Posted on 02/07/2020 6:12:19 AM PST by Enlightened1
If a person or a people have a right to do something, why they chose to do it is up to them. If there are conditions on the exercise of a right, it isn't a right, it is an indulgence from their rulers.
“... n that granted freedom to any rebel-owned slave who would take up arms for the King.”
REBEL-OWNED. Again, it did not abolish slavery generally.
Well then I missed your point. There’s more than one discussion going on in this thread.
That’s from Dunmore’s. Dunmore’s required slaves to take up arms with the Loyal government.
Philipsburg doesn’t. It was a general emancipation. And like Lincoln’s it was issued as a war measure.
Neither emancipation was the causus belli. Both wars were intended to put down rebellions that were seeking independence.
Emancipation in the North wasn’t the quick and angelic process that people today like to pretend it was. And it was often accompanied by black code laws that discouraged free blacks from settling in the North. Lincoln’s own home state of Illinois had antebellum black codes.
Yup, and they were really vicious. They could legally sell a black person into slavery if they stayed too long in Illinois.
Lincoln’s also pushed in his home state of Illinois that freed blacks could not settle there or that black could marry whites. Lincoln didn’t like slavery but he also didn’t like blacks.
What this shows is the ignorance of parents.
Can you imagine your child coming home from school spouting this crap?
No, it was because the British were putting tacks in their tea.
In Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence, one of the grievances had to do with the king's veto of an attempt to stop the slave trade. That was eliminated by Congress for fear of looking hypocritical, since they were not proposing the free the slaves already here.
You lost losers also leave out the last paragraph of that letter for some reason, I wonder why?
“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
And with that belief Lincoln was morally head and shoulders above any of the southern rebel leaders.
What level of proof would be sufficient for you? If I showed you five, or ten, or 100 southern newspapers proclaiming the black republicans were a threat and that slavery was the reason for secession would you accept it then. How about direct quotes from 5, 10 or 100 rebel leaders? Would that be enough? Is there any level of evidence that would make you accept the fact that the southern states rebelled to protect slavery?
Because right now I feel as if i was able to resurrect Jefferson Davis, put Wonder Woman’s lasso of truth around him, and he told you to your face that the reason the south rebelled was because of slavery you would say its just one mans opinion.
Money. Show me the money. Show me how the money gets routed to whom and by whom, and i'll believe that.
People lie. People deceive. People will float what they are doing on a sea of lies, but the money tells the truth.
The money trail says the North was going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and the South was going to gain it. All else is smoke.
Here's an example of what I mean. Do you think people in New York give a rat's @$$ about people in Kansas? Look up the "Free Soil" party. You will find it was headquartered in New York city. It was very heavily concerned with the possibility that Kansas would vote to be a slave state.
It was 1,000 miles away, yet concerned about Kansas. Why? At the very least it should have been in Chicago, because Chicago is at least close to Kansas, and the doings in Kansas might have some bearing on the doings in Chicago, but New York? What possible reason would New York have to concern itself with Kansas?
It was all about controlling congress.
Let me see if I can present you with a modern example.
Why was Washington DC (in the guise of Washington Post reporter Stephanie McKrummen) concerned about Alabama electing Judge Roy Moore to the Senate? Why was New York concerned about this?
If you answered "because it affects the power of congress", go straight to the head of the class.
Now why was New York city concerned about slavery in Kansas?
Not the first guy to be disillusioned with the ideals of his youth and turn his back on them. Adams led a Black unit in the war and didn't think much of his troops. And like many a Northern member of the old elite, he hated the new industrial rich and came to look back on the older America and its southern leadership with nostalgia.
The house CFA III (the nephew, rather than the son) built burned down last month. The blaze was truly spectacular:
Slavery has been used in mining for centuries. There are many mines in the West. But it wasn't a question of slavery becoming as established in New Mexico as it was in South Carolina. Rather it was a question of there being enough slaves, and slaveowners, and supporters of slavery in new states to have them vote in support of the institution.
Moreover, there is cotton growing in Arizona. It was just a question of getting enough water. The Indians were growing cotton there for thousands of years and it was the major crop by the time of statehood. I don't know when "modern irrigation started, but if it was difficult to water the crop, that means more work for more slaves.
And it wouldn't have been hard to find slave buyers who thought they could make a success at slavery in the West. There were other uses for slaves: household servants, railroad builders, construction, irrigation. Oklahoma Indians had slaves and the climate there can't be so very different from that in Kansas. Do you really think that if California had split in two, as some hoped, that Southern California wouldn't be able to find uses for slaves? Most of all, the idea that if slavery couldn't expand it would die was widely believed, and limitations on slavery were perceived as an unbearable slap at Southern pride and honor.
Five Northern states did ratify it, and Seward promised New York would do so as well. With 16 slave states, plus the five Northern states that had already ratified it, plus New York, (and face it, if New York supported it, it's little satellite states would too.) it only lacked three more states to pass.
