Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
You seem to think that I will be shocked that Lee had slaves. I'm not.
Nice guys, huh?
I am fully aware of the slave situation in Virginia and in the South. I am not shocked nor dismayed by it. You cannot surprise me with these little tidbits. So, you could save yourself some time, (only if you want) and leave those off your post.
Now, I would like to know how a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army could afford all those slaves?
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. Disallowed. Projected generality with no foundation but your opinion, which you now substitute as fact.
Non,
You said a tariff was not a tax and it is. There are domestic and foreign tariffs. A domestic one (as was the case with the Whiskey Rebellion) is sometimes called an excise tax, which often referred to as a tariff.
But the larger point is this my friend, it's a tax, no two ways about it. It's the govt in the pockets of someone. You can mince words and call it a "duty" or whatever, but it's a tax pure and simple.
If they were Julia Grant's property then I believe that yes, they would be considered Ulysses Grant's property. However, most evidence indicates that Julia Grant had use of the slaves but that title remained with her father. The slaves remained at the Dent plantation when the Grant's were out of state, it's hard to believe that Grant would free the one slave we know for a fact he owned and not the others, and Missouri records indicate that the slaves Julia Grant had use of were freed early in 1863 when the rest of the Dent family slaves were emancipated.
Now, I would like to know how a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army could afford all those slaves?
How could Thomas Jackson, a poorly paid college instructor, own as many as 9 or 10 slaves at a single time? Slave owneship was very much a middle-class institution. As for Lee, he married well, to begin with. And an army officer's pay provided a solidly middle-class livestyle.
Disallowed. Projected generality with no foundation but your opinion, which you now substitute as fact.
Then why would Lee pay passage for the Burke's and none of his other emancipated chattel? Did he have it in for them or something?
Two of them, Missouri and Maryland, ended slavery on their own, as did West Virginia. The 13th amendment, pushed by Lincoln and passed through congress after the Republicans made gains in the 1864 election, freed the rest. You guys always squawk about what the EP didn't do, but forget the 13th.
Did you not read the definition you posted from Wikipedia? "A tariff is a tax on foreign goods." It says nothing about domestic tariffs and foreign tariffs. At any rate a domestic tariff would be unconstitutional, per Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 and 6 wouldn't it?
This is nothing but a dodge on your attempt. Had use...no, they were hers. Here is what the official US government website has to say.
Her (Julia) playmates included slave children; eventually, the girls she played with as a child became her slave servants as adults.
By 1855, the Grants farmed 80 acres of land given to Julia as a wedding gift by her father. Ulysses also managed the rest of the White Haven estate. Those days were financially trying for the Grants, but Julia remained supportive of her hard-working husband. She considered herself “a splendid farmer’s wife,” raising chickens and even churning butter. Except for making cake once a week, she left the cooking to the slaves.
Letters helped to ease the pain of separation, and Julia frequently traveled to her husband’s encampments, both alone and with the children. It is ironic to note that her slave, Jule, usually assisted with the children’s care on such trips.
So, if you want hide to behind the "not her properity" gambit, then we really have nothing left to say, because you refuse to be honest. Now, you parse it all you want and put Bill Clinton to shame...but it does not change the fact. Julia Dent Grant had slaves and by your own logic, they belonged to U.S. Grant. But it's okay...they were emancipated. What a good guy.
Stonewall...just shows how little you know about him. He was good in business. He owned a farm, part interest in a saw mill, part interest in a bank. And yes, he owned slaves. Cause most of them came with the wife from North Carolina. And some times, slaves would ask him to because they wanted to work for their freedom and he did it. He had two slaves doing just that.
Again, your last argument is disallowed. Again, not shocked or shamed at the word chattel. You are suppositioning all over the place, and the argument is lost. Maybe the rest didn't want to go to Liberia? That is about as factual as your claim and made from the same straw.
Should read asked him to buy them because
Julia Grant in her memoirs reports that her family slaves remained her property until they were freed by the 13th amendment.
She also reported that she was very upset when her favorite slave ran away in 1864, apparently the slave did not realize that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to her.
Ok fine, you were wrong Non-Seq, a tariff IS a tax. Just admit as much.
It's scary when people say things like "a tariff is not a tax" - at least to people like me.
