Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Not really. It applies quite nicely to the concept of "who's the boss?" and "whose house is this? -- and you're in it."
South Carolina was the sovereign. No landholder could hold land without South Carolina's let and leave. Especially foreigners. Expropriation was a gimme, compensation a matter for a treaty -- like the Treaty of Paris, eighty years before.
Remember, Virginia didn't let Cornwallis stay, and New York didn't let Lord Howe (was it?) stay in New York. All the British garrisons left, some of them before any formal treaty. Under duress.
Quite right about that.
.... didn’t precipitate the hostilities,....
In fact he did, as per secretary Nicolay, with artful purpose and deadly intentions. Remember, this is a bloodbath we are talking about.
..... and did respond to the aggressions of the rebellious south. Other than that I’m right there with ya!
Except that he provoked them with the sharpest stick he could find, and there was no rebellion.
Whole States went out, and they did so by legal process, not by some big Pugachev bloodletting or a rising like the one in Haiti. Whole States, intact and sovereign and with their People acting as Sovereigns, in convention assembled. You cannot get more sovereign and top-level than that, in constitutional law, or legal theory, or in any other way short of standing in the living presence of the invisible high God of Israel and accepting a divine command.
And here are the consequences, Corky. You start taking orders from some punk judge or president or whatever, and you'll end up shoveling sh!t at the back of your own house, and taking orders from criminals in brown uniforms while they drink your daddy's wine collection, get it?
Legitimacy is legitimacy, and everything else is pretension, and ruses, and con jobs, and felony fraud. And mass murder.
Well, I'd have to see about that one. The legislature couldn't do that, nor the governor, under the Supremacy Clause; and the legislature of Arkansas couldn't pass a secession ordinance on their own motion, either (which they did, 69-2), for the same reason.
But the People of the Southern States, if their conventions were still sitting, could do that if they pleased, under their general sovereign power to make and unmake their federal government as they pleased. They couldn't amend the U.S. Constitution on their own motion, but they could secede from it, and if they did, they might accept some other constitution. If that's what they did, then no foul. If the Virginia legislature did it before the People voted secession, their act would have been null and void, and they themselves personally liable.
Lincoln most assuredly caused the outbreak of hostilities, as was his plan.
If you poke a pit bull with a sharp stick, you will get bit.
Same principle.
“Your claim that they (slave marriages) are documented by the census is not supported by any evidence you've offered to date”?
Are you nuts? How could your research (?) be anything but biased.
Hey stand! Get a load of the bias from this poster!
Look, I'll save you some trouble and will do the research for you non-sequitur. Here it is, and feel free to quote me:
“Lo and behold, PeaRidge........I cannot find a bit of information on slave marriages from this author. Therefore, the census data does not exist!. So there”
How does that sound to you? And since we all know you will not do the research, don't bother asking me for other sources.
What is so UFB is how proud the neo-Yankee is of their ancestors of 140 years hence. If I were a Yankee, God perish the thought, I would be ashamed. I cannot understand the self righteousness of them. They are thugs, then and now. A war of Northern Aggression now would be just as bitter as it was then, if not worse.
i'm sure you would be REALLY pleased if i didn't continually remind readers that what you post is 99.44% BILGE & DAMNyankee PROPAGANDA.
free dixie,sw
Why should I admit something that would be a complete and total lie? Just like your claim that you ordered Blackerby's book? Just like every other damned thing you post?
Let me know when the book arrives. As if...
as i've said MANY times, N-S is NOT ashamed that he constantly posts PROPAGANDA, "out of context " quotes, PHONY sources & oftentimes outright falsehoods.
being a deceiver is as natural to a DAMNyankee as slithering is to a snake.
free dixie,sw
It applies not at all. Sumter was the property of the federal government. The Southern acts of secession, even had they been legal, did not change that. So even if the confederacy was a legitimate sovereign nation, Sumter would not belong to her.
South Carolina was the sovereign. No landholder could hold land without South Carolina's let and leave. Especially foreigners. Expropriation was a gimme, compensation a matter for a treaty -- like the Treaty of Paris, eighty years befor
Again, not at all. Legal transfer of ownership of Sumter would have required approval of Congress and a treaty approved by the Senate. Much like the Treaty of Paris that you mentioned, and none of which happened. The path the confederacy chose to obtain Sumter was war. And it didn't turn out quite how they had hoped.
Remember, Virginia didn't let Cornwallis stay, and New York didn't let Lord Howe (was it?) stay in New York. All the British garrisons left, some of them before any formal treaty. Under duress.
Check your timeline again. The preliminary articles of peace were signed on November 30, 1782, over a year after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. Howe didn't leave New York until November 1783, almost a year after the preliminary peace treaty was signed and almost 2 months after the permanent treaty was signed.
Again, no. Lincoln had a chance to surrender to the Southern ultimatum, which is what the tone of Davis' letter to him was. Recognize confederate sovereignty, period. Lincoln's position of a unified country wasn't open for discussion, only the South's demands were on the table. And had Lincoln surrendered, only then was there a chance to talk of 'matters and subjects interesting to both nations' which may or may not have included payment for debt, property stolen, or national obligations the South walked away from. Only if the confederacy found those 'interesting' would they have talked about them. So your claim that Lincoln walked away from a chance to 'make peace' is wrong. Lincoln walked away from a chance to surrender. Peace was not a matter or subject interesting to the confederacy.
