Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
free dixie,sw
Seceding and revolting, six of one, half a dozen of the other, right?
Wrong.
Secession is done peacefully, and may end in war, but a revolt is war first and foremost. The colonist demanded nicely to be separate from England, they didn't go sack British garrisons in New York and New Jersey prior to declaring independence.
When South Caroline and the New England states were going to secede, they held conferences and conventions, they didn't rush into the White House and perform a coup d'etat.
I hope this makes sense to you.
As for the Founders, all save Alexander Hamilton (another Whig statist) were at odds with Lincoln's philosophy. When Washington had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion with troops (first suspension of habeas corpus in America), he did so peacefully and rescinded the tariff that upset the rebels in the first place.
And guess who proposed the tax that started the uprising in the first place? Yep, Hamilton, Lincoln's hero. The difference between Lincoln and Washington is that Washington listened to the people and backed off, Lincoln did not.
And let me spell something out for those who don't realize the cost of the Civil War in human life. Adjusted for the current US population it would be the equivalent of 6 million dead Americans. Think about that when you see all the pissing and moaning over a couple thousand dead in Iraq.
Also, Lincoln expected the war to last a month or two. He completely botched his assessment of its duration and cost.
The vast majority of the southron contingent around here could take a lesson from General Lee.
What I don't understand is why you hold our forefathers in such esteem, but hold Lee in such contempt. Perhaps he committed the one sin America cannot abide. He lost.
I don't hold Lee in any contempt at all. But I don't raise him high on the pedestal, either. He fought for what he believed in. I happen to believe that his cause was wrong, and his loyalty to state over county misplaced.
may i suggest you look up the article in Army Lawyer, written by the Judge Advocate General, a serving Major General of the US Army, in 1999?
in that article,the General states that CPT Wurtz:
1. was tried by a tribunal, which had NO authority to try a civilian,
2. KNOWINGLY refused to allow him to call witnesses in his defense,
3.ALLOWED the subornation of perjury to be admitted to evidence, which was KNOWN to be FALSE before the trial opened,
4.UNLAWFULLY convicted him &
5. sentenced him to hang.
it was NOT either a FAIR trial NOR did CPT Wurtz commit ANY of the crimes for which he was hanged! NONE of them.
free dixie,sw
I didn't overstate or understate the case on Lincoln and slavery at all. His clear objective was "preserving the Union" - not freeing slaves.
But hey, let's just make this simple. There were four slave states in the North and Lincoln let them keep their slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was aimed at the South, but slavery in the North was just ducky.
It was all about tariffs and Lincoln's obstinate devotion to the American System.
And also, I take issue with your "typical southern distortion" nonsense. Although currently in the South, I just moved back after 15 years in New York City and New Jersey.
My view on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with fidelity to the south but rather with criticism of Lincoln, who was a total politician who ruled with an iron fist. Many nations rid themselves of slavery peacefully through compensation. The Industrial Revolution just a few years later would've ended it period. Lincoln wanted to collect the huge tariffs on the South and that was that, and he did so at a price that was far, far, in excess of even what he imagined.
Now that aside, did Lee have his own slaves? Both Fitzhugh Lee and General Long (both biographer of Lee) seem indicate that he did.
As for the Liberia claim - I have not heard that, but if he did, he did it as the executor of his father-in-law's will.
Lee never owned Arlington or the White House Plantation. At his father-in-law's death, Arlington went to his oldest son Custis and the White House Plantation to Rooney Lee. That is why Custis sued the government for the return of Arlington and the Washington memorabilia that disappeared during Arlington and the White House's occupation.
Washington Parke Custis allowed 5 years for the training of his "former" slaves in business so they could support themselves. In 1863, Lee took time from the war to sign the emancipation papers.
it was ANYTHING but a FAIR election!
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you, fool!
free dixie,sw
No, there is no contempt for the men in gray in any of your writings. No. LOL!
you'd look SMARTER!
free dixie,sw
If secession is done legally, and if the seceding states don't go out and shoot up federal forts. Then it most certainly ends in war.