Look, here's the bottom line of the Civil War, what the Civil War was all about. Follow me guys.
1) Lincoln was beholden to Northern Industrialists who were losing business to the South because the South traded predominantly with Europe.
2) Lincoln wanted to empower the federal govt and force his Henry Clay ideas (the American System) on everyone in the country by initiating massive publics works projects in the North.
3) Lincoln had to put massive tariffs on the South in order to fund his American system.
4) The South seceded because of the tariff, not because of some imaginary nonsense that Lincoln was going to war to free slaves in America. The Confederate Constitution is clear on this.
5) Lincoln stated he would collect the tariff revenue by force but was assured the war would only last a couple months.
BOTTOM LINE: This was a tariff war, not a war about slavery.
Hey, Alouette, I know that you are busy on the Israeli threads. Do you live in Israel?
I want to make an analogy here that I think will help some regarding the issue of slavery in the Civil War.
Lincoln used slavery the same way Saddam Hussein, Iran, and Osama Bin Laden used the Palestinians as an issue. They could care less about Palestinians. Hussein wanted to be a pan-arab leader, Bin Laden wanted all Westerners out of the Middle East, and Iran wanted the Shah and the US out (Iranians don't even consider themselves arabs, but Persians, and they look down on arabs like the Palestinians).
My point is, even tho they have clear agendas, they use the Palestinians as a sore point, a POLITICAL sore point, just as Lincoln did with slaves. This is why abolitionists HATED Lincoln and saw him for what he was: a politician.
But what Lee did was keep them doing the same plantation work at Arlington and to try to lease them out so that he could pay off some debts. In the end he kept them for two months past the five years that his father in law had stipulated. The slaves, who had been promised their freedom when George Custis died, were not happy to learn they weren't to be free for five more years and three of them tried to escape. They were quickly recaptured and, according to one of them, Wesley Norris, Lee had them all flogged--50 lashes for the two men and 20 for the woman.
Maybe that's the training you're talking about.
Declaration of Causes of Secession
The word "Tariff" does not appear in any of the Declarations of Secession.
SOUTH CAROLINA
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
MISSISSIPPI
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
GEORGIA
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
TEXAS
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.
Lincoln's primary concern was keeping the union together. Slavery did not become an issue until 1863.
Yes, a tariff is a tax. But not all taxes are tariffs. The words are not synonyms.
As for the rest of your rant, it's odd how little tariffs are mentioned by the south as the motive for secession, and how often slavery is mentioned.
LOL! The Confederate Constitution FORBADE international slave trading (sorta curious for a bunch of slave addicts, doncha think?) and made a big point of PROHIBITING GOVT FROM INSTITUTING PROTECTIONIST TARIFFS!!!
Do you guys seriously, seriously think that one half of this country (that had four slave states) fought a war against the other half that in today's numbers would involve 6 million dead over the issue of slavery when every single other western nation resolved slavery peacefully?
The Civil War was about states rights vs the federal govt, not slavery. The HUGE contention was the Morrill Tariff, not slavery, which was on the way out anyway.
Spare me. Their constitution TOTALLY FORBADE imposing tariffs for "internal improvements" (a direct reference to Lincoln's American System) with the exception of making waterways and even then that was very, very limited.
Bear in mind that the govt's primary source of revenue then was tariffs, not income taxes as it is today. They literally said "No tariffs for federal improvements"
Sure, they said slavery should be legal, but so did one out of five of the Northern states (really more, because the north counted as allies western territories that had nothing to do with the issue. In fact, the large Indian tribes fought IN SUPPORT of the south).
But the Confederacy actually FORBADE international slave trading, following the then-liberal ideas of the day.
Geeze...
I posted a link to the Declaration of Causes for Secession (that is like the Declaration of Independence for Confederacy), in which South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas stated quite expliciting they were leaving the Union in order to keep the institution of slavery.
Obviously you didn't bother to even read it. You keep repeating the same junk.
No. The Civil War (or the "War of Northern Aggression" or "The War of the Rebellion") was fought to keep the Union together, not to get rid of slavery.
The reason the Southern states seceded is because they panicked and thought a Republican administration was going to come and take their slaves away.
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.