Posted on 06/22/2015 4:15:39 PM PDT by Ray76
"The state of slavery in this country, so far as it can be ascertained from the laws of the several independent sovereignties which belong to our confederacy, is the subject of the following sheets. This comprises a particular examination of the laws of the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Missouri." - From the preface
(Excerpt) Read more at memory.loc.gov ...
The legislatures in Missouri and Kentucky both passed secession bills, but they were never ratified. Thus, there was no secession by either. Lincoln had the Maryland legislature arrested so they could not even take up the issue! Delaware, also a slave state, overwhelmingly rejected any secession, and remained loyal to the Union, and committed troops to the Union cause (though a few Delawareans — is that the proper term? — did go into Virginia to fight alongside the Old Dominion).
Look, you've already convinced me that you are ignorant about the facts, and likely not up to this discussion, so why do you feel the need to convince me further?
You act like sticking out your tongue is some sort of argument.
So you won’t answer the question? What fact am I ignorant about? The South started a war and lost.
Maryland is an interesting case. In the 1790 census (the first one after the ratification of the Constitution), Maryland was the third largest (in terms of numbers) slave state (with 103,036), behind only Virginia (with 292,627) and South Carolina (with 107,094).
There is a lot of stuff about this period of history that gets omitted simply because it does not support the narrative that the winners of the war wanted people to believe.
Up till 1990 something, I was a believer in the justness of the Union cause and revered Lincoln. My best friend from High School (who happened to be black) was studying to be a history major and he focused heavily on this period of history. It was he that convinced me that we have been fed a load of bullsh*t by the winners of the war.
Now he didn't care about the unsavory tactics used by the Union before during or after the war because he saw it as for the greater good. It was I who looked at it and realized the whole slavery issue was just a pawn for a larger issue.
The issue was whether Washington D.C. would rule the South, or whether the South would rule itself. Slavery was negotiable, so long as Washington got to rule.
The winners wanted to be remembered as fighting for great and noble causes, not the same old base cause that tyrants always fight for; The Ability to rule over others against their will.
It has been argued that the Northern states gave up slavery first because they didn't need the labor, and slaves were undermining wages for those men needing work.
A lot of Northerners took their slaves to the south and sold them to recover their money. They were all fine about moralizing, so long as it wasn't money out of their pockets.
“The winners wanted to be remembered as fighting for great and noble causes, not the same old base cause that tyrants always fight for; The Ability to rule over others against their will.”
That bears repeating.
So you are saying the war wasn't about slavery, but instead was about revenge? Well which is it?
“It has been argued that the Northern states gave up slavery first because they didn’t need the labor, and slaves were undermining wages for those men needing work.
A lot of Northerners took their slaves to the south and sold them to recover their money. They were all fine about moralizing, so long as it wasn’t money out of their pockets.”
Another dirty little secret.
It occurs to me that perhaps things back then were not all that different from today.
We have Liberal Urban areas such as Boston and New York where every year they come up with some new Liberal moral outrage, "gay marriage, transgenders in the military, Global Warming, or needing to put a Woman on the currency for the sake of inclusion, and then we have the rest of the country which isn't really interested in their latest new found moral positions, but gets forced to go along with it because these Liberals have the ears of the rich and powerful.
And so now banning the Confederate flag has become all the rage among the Liberal Urban centers.
Wealthy, Powerful, Influential and Liberal Urbanites dream up their latest moral fad, and then try to force it on the rest of us. Eventually they get the government to shove it down people's throats whether they like it or not.
I'm sure the Southern States saw it as a bunch of rich liberal moralizers trying to impose their newly adopted cause on them, and realized it would not only wreck their economy, but cost them a fortune in existing assets as well.
From their perspective, it was basically another "hand me your money and property" schemes, the like of which we are still seeing emanating from these same centers of Wealth and Power.
No wonder they wanted to secede to get away from these kooks.
actually the government had the votes ...
Habeas corpus came into play.
Preserving the Union. The Union won it’s objective. The South went to war to preserve slavery and it lost everything.
Yes, you’re right. A point I was going to make. Article 3;Section 9 of the Constitution.
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.’’
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Now was the Union true to this founding principle, or were they false to it?
It's just rank Hypocrisy that a nation founded on the right to break away from a larger Union decides to take the side of King George III trying to preserve his Union.
take a walking tour around Annapolis and you may happen upon the building where union troops held the MD legislators and released them 1 by 1 to vote against secession. It takes some digging but the truth can still be found. The entire MD legislature was held under house arrest, and much of history has been washed of the truth.
HC was the tool. Keeping DC out of the south was the result.
Had MD voted to secede and thus surrounded the capitol... The war may have been over before it started in full.
I don’t actually recall the Crown buying and selling people, ‘’indentured servitude’’ not with standing. The Confederate Constitution clearly enshrined slavery. The U.S Constitution doesn’t.
As it worked out however, the South had lost the war the moment it started it.
Why so angry?
I figured with the rape of southern history in full swing this week you’d be curled up somewhere with a bottle of whatever you drink and some vintage porn
But instead like homosexual activists this morning you’re not satisfied yet
Still out here swinging at what soon enough will be windmills or what was Bushs thing....dustbin right?
But remember if you care.....they are coming for your legacy too
White privilege extends beyond Dixie
You may not care and if you don’t it begs the question why are you here?
At least tell us you feel victorious
Vermont was never a slave state...and they made that fact quite clear when they declared independence from Britain in 1777.
I checked. It broke away from New York. Given that it was part of New York in 1776 when the Declaration was put forth, My statement is still correct.
When we broke from England, all the colonies were slave states.
Also, Vermont didn't really ban slavery. They just made a feel good announcement.
Interestingly enough, Vermont seemed to think they just had a right to break from New York, and declare themselves a Republic.
On January 15, 1777, representatives of the New Hampshire Grants convened in Westminster and declared their land an independent republic. For the first six months of the republic's existence, the state was called New Connecticut.
Now where did they get the idea they could just up and split from the existing government and create one of their own?
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.