Posted on 03/08/2022 5:03:25 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON, Friday, March 7.
The more the President's Message is discussed the more difficult is it to define the position of parties in regard to it. One great point, however, is gained the subject is universally discussed with more calmness than has ever before characterized a question about Slavery.
DEPARTURE OF GOV. JOHNSON FOR TENNESEE.
Gov. ANDREW JOHNSON, accompanied by his son, Col. ROBERT JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. BROWNING, Secretary, &c., Hon. HORACE MAYNARD, and Hon. EMERSON ETHERIDGE, Clerk of the House, left Washington this afternoon for Nashville, via Harrisburgh, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Louisville.
THE MAILS TO THE SOUTH PACIFIC, VIA PANAMA.
The Senate Committee on Post-offices, at their meeting to-day, authorized Mr. COLLAMER to report Mr. SUMNER's bill to provide for the carrying the mails from the United States to foreign ports, with a recommendation that immediate action be had, so as to provide for carrying the mails to the South Pacific before the 21st inst., after which date Commodore VANDERBILT has notified the Postmaster-General he will refuse to take the mails. The bill, as reported, provider that any vessels clearing from a foreign port shall take and receive any mail matter placed on board said vessel by the United States Consul or by the port officers of such foreign port or place, for the United States, and shall deliver the same to the Post-office of the place aforesaid in the United States.
ALLOTMENTS OF THE NEW-YORK SOLDIERS.
The Allotment Commissioners from New-York to-day closed up the object of their mission, having visited upwards of 70 regiments, and handed over to the Paymaster-General all the certificates, so that that officer can complete what remains to be done. They have been eminently successful.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Um... that would have been the Union.
“Um... that would have been the Union (fighting against slavery).”
That is an interesting comment. For the sake of this post, let’s stipulate you are correct: the Union “fought to free the slaves.”
Can you tell me why the Union slave state of Delaware sent soldiers to Florida to “free the slaves” when they could have more easily sent soldiers to fight the Union state of Maryland and free their slaves?
Or, more to the point, why didn’t the Union slave state of Delaware fight and kill the slave owners in Delaware and “free the slaves” in their own state?
You need to understand the Constitution a little better.
The slavery amendment (3/5 of a person) was because the slaveowners wanted a vote for each of their count of slaves. (Not the slaves themselves being able to vote, but If the slave owner owned a hundred Slaves he could vote 100 times plus his own vote). It was a compromise.
Slavery ended in Delaware in 1865. Did it not end every where by that time? Hmmm?
And please, don’t give me that tired argument about four indentured slaves in NJ being held after the war.
The provision in Article One you reference is about apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes, not slave owners voting 100 times in a House election - or any other election.
A white slave owner could vote no more times than a white person owning no slaves. It should be mentioned women did not vote at all, white or nonwhite, North or South.
Yes, I denounce this in the strongest possible terms.
I don’t think anybody’s trying to say that The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, of course it did.
But it was more about money and preventing the southern states from leaving.
The reason they were leaving is because the northern states tried to tell them what they could do. Yes regarding slavery.
You missed my point completely... that’s what they WANTED to do.
“You missed my point completely... that’s what they WANTED to do.”
In your post to me you said: “You need to understand the Constitution a little better.”
When you wrote that, I thought you meant I needed to understand the Constitution that was adopted, not the Constitution that someone is said to have wanted but was rejected.
That is an interesting comment.
Slavery was ended in Confederate states (not under Union control) on January 1, 1863, per Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and his special military operations against the southern states.
Slave states in the Union continued to cling to slavery after that date - protected by the United States Constitution and the Union armies.
But you are right, the Union slave state of Delaware did vote to approve the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. In the year 1901.
Slavery ended in Delaware in 1865. Keep trying Reb. You’re trying to argue a losing position.
You Rebs went to war to preserve it.
And you lost.
December of 1865. It ended in the Southern states in April of 1865.
So why did the Union keep slavery going for another 8 months or so?
Which was resulting in about 750 million per year going into the pockets of the Northern wealthy.
500 million per year in Southern goods sent North, and 200 more million in Southern goods sent to Europe, and then back through Northern ports like New York.
The Northern masters had total control over this money flow. Southern independence threatened that control. It would have destroyed their wealth.
Of course they got the government to subjugate the Southern states. The government was in the pocket of the Northeastern wealthy, just as it still is to this very day.
If people get to object to other people exercising a right, it isn't a right.
Is there some particular right that they had to which you object?
700,000 Americans dead in four years, 60,000 of them civilians.
It's 750,000 people as a direct result of the war, but to the wealthy power brokers of New York who owned the government, it was well worth it to protect their money.
These people are evil, and they don't care about lives. This is why the North *PASSED* the permanent slavery amendment.
Well yes they were. They were telling them that they had to funnel all their trade through New York. To do otherwise would have cost them enormous fines and penalties, up to and including the loss of the entire cargo and any ship carrying it.
Anderson seized the fort first, and he did it with force. Anderson committed the first breach against the peace.
Ah, so he was like a Hessian.
I point this out all the time. They have a cognitive dissonance every time this is pointed out.
If you still have even one slave, you still have slavery.
This is what I point out about Pennsylvania and a lot of other Northern states that claim they got rid of slavery in the 18th century. They still had slaves. Therefore they did not get rid of slavery.
Stated intentions do not constitute actual abolition.
Yes, I denounce this in the strongest possible terms.
Why? I have come to think Women voting has been a disaster.
Most of the socialist crap we've seen shoved down our throats has been the consequence of Women voters.
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.