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 ...
Somewhat surprised to see you invoking the first confederacy - the aspirational perpetual union that failed when states began leaving without unanimous consent and without sanction. Set that aside for a moment.
Your claim that it was left entirely to the states to determine what to do with slaves within a state is not supported by the national policy enunciated in the Articles of Confederation.
Article IV contains this: “provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant . . .”
At the time this was adopted northern states considered slaves to be property - and the southern states did too I suppose.
In short, the AOC was an interstate agreement that provided specific protection to prevent slave owners from losing their property.
I'm not sure why you are dragging the Articles of Confederation into this unless you are laying the groundwork for a defense of Dred Scott decision.
The Articles of Confederation certainly does nothing to support your contention that Lincoln was correct when he took up arms to levy war against the states for the purpose of “freeing the slaves.”
Quit the pettifogging Reb.
You can argue it till your blue in the face(pun intended. Your side choose a path of violent secession in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor.
AND IT LOST THE WAR IT STARTED. GET OVER IT!!
“Your side choose a path of violent secession in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor.”
That is an interesting comment.
I don’t know if I have asked this before, but if the South fought to preserve constitutional slavery, who fought to overthrow constitutional slavery?
If you believe Lincoln took up arms to overthrow the United States Constitution, just say so. There will certainly be those that agree with you that Lincoln had every right to launch special military operations to impose his economic preferences.
And using the peaceful constitutional amendment process to free the slaves would probably have taken longer.
Lincoln intention was to preserve the Union and free the slaves. Lincoln did not take up arms to over throw the Constitution, what an absurd thing to say.
The South could have simply ended slavery without war.
So cut the petty fogging bullshit Reb.
You’re arguing a negative.
The South fought to not only preserves slavery but to expand it further west and listen, you can argue from now to doomsday and the outcome will always be the same.
THE CONFEDERACY LOST THE WAR IT STARTED! And NOTHING NOTHING will change that.
SO get over it.
You may not have noticed, but DC is still a criminal cesspool.
Stupid analogy Lampster.
Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis are the guilty parties here.
They did it to protect SOUTHERN WEALTH, so much that by 1860 slaves constituted some $4 billion dollars in the South in 1860’s money.
That’s what they were protecting.
That’s odd- you seem insistent that it was *only* about slavery.
You can explain the entire civil war without using the word slavery.
Are you aware that slavery still exists in some countries?
Also, the reason that people went to Africa to buy slaves is because that was where the marketplace for slaves was.
Are that for thousands of years slavery was a way of life- it was like getting a job. Not all slave ‘owners’ beat and whipped their slaves. MANY slaves stayed on their farms and continued to work (for wages, that they then had to use to buy food and housing they used to get for free)
It is not all as simple as TV caricatures.
And as I have said repeatedly... You could explain the entire civil war without using the word slavery, if you really wanted to.
Yes it played one of the biggest parts, but it was STATES RIGHTS the war was fought for. You could replace slavery with anything else the Federal Government was trying to force people to do- like buy health insurance.
You have somehow mistaken something someone else said for something I said. I've never said it was about slavery. I've always said it was about money.
Go look for the comment that you think I said, and I bet you will discover that it wasn't me who said it.
oops
If there are any mathematicians on this site I hope they will do a linear regression so we can see any identifiable trend lines, and project where you may be heading with your comments.
To review:
Post 64 - THE CONFEDERACY LOST THE WAR IT STARTED! And NOTHING NOTHING will change that. SO get over it.
Post 62 - AND IT (your side) LOST THE WAR IT STARTED. GET
OVER IT!!
Post 54 - Your side LOST THE WAR IT STARTED!
Post 44 - Your side LOST Reb and you just can't admit that.
Post 30 - You Rebs went to war to preserve it. And you lost.
Nothing has prepared me to deal with blue-state advocates - nothing except jr. high school.
a defense of Dred Scott decision.
Aside from all the dicta in the opinions, the Dred Scott decision was to hold that the Circuit Court had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and therefore the Supreme Court also lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and it issued its mandate to the Circuit Court to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Missouri, C.C.U.S.No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. SandfordFiled 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. SandfordIn error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. —
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857
Post it a million times dumb ass and it still comes out the same , doesn’t it?
You’re not going to change 1865.
“Post it a million times dumb ass and it still comes out the same , doesn’t it? You’re not going to change 1865.”
No one disputes the 1865 disaster that occurred at Appomattox.
But in November 1860, Southern Democrats still ruled in Washington, D.C., just as they had since the election of 1800.
Northerners weren't telling them anything new except the election of a new President, and new majorities in Congress FOUR months later.
No new "crime" was suddenly committed in November 1860 that would somehow justify the remediation of sucession.
The thing that you and others cannot seem to grasp is that secession does not require justification. The Declaration of Independence is quite explicit in saying people can have independence for any reason they see fit.
This is what you keep calling "at pleasure", and that is in fact true. People could have independence "at pleasure" if they wanted it.
And why not? What is moral about a forced coerced relationship? Sounds like slavery to me.
And yet... and yet, that condition existed for several DECADES before 1860 without ever being considered a valid reason for secession.
Nor did ANY "Reason for Secession" document mention it.
What they did mention, nearly all of them, and most at great length, was, yes, slavery.
Naw!
But it happens I do have ancestors from the Hesse & Palatine regions of now Germany.
They settled in Germantown, near Albany NY around 1700.
Two generations later, when the pacifist Pennsylvania Dutch needed soldiers to protect them during the French & Indian War, some moved down to Lancaster County, from where they later served in the Lancaster militia during the Revolutionary War.
So, Hessians yes, but not like you think.
So if a man can tolerate a nagging wife for decades, he's not allowed to finally get tired enough of it to divorce her?
Besides that, they don't have to have a valid reason for deciding they had enough. They just have to decide that they've finally had enough and don't want any more of it.
What they did mention, nearly all of them, and most at great length, was, yes, slavery.
You know better than that. You should not impugn your honesty here by saying something that you know is factually incorrect.
And again, even if it was true that their reasons for leaving the nation that has protected legalized slavery for "four score and seven years" is some sort of perceived threat that this nation (that had always protected it and even offered up a permanent slavery amendment to the US Constitution) would someday abolish it, then it is still okay for them to leave, because they can leave for any reason they d@mn well please.
Even a bad reason.
As close as makes no difference. Foreigner fighting for the oppressor against people wanting independence.
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.