Posted on 03/17/2006 8:50:53 AM PST by High Cotton
Incorrect. According to Missouri archives the Dent family slaves, including the ones Mrs. Grant had use of, were freed shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted and there are no reports of Mrs. Grant being seen with them after that. In any case, Missouri amended her state constitution to outlaw slavery in January 1865 so Mrs. Grant could not have legally held any slaves after the rebellion was over.
It sure does. Respect for the Constitution for one. Lincoln could not end slavery anywhere, and could not free the slaves in those areas not in rebellion because the Constitution prevented it. It took the 13th Amendment to end slavery once and for all.
Well Ms. "I have gone into this program with a BA in history", Congress passed legislation ending slavery in D.C. on April 16, 1862. It could do this because Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congres the power to "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..."
Which clearly implies volumes....
And just when did he do this?
Of course, no one wants to make mention of those northern states that outlawed slavery with one hand and then allowed it to keep happening with the other.
Oh by the way, Ol' Honest Abe new all about it.
Mainly because Stephens' remarks were made extemporaneously. But Stephens himself admits that he did edit the reporter's article before publication and that he did not dispute the overall accuarcy of the account.
And as for Stephens being "a politician (who) did not represent the Confederacy", he was the vice-president at the time he made those remarks. If the vice-president did not represent the confederacy then who did?
"But the extension of slavery, in' the only practical sense of that phrase, was more distinctly and effectually precluded by the Confederate than by the Federal Constitution.
Utter nonsense. Article 1 section 9 states that "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" meaning that the confederate legislature could not legislate any restriction on slavery. Then a later clause clearly states that when the confederacy conquers new territories then in "all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government..." There is no way that any rational person can read the confederate constitution and come to the conclusion that it precluded the extension of slavery at all, much less to a greater extent than the real Constituion did.
You have something that disputes what I said?
Only insomuch that the southern states, rather than outlaw slavery and then, say, continue to lease slaves from Haiti or somewhere, chose to take a stand on the issue rather than be two-faced and dishonest about it.
The meme that the north was all about abolition and the south was some kind of evil, rotten institiution needs some adjustment. The truth of the matter has long been twisted into something it is not.
On April 27, 1861, about a week after the Fort Sumter surrender, President Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott, then head of the nation's military, to arrest anyone between Washington and Philadelphia suspected of subversive acts or speech, and his order specifically authorized suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Scott passed the order down the line, and Southern sympathizers in Maryland were rounded up in batches.
Now, look the rest of this up and read about it like I did. Thanks.
I've seen other accounts that it was in September. But regardless of the difference in dates, the fact was that the Maryland legislature was not arrested, much as Paige would have us believe. Some 35 members were arrested and held for about two months before being released in November. And I would point out that at the time the U.S. was engaged in combating armed rebellion initiated by the southern states. Battles had been fought and were being fought in the east and the west. And now you had a minority of the members of the Maryland legislature advocating joining that armed rebellion against the central government. In all honesty what the heck did you expect the government to do? At best the members were advocating rebellion. And if you accept the fact that the confederacy was an independent nation, as you and Paige do, then at worst the members of the Maryland legislature were advocating treason. Did you expect no response at all? Had 35 members of the Alabama legislature advocated taking the state out of the confederacy and back into the Union do you think that the actions of the Davis regime would have been any different? Be honest now.
Likewise it would have been simple for you to confirm that Lincoln and the Congress did end slavery in the District of Columbia well before the Emancipation Proclamation and well before the 13th Amendment. You astonishment at that fact was noted. And from a strictly legal standpoint, the 13th Amendment ended slavery in the south, too. The Emancipation Proclamation declared all those held in slavery to be free, it did not outlaw slavery itself since constitutionally Lincoln lacked the power to do so. But the Confiscation Acts, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, provided the legal cover to free those slaves held by those supporting the rebellion.
The point is that the North was as guilty, if not more so, than the South when it came to th slave issue. When they couldn't make any more money off of the slaves and it threatened free white males lively hood (jobs) along with the acquisition of land, they didn't want westward expansion for slave holders.
You can place any spin you want on the reasons for people like Lincoln opposing any expansion of slavery. The fact was that they did oppose it, believing that slavery would die out on its own if confined to those areas where it was already legal. You can claim that it was solely for the reason of securing jobs for white folk, which I guess must mean that the southern supporters of slavery expansion were opposed to jobs for white folk. Regardless, the southerners were for slavery's expansion at any cost. Including rebellion.
This led to the War of Northern Aggression. Thank goodness for the Information Age, because the PC history writers have tried to cover up the whole truth for years. Slavery was wrong then and it is wrong now, but this one-sided fabrication that has caused the castigation of the South is over with; therefore, it is time for the whole truth to come out and expose the North for their continued involvement in the heinous act of slavery.
So I guess that you are admitting that the War of Southern Rebellion was to protect the expansion of slavery? Keep talking like that and they're going to drum you right out of the Southron Myth Propogation Society.
In batches, huh? How many are in a batch?
At least, unlike your southron brothers, are honest enough to admit that Lincoln's suspension was very localized and you aren't claiming it was illegal. It's a start.
Now, look the rest of this up and read about it like I did. Thanks.
Apparently you didn't read enough. The Maryland legislature met in May 1861 and voted against secession. Prior to that meeting, General Scott requested that Lincoln order troops to prevent the meeting. Lincoln replied in a letter dated April 25, 1861:
Lieutenant General Scott
Washington, April 25, 1861.
My dear Sir:
The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think it would not be justifiable; nor, efficient for the desired object.
First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their action.
Secondly, we can not permanently prevent their action. If we arrest them, we can not long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated, they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. They will immediately re-assemble in some other place.
I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities---and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Your Obedient Servant
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Having voted once against secession, why should the government allow a second vote 5 months later? Especially when the country was then engaged in a Civil War against those very same states the Maryland legislators would want to join? There was nothing peaceful about their actions, they wanted to join a war against the government. What government in their right mind would sit back and permit it?
It's interesting that you want to claim that Lincoln "new" about it. One article you posted says evidence indicates Lincoln stayed with Crenshaw in 1840. The other one claims that Hickory Hill wasn't started until 1842. So which was it?
You contradicted yourself. Try again.
You contradicted yourself. Try again.
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.