Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
Border states simply refers to geography. For purposes of this discussion the relevant point, is was the state in the Union or in the Confederacy. For that matter, any territory under union control that allowed slavery during and after the war makes the same point. To say The "North" didn't allow slavery during or after the war, only the "Border states" did suggests you believe that there were three political entities at the time. The North, the South and the Border. Of course, you'll probably fall back on the it was okay to reward loyal border states with the right to own slaves. As ridiculous as that position would be, it would also ignore the fact that the emancipation proclemation left slavery legal in large portions of the south that were under union control in 1863.
As far as Grant owning slaves. The slave that grant freed in 1859 can be named, so we know he owned them. But for you to suggests that Grant's wife in 1860 America could own and manage a number of slaves without that ownership in anyway being imputed to grant is as absurd as Kerry saying, "I don't own SUV's my family does."
Name-calling is the last resort of the fact-challenged. It drags down the level of discussion.
Does anybody remember the old Usenet Civil War discussion forum, alt.war.civil.usa?
I thought Andersonville was a Confederate facility.
Don't forget that the first Confederate monument in the South was built in Romney West Virginia.
You Sir, are pompously inflating your lack of knowledge.
You throw the word,"traitor" around, as if you are God himself.
I do not defend a rebellion. What I do defend is the constitutional and moral right of the Southern states to secede, and to form a new government. I will even go one step further, and say that ANY state has the right to secede if needed. All I have seen you do on this thread is insult persons that disagree with your warped opinions. Your "worth" has been shown by your actions.
Well, I have a degrees to PROVE my knowledge. Can you say the same?!
Because the "Union" version was nothing but propaganda.
It was. The difference is that Union soldiers starved because the south had nothing to feed them, or supplies to give them.
Yankee Camps like Camp Douglas, or Rock Island deliberately withheld rations, and blankets due to revenge, etc.
OOOOOHHHHHH! You're a genius.
Still, show me where it mentions congress? Congress had nothing to do with Grant's order.
That would be the 13th Amendment, not the 14th. And Maryland ended slavery in late 1864.
You are right about one thing. Lincoln did not claim to be fighting the war to end slavery. Although you would never know it going to public schools.
And the South launched their rebellion to defend slavery, though you wouldn't know that by listening to the southron supporters around here.
And as far as your denying that Grant owned slaves, you might want to pick up a history book. Of course, he pulled a Kerry and claimed that they belonged to his wife and he was powerless to free them.
And here you are pulling a stand watie and mistating the facts. Fact: Grant owned one slave for a brief period of time in 1858-59 and freed him when he moved to Illinois. Now, had Grant had ownership of other slaves why wouldn't he free them at the same time? Why free some and not others? The reason is that the slaves his wife had use of were, in fact, the property of her father. Grant did not own them. Those slaves were, in fact, freed by the Mr. Dent early in 1863 as Missouri records show.
Remember, you are entitled to your own opinion; however, you are not entitled to your own facts.
As, sir, are you.
Well the Southern side gets to write the myths, so it all works out in the end.
Where did these massacres take place? Just curious.
Even the Europeans balked at this.
Read up on the histories of European wars in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, especially their civil wars, and you will see just how ridiculous such a statement is.
I know better than the crap you're posting, too, All I'm saying is that if you insist on lying, lie big.
Absolute, complete lie.
Because his posts have shown themselves to be more accurate than anything you post? Is that reason enough?
Sure it was. Just read some of the quotes of the Southern leaders at the time of secession.
...Lincoln ignored the four slave states in the Union and said he wanted blacks expelled from the US altogether...
Lincoln didn't ignore the 4 slave states that did not join the Southern rebellion, he could not Constitutionally do anything about them until he gained passage of the 13th Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. As for your claim about wanting all blacks expelled from the U.S. altogether, that is a flat out lie.
Sherman is infamous for it and more than a few northern generals graduated from his example to wipe out the Indians.
And when did that happen?
This war, like most wars, was about money and resources.
Oh yes, state's rights too - basically money and resources.
I had to see it to believe it. That was priceless.
Do you see me having tea with Nancy?
Tell me, why on earth should I be interested in having any furthur conversation with you? Other than calling me, and my fathers traitorous scum, you have nothing else to offer.
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.