Posted on 10/30/2021 7:36:37 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON, Tuesday, Oct 29.
Two advertisements are published this morning, the first one at the instance of the President of the United States, commanding the Marshal to attach certain real and personal property OF WILLIAM SHIELDS, and to give notice to all persons claiming the same, or knowing or having anything to say why the same should not be condemned to the use of the United States, to appear before the District-Attorney on the 28th of November next, to interpose their claims, and to make their allegations in that behalf.
The second advertisement, published by order of the Court, is in accordance with the first, and sets forth that WM. SHIELDS, formerly of Washington, some months ago removed with his family to Richmond where he has been residing ever since, and where he has been and is now engaged in the insurrection and resistance to the laws of the United States of America now existing in said State, and in secret correspondence with the enemies of said United States residing in the City of Washington and elsewhere, transmitting to them money and other valuables, and receiving the same from them in return, which has been applied in part to aid and abet and promote the said insurrection and resistance to the laws, and those who are engaged therein, and the said WM. SHIELDS has knowingly used and employed, and consented to the use and employment of the property hereinafter more particularly described, to aid, abet and promote the said insurrection and the parties engaged therein, etc.
The disposition of the estate of JOHN A. WASHINGTON will be made on Thursday.
I think the announcement of the retirement of Gen. SCOTT is premature. It is well known he has for some time entertained such a purpose,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: May 2025.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4007895/posts
The Great Rebellion: The Government Confiscating the Private Property of Rebels – 2-3
Important from Missouri: Price Rumored to be at Neosho – 3
Important from Kentucky: Immense Rebel Army in the Field – 3-4
The Fight at Camp Wild Cat – 4
The Northwest and the War: The Trip of the London Times’ Correspondent to Wisconsin – 4-5
Editorial: The Slavery Question – 6
Editorial: Battle of Ball’s Bluff – 6-7
Editorial: New Phase of the Cotton Question – 7
Affairs at Fortress Monroe: Rations for the Great Expedition – 7
bkmk
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the headline. The Slimes was slipping the language of communists into headlines thirteen years after the Communist Manifesto came out.
— Fourth plank of communism
Naw... you're just fantasizing, projecting your own mental patterns onto others.
That's because confiscations of rebel properties are as old as history, having nothing to do with Karl Marx, and everything to do with defeating rebellions.
During the Revolutionary War, British confiscated American slaves, among other properties and US patriot governments confiscated British loyalists' properties -- millions of dollars worth, in those days real money.
In the Civil War Confederate governments confiscated Southern debt payments -- redirected them from Northern banks to the Confederate government, in exchange for bonds.
Confederate armies outside the Confederacy also confiscated Northern freed-blacks for "return" to Confederate slave markets.
And beginning in August 1861, Congress authorized Union armies to free Confederate "contraband of war".
So, yes, Virginia, it was indeed all about slavery.
The Times' words had nothing to do with Karl Marx, regardless of how furiously you fantasize it.
Nor was Marx in 1848 talking about the US Civil War, also regardless of how much you project your own mind-set onto them.
Seriously, I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
Have a nice day.
I see you still didn’t understand what I wrote, and added proof by assertion and red herrings to your prior fallacy. Hope your day’s going well otherwise . . .
The Times headline still had nothing to do with Karl Marx and Karl Marx's words still had nothing to do with the US Civil War.
Other than that, I'm pretty sure I agree with your anti-Communist sentiments, but would not direct them at the NY Times in 1861.
Have a great day!
Red herrings. I did not say that Marx’s words had aught to do with the Civil War; you are putting words in my mouth. I said that the New York Times was using the same language as the Communist Manifesto, and this was twelve years after the Manifesto came out.
Now the NYT was a paper in its infancy back then, and associated with the Republicans to boot due to the affiliation of co-founder Henry Jarvis Raymond; its later crusade against Boss Tweed is of course a legend in and of itself. Notwithstanding, the GOP back then was divided between several factions, and Marxist thought was already starting its long march across ideological spectra, even though this was not the Ochs era.
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.