...but a revolt is war first and foremost. The colonist demanded nicely to be separate from England, they didn't go sack British garrisons in New York and New Jersey prior to declaring independence.
They fought several pitched battles with the British between April 1775 and July 1776. They raised an army, captured Fort Ticonderoga, invaded Canada, lost and later forced the British out of Boston, and battled for New York, all before declaring independence. Hardly peaceful actions.
When South Caroline and the New England states were going to secede, they held conferences and conventions, they didn't rush into the White House and perform a coup d'etat.
And they didn't secede either. Didn't even seriously threaten to secede.
As for the Founders, all save Alexander Hamilton (another Whig statist) were at odds with Lincoln's philosophy. When Washington had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion with troops (first suspension of habeas corpus in America), he did so peacefully and rescinded the tariff that upset the rebels in the first place.
When Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion it was by calling up 13,000 troops and sending them after the rebels. And interestingly enough Washington relied on the same piece of legislation to justify his actions as Lincoln used to call up the troops to put down the Southern rebellion, the Militia Act of 1792.
Oh, and it was a tax not a tariff. Tariffs are on imports, Washington's government was taxing domestically produced whiskey.
And let me spell something out for those who don't realize the cost of the Civil War in human life. Adjusted for the current US population it would be the equivalent of 6 million dead Americans. Think about that when you see all the pissing and moaning over a couple thousand dead in Iraq.
Let me ask you this. Had the war cost 600,000 lives, but the South had emerged victorious, would you say it was worth the cost?
Also, Lincoln expected the war to last a month or two. He completely botched his assessment of its duration and cost.
There was a lot of that going around then.
And when they raised their right hand, did they do so under duress or threat.
The Union soldiers wanted to see it done. They had fought for 4 years. They wanted victory in the field and voted for the man who believed that they could win.
Name-calling is about all he's got. You'll search far and wide for a ration post from him, backed up with verifiable documentation. He likes to quote from books that don't exist.
I saw that on a Web Site very good read too
How about providing a link? How about providing a name?
The article might hold a little water if it had been written in, say, 1899 by someone who actually served on the tribunal.
Any lawyer, military or civilian, can speculate about any conviction from 150 years ago and turn it upside down. That's why they're LAWYERS. Duh!
George Washington Parke Custis was dead. His daughter was his heir. Property of the wife belonged to the husband. Lee signed the papers that emancipated them.
Now that aside, did Lee have his own slaves? Both Fitzhugh Lee and General Long (both biographer of Lee) seem indicate that he did.
As do Douglas Southall Freeman and the Library of Congress.
As for the Liberia claim - I have not heard that, but if he did, he did it as the executor of his father-in-law's will.
No, it was done much earlier for some of his own slaves and while his father-in-law was still alive. At least one pair, William and Rosebella Burke, made the trip with their family in 1853. In Liberia, William Burke attended a Presbyterian seiminary and became an ordained minister. For those who condemn Lincoln for his support of colonization let me remind them that that was something William Burke could never have done had he remained in the South. We know about the Burke's because they corresponded with the Lee family up until the rebellion. But if Lee paid passager for the Burke's then there is no reason to believe he didn't do it for others as well.
Washington Parke Custis allowed 5 years for the training of his "former" slaves in business so they could support themselves. In 1863, Lee took time from the war to sign the emancipation papers.
Actually Lee worked the slaves, hiring them out to help pay off some of his father-in-law's debts. And Lee freed the slaves in December 1862, a day or two before the Emancipation Proclamation became effective, and about 5 months after the 5 year time limit that his father-in-law's will required. But since Lee was busy fighting the rebellion then one cannot criticize him for being just a little bit tardy.
Oh, and according to Virginia law those slaves that Lee freed had 12 months in which to leave Virginia or else they could be sold back into slavery. Nice guys, huh?
Of course, Spooner is writing before the 13th amendment DOES free all the slaves, including those in areas not in rebellion and thus not subject to the military measure that was the Emancipation Proclamation.
What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend? A tax on imported foreign goods, not on domestically produced goods.
However let me hasten to add that I wasn't trying to be hard on you, just accurate. Confusing tariff with an excise tax is among the least of the errors you've been posting.
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.