First of all, your math is wrong. Five states ratified the amendment, but two of them were slave states. Seven slave states were in rebellion and weren't going to ratify anything. They had already made their decision and weren't going to turn around. Secessionists in the other states weren't going to support any compromise measures. Seward couldn't guarantee squat, and the Upper North wasn't going to ratify the measure. So it wasn't going to be adopted.
Am more interested in knowing what percentage of the voting population these people represented. I perceive it to be a very tiny percentage.
South Carolina wasn't really a democracy back then, but if you combine slaveowers, people who wanted to become slaveowners and people who were scared of free Blacks and slave uprisings, that was probably a majority of voters in some states.
My point is that slavery was not threatened, and the Union would continue practicing legal slavery for decades more if the South had remained.
Why on earth would your opinion possibly be more important than the opinions of thousands of people who were alive at that time?
Those who promote such lies about the Revolutionary War in schools have given aid and comfort to the enemy. The Constitution has a word for that.
How does one vote in support of the institution? I'm thinking the greater concern is that once having gotten the South on the hook for 73% of all taxation and with New York pocketing 60% of the revenue produced by all the South's trade output, the fear was that they would be able to vote to get out of this situation.
So long as the North had the majority in congress, the money stream from Southern trade with Europe would continue routing through their hands, and those nasty cheaper European products would continue to be held back from their markets by beneficial taxes making them uneconomical to purchase.
But the institution? What could you do by voting to further it? It was either there, or it wasn't. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
First of all, your math is wrong. Five states ratified the amendment, but two of them were slave states. Seven slave states were in rebellion and weren't going to ratify anything. They had already made their decision and weren't going to turn around. Secessionists in the other states weren't going to support any compromise measures. Seward couldn't guarantee squat, and the Upper North wasn't going to ratify the measure. So it wasn't going to be adopted.
"If" is a big word. I said "If" they thought it would have worked, they would have gotten the votes to pass it. The Southern states would have voted for it in July of 1860, but by March of 1861, they'd decided to do something different.
South Carolina wasn't really a democracy back then, but if you combine slaveowers, people who wanted to become slaveowners and people who were scared of free Blacks and slave uprisings, that was probably a majority of voters in some states
I have heard that the "Aristocracy" pretty much decided how various southern states would vote, and if this is indeed so, then it does change the legitimacy of the secession effort. Top down coercion is not Democracy. It's what we are dealing with now.
Why on earth would your opinion possibly be more important than the opinions of thousands of people who were alive at that time?
My opinion that the status quo would continue being the status quo if not disturbed, is too radical for you?
You must not read your own links, because they say otherwise.
“The proclamation extended the scope of Dunmore’s Proclamation, issued four years earlier by Virginia’s last Royal governor, Lord Dunmore, granting freedom to slaves in Virginia willing to serve the Royal forces. The new document, issued from Clinton’s temporary headquarters at the Philipsburg Manor House in Westchester County, New York, proclaimed all slaves in the newly established United States belonging to American Patriots free, regardless of their willingness to fight for the Crown.[3] It further promised protection, freedom and land to any slaves who left their master.[4]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipsburg_Proclamation
It ONLY applied to slaves of those in rebellion. Is was NOT a general abolition of slavery as an institution.
You essentially just ignore the arguments made against your view and fall back on the idea that the South was paying all the taxes. But the people you are arguing with don't accept your figures and don't think you understand economics, so your contributions to the discussion don't contribute much to the discussion.
So long as the North had the majority in congress, the money stream from Southern trade with Europe would continue routing through their hands, and those nasty cheaper European products would continue to be held back from their markets by beneficial taxes making them uneconomical to purchase.
Tariffs in the years leading up to the Civil War were not burdensome or an insurmountable barrier to imports. The Democratic Party controlled politics during this period and was favorable to Southern interests. Northerners didn't dominate trade because of laws, but because it was their bread and butter. It was what they had to do, so they became quite good at it.
But the institution? What could you do by voting to further it? It was either there, or it wasn't. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
For one thing, they would keep parties that didn't like slavery out of power. For somebody always b*tch*ng about the power of the courts today, you seem oblivious to the importance of judgeships and control of Congress in the 19th century. I outlined in my post ways in which Republicans could weaken slavery over time - or ways in which Southern slaveowners thought the Republicans could weaken slavery. Did you just ignore all that?
The Southern states would have voted for it in July of 1860, but by March of 1861, they'd decided to do something different.
Lincoln took office in March of 1861, so the amendment was DOA from the beginning. It wasn't going to prevent secession, and the rejection of it did not mean that Southerners didn't care about slavery.
My opinion that the status quo would continue being the status quo if not disturbed, is too radical for you?
Again, I ask, what does your opinion or my opinion have to do with the opinions of people at the time? They believed what they believed. If we think that they were irrational or wrong, that doesn't mean that they didn't believe what they believed.
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.