Replies

"And NO Northern states did not return slaves without federal coercion under the Fugitive Slave Act which was the Law of the Land."

First off, any time you mention "Northern states" you're going to have to mention that four of them were slave states. And to say that the North didn't return slaves without "federal coercion" further blurs the line between the two and certainly flies in the face of your ranting about the South's "tyranny" in your previous post on this subject, something outright laughable in light of your dismissal of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, ignoring the Supreme Court, and dismissing with Congressional debate altogether as he plunged this nation into an abyss of blood and death that would today result in over 6 million dead Americans, a number equal to that of those massacred in the Holocaust half a century ago, something this poster is clearly fine with. The nation would never have gotten into war in the first place had compromise been the name of the game (reduction in unfair tariffs on the Southern states' trade internally and with Europe and a phasing out of slavery via compsenation a'la the way the European powers did).

Yes folks, that's right. The "North" passed a law requiring law enforcement officials to arrest runaway slaves or be fined $1000. That's the equivalent of a fine of over $100k in today's dollars! Sure, there were abolitionists and underground railroads and whatnot, but the notion that this poster has about some benevolent "North" (read: your average citizen) being anti-slavery is nuts.

The North's AWOL rate was 94%!!!! Scores of blacks were beaten to death by black mobs in our most cosmopolitan northern city! Ahem:

"Rioters attacked a black fruit vendor and a nine-year-old boy at the corner of Broadway and Chambers Street before moving to the Colored Orphan Asylum on Fifth Avenue between Forty-Third and Forty-Fourth Streets. By the spring of 1863, the managers had built a home large enough to house over two hundred children. Financially stable and well-stocked with food, clothing, and other provisions, the four-story orphanage at its location on Fifth Avenue and Forty-Second Street was an imposing symbol of white charity toward blacks and black upward mobility. At 4 P.M. on July 13, "the children numbering 233, were quietly seated in their school rooms, playing in the nursery, or reclining on a sick bed in the Hospital when an infuriated mob, consisting of several thousand men, women and children, armed with clubs, brick bats etc. advanced upon the Institution." The crowd took as much of the bedding, clothing, food, and other transportable articles as they could and set fire to the building. John Decker, chief engineer of the fire department, was on hand, but firefighters were unable to save the building. The destruction took twenty minutes."

Yes folks, that's right. The "North" passed a law requiring law enforcement officials to arrest runaway slaves or be fined $1000.

Got a source for this? I'm just wondering how the "North" passes a law. Did they have a separate legislature? When was this law passed? Did the south's agitating over getting their slaves returned to them as guaranteed by the Constitution have anything to do with it?

Scores of blacks were beaten to death by black mobs in our most cosmopolitan northern city

I think you mean white mobs, but no matter. When you're playing that fast and loose with the facts, what does a detail like that mean?

The standard classification was North, South and Border. Only in the Border states and the South was slavery legal.

And, No, citing the existence of the Fugitive Slave Act as the Law of the Land blurs nothing except distortions you attempt. Most Northerners HATED that law and observed it only under compulsion. It was passed through Southern votes with a few Northern Democrats. It is a LIE to claim the North passed it. And you know it.

But I expect nothing but LIES, and distortions from your side. That is all you have. Well and false pretenses.

There was no compromise with those working night and day with the singleminded purpose of splitting the Union. They had NO intention of compromising what they had been working for for ten years. Lincoln could no more compromise with them than Bush could with al Queda.

Tariffs had nothing to do with the attacks on the Union and the Rebels didn't even claim they did. Only their modernday mendacious defenders make such silly claims even though it is easy to show that they attacked the Union ONLY because of their slaves. They were totally Single Issue and happily admitted it.

"...reduction in unfair tariffs on the Southern states' trade internally..." This is a new fantasy. There were NO "internal" tariffs within the US. Who knows what this is supposed to mean?

"...the notion that this poster has about some benevolent "North" (read: your average citizen) being anti-slavery is nuts." All that is well and good but has no bearing on anything I have ever said. Preserving the Union was Lincoln's goal as it was those who fought for the United States of America. You are the one who keeps deceptively bringing slavery up as their motive. That may have been true for a minority of Unionists but those of us supporting Lincoln make no such claims for most.

It is also a LIE to claim a 94% AWOL (whatever that means) rate for Union forces.

"Scores of blacks were beaten to death by black mobs in our most cosmopolitan northern city!" Black mobs? Now it is true that scores (maybe even hundreds) of blacks were beaten to death and hung by DEMOCRAT mobs sympathetic to the South who also attacked Republicans in 1863 in NYC. These DEMOCRAT mobs also attacked black orphanages established and run by REPUBLICANS. That city was ALWAYS against the war and pro-South throughout the war. Like today it is a wart on the face of America and a political disgrace for siding with the enemies of this nation.