected to slavery, not to white superiority.
Why don't you go to Scotland and get married?
One of the main issues driving the South towards secession was the various personal freedom laws of northern states that interfered with recovery of fled slaves. Sometimes those laws and constitutional provisions were reasonable, intended primarily to provide due process in determining whether the fugitive actually was a slave. Sometimes they were frankly in direct conflict with the federal Constitution, intended to prevent the return of fugitives regardless of their legal status.
But in 850 the South got the Fugitive Slave Law passed, which took the return out of state hands and gave it to the feds, a quite considerable expansion of federal power.
The South only became enamoured of states’ rights when it became obvious they were losing the disproportionate control of the federal government they’d held since the Founding.
Just go on any thread that discusses the Civil War and you’ll find scores of them. I bet you’ll even find your “name” there.
Lincoln did not believe in a Master Race in the sense I mean, the one held in the South and in Nazi Germany. There it was meant quite literally, that one race was to be Masters and all others Slaves.
You bet, Lincoln and most other northerners believed in white racial superiority. This POV was, BTW, the “scientific consensus” of the time. But they did not believe this superiority meant other races should be literally enslaved.
You're a man after my own heart! Er . . . unless you're a woman. (And by the way, if you are, would you marry me?)
The South was for "states' rights" during the Washington and Adams administrations but when Jefferson was elected the two sides did a do-si-do and switched positions completely. New England Federalists, first the Essex Junto and then the Hartford Convention, advocated secession, and the Jeffersonian South called it "treason."
That’s funny, because to get a flavor of the cause of the Civil War from dispassionate and neutral sources, one can simply read the European accounts of the conflict, both contemporary and historical. Even Karl Marx (who had no love at all for the Confederacy), called the Civil War a “tariff war.” European writers said that staying in the Union would cost the South millions, but the Southern states leaving the Union would cost the North millions.
Why should my sex/gender make a difference in whether we get married?
You are obviously a homophobe.
I is quite male, and married almost 39 years.
Was dismissed by Chief Justice Chase for lack of jurisdiction so it doe not support your claim.
But you will continue to raise the straw man, the faux conservative that you are.
And you, pseudo-conservative that you are, will continue to post irrelevancies.
Shouldn't we rely more on the speeches and writings of the Southern and Northern leaders of the time rather than analysis from people who were not part of it?
Only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances, i.e., the return of fugitive slaves, slavery in the U.S. territories and Federal abolition. By leaving the voluntary Union, these States abandoned all claims regarding the first two and the issue of Federal abolition was entirely eliminated as a cause of war by Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address and the Corwin Amendment. The only issue of contention remaining was the 40% Federal sales tax on Southerners, which required a compulsory Union to collect.
The difference is the Lee family had no interest in owning slaves and freed all the ones they inherited once the debts were paid off. The Grants, however, had no such scruples and didn’t free theirs until they were forced to by the 13th amendment, or else their slaves ran away before that as you say they might have done.
That is simply a lie.
The Grants didn't live anywhere that slavery was legal after January 1865 so how could they have owned slaves until December 1865?
Here is one article about it from the Maryland state site: Arrest of the Maryland Legislature, 1861
This site also has a lot to say regarding the arrests
Abraham Lincoln and Maryland
He could not legally free the slaves
Of course he couldn't. And since he had no power over the other country he was fighting, his proclamation did nothing to free anybody. It was a mere gesture to help sway Europe away from siding with the Confederacy by making his war of aggression out to be righteous cause.
Regarding the reasons for the war, I think you missed this part of one of my previous posts:
Only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances, i.e., the return of fugitive slaves, slavery in the U.S. territories and Federal abolition. By leaving the voluntary Union, these States abandoned all claims regarding the first two and the issue of Federal abolition was entirely eliminated as a cause of war by Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address and the Corwin Amendment. The only issue of contention remaining was the 40% Federal sales tax on Southerners, which required a compulsory Union to collect.
Except that there was no 40% tax on Southerners. Not in 1860. Not ever.
Because they left before the taxes could be raised. They knew the Lincoln and his northern friends were planning on pushing it through, and they knew they didn't have enough legislative force to stop it. February 15, 1861 in Pittsburgh, U.S. President-elect Lincoln affirmed his priority for passage of a high tariff after his inauguration on March 4:
“The condition of the treasury at this time would seem to render an early revision of the tariff indispensable. The Morrill (tariff) Bill, now pending before Congress, may or may not become a law. If, however, it shall not pass, I suppose the whole subject will be one of the most pressing and important for the next Congress.”
In 1860 South Carolina had declared that
“The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference.” “And so with the Southern States towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, they are in a minority in Congress.” “The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North.” (Paragraphs 5-8)
Lincoln further declared in his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 his stance on slavery and his reasons for war if war broke out:
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government [four Federal tax collection forts], and to collect the duties and imposts [import tax]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” (Paragraph 21)
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” (Paragraph 4)
“I understand a proposed (Corwin) Amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” (Paragraph 32)
Please see posts #36 and 59.
Because this isn't Scotland.
You are obviously a homophobe.
And a Theocrat!
I is quite male, and married almost 39 years.
You are to be congratulated.
yeah, only 5
Funny how they ll seceded right after an anti-slavery president got sworn in and not before
Funny how they all were upset at the rights of northern states to not return runaway slaves
As I'm sure you know by now neither site supports Baldwin's claim that the entire legislature was arrested. One puts the number at 16, which agrees with an earlier post of mine.
And since he had no power over the other country he was fighting, his proclamation did nothing to free anybody.
The "other country" part is open for debate, but what it did do was make sure that any Southern slaves who ran off couldn't be returned.
It was a mere gesture to help sway Europe away from siding with the Confederacy by making his war of aggression out to be righteous cause.
Even if that were the reason for the proclamation you would have to admit that it worked.
Only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances, i.e., the return of fugitive slaves, slavery in the U.S. territories and Federal abolition.
But slavery is prominently mentioned in all of the Declarations of the Causes of Secession which were issued by several of the seceding states. If we take these declarations as having the same purpose as the original Declaration of Independence then it is clear that slavery was by far the most important reason for their actions.
The only issue of contention remaining was the 40% Federal sales tax on Southerners, which required a compulsory Union to collect.
There was no 40% tax on Southerners.
Because they left before the taxes could be raised. They knew the Lincoln and his northern friends were planning on pushing it through, and they knew they didn't have enough legislative force to stop it.
There was no 40% tax on Southerners as a part of the Morrill Tariff.
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government [four Federal tax collection forts], and to collect the duties and imposts [import tax]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
Lincoln also mentioned delivering the mail and appointing judges. He was going down the list of tasks the government performed and promised they would continue.
“I understand a proposed (Corwin) Amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Lincoln could have said he was dead set against it and it wouldn't have made a difference. The president plays no part in the amendment process. He doesn't vote on them, doesn't sign them, can't veto them, nothing.
But Baldwin says that Lincoln did more than just be aware of the amendment. According to him, Lincoln authored the amendment and he said it was the only amendment proposed by a sitting president. Can we agree that that claim is completely false?
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.