He did not have ANY intention of doing so, he wanted all or nothing. That isn’t compromise. War suited his agenda, and that is exactly what he got.
You have just summed up the rebel position to a tee.
What he didn’t foresee, is that he would be a casualty of the conflict he chose to initiate.
Exactly the opposite. By choosing to start a war to get Sumter, the confederates committed national suicide. It just took 4 years for the body to hit the floor.
Unlike you, I did read it, all of it. It starts off with a few natural complaints about taxes, but then soon gets to the real issue: slave-owning states cannot be ruled over by non-slave owning states.
"Coercion, taxation, maltreatment, economics -- it's all there."
Briefly, but the main point is slavery, slavery, slavery.
"What's the matter, bro'? He say something he wasn't supposed to say? Something besides "slavery, slavery, slavery"?
That's what he did say: slavery, slavery, slavery, oh, and we think think taxes are too high too.
"It's there, like I done tole you. Get over it."
"Now stop posting like an idiot."
Well, now you still object to SHOUTING, don't you?
But you just love to insult, right, as long as it's not SHOUTED?
But the bottom line is, you never answered my question: find for me any part of the official South Carolina Declaration which has nothing to do with slavery. You couldn't do it, so you produced another document altogether -- a sales pitch to the people of South Carolina which starts off talking about taxes, but then soon gets down to the real problem: slavery, slavery, slavery.
So, pal, who is "posting like an idiot"?
lentulusgracchus: "Illegitimate argument: appeal to motive in lieu of support. Argumentum ad populum, the bandwagon fallacy."
Total faux-philosophical BS. My statement is 100% true, and an important point in a country which votes for its leaders.
I'll tell you what, pal. Here's a homework assignment for you: go find for us a quote, any quote from any southern leader supporting the idea of secession, but expressing his belief that secession would NOT automatically result in war.
In other words, find us a southern leader who did not know ahead of time that secession = war.
ROTFLMAO!!!! You are the last person on this forum to accuse others of phoney sources and outright falsehoods, considering how many times you're sources have been shown to be non-existant and your claims shown to be out-and-out lies.
being a deceiver is as natural to a DAMNyankee as slithering is to a snake.
If true then you are the biggest DAMNyankee on FreeRepublic.
No thanks, I can do the research for myself. Amazing what you can find on the internet these days. For example, the Census Bureau still posts information on past census on their site. Now, I'll walk you through this so try and follow along, it get's a bit complex:
First go to this site 1850 Census. It allows you to download the 1850 census data.
Second, look at the box that says, "[Compendium] Statistical view of the United States, embracing its territory, population—white, free colored, and slave—moral and social condition, industry, property, and revenue...," Look to the right and you'll see the option to view a PDF or download a zip file. You're going to want to download the zip file. It's 67-plus meg so I do hope you don't have dial-up.
Once downloaded click on the zip file and un-zip it. You'll wind up with 11 pdf's. You'll want to open the one titled "1850c-04". Scroll to page 12.
Look at the bottom of page 12 where it gives the description of the "Birth, Marriages, and Deaths" table. Second paragraph, and I quote: "The Marriages of slaves are not noted in the Census. They take place, upon average, much earlier than those of the whites or free colored, and are probably more productive. But no exact information on an extended scale exists upon this point."
Now, you want to tell me again how the census tallied slave marriages?
And as much as I would like to take credit for this research, I owe it to all a fellow FReeper who emailed me the information, a gentleman who I have a tremendous amount of respect for and who has obviously had as big a belly full of your pompous bullshit as I have.
No, they weren't. "Full and willing partner" awaits the vote of the People, which is dispositive. But you knew that, every moment you've been pushing your grift.
The eighth state admitted, remember?
The Confederates might do what they wished, but until the People spoke and said different -- the secession convention so bound themselves -- the State was still in the Union.
Look it up. No homework assignments, lentulusgracchus.
Land speed record for self-contradiction. I make it 400 milliseconds.
The blockade wasn't illegal,....
The hell it wasn't. Re-read Article I. No preference to be shown one port over another. And that's not even considering acts of war against a State!
.... and Virginia had already joined the rebellion on the Southern side.
Bull. Not until the vote.
It isn't suicide when someone else pulls the trigger. Someone like, say, Abraham Lincoln.
All your dancing around and playing with words won't cover up the fact that Lincoln came to office with a war policy and killed nearly 1,000,000 of his fellows, to get his way about politics. That puts him in the same league as the Viscontis, the Borgias, and Peter the Great. Never mind the body count -- dead people don't matter, only my politics, my fame.
Or as John Huston's character put it to Jack Nicholson's character in Chinatown, it's all about "[t]he future, Mr. Gittes. The future."
Which, if you'll recall, was immediately followed by,
"Claude, please take the glasses from Mr. Gittes."
And by the way, there was no rebellion. There was a mass murder, though -- and your boy did it.
Glory, glory hallelujah.
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.