Posted on 05/29/2011 2:46:36 PM PDT by BigReb555
Uncle Bob Brown, a former servant of the Davis family and a passenger on the train, saw the many flowers that the children had laid on the side of the railroad tracks. Brown was so moved by this beautiful gesture that he wept uncontrollably.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
“I believe that the deaths of the Civil War and our lost freedoms are direct consequences of the SIN of Southern slavery.”
Interesting. I guess the slavery that had been practiced in New York, Rhode Island, and Delaware left the North unblemished.
And of more interest, many fortunes in New England have their roots in the slave trade. The South owned far more slaves, but the North dominated the business of bringing the poor kidnapped wretches over in slave ships. But I guess that doesn’t count in your ‘SIN’ calculus either.
“Im sure that if the south won the slaves would have been repatriated back to their homeland as soon as modern technology made their services unecessary.”
Actually that sounds more like Lincoln’s plan.
“Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, had his eye on the Caribbean basin, which he, Lincoln, and other cabinet members thought was the ideal place to colonize emancipated slaves. Congress set aside $600,000 for this, and during the Civil War the U.S. also was exploring likely spots in Mexico, British Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica — not always with the permission of the national governments. Yet the second colonization movement was as much a failure as the first had been. A projected African-American colony at Chiriqui on the Isthmus of Panama fell through. In 1863 some 450 American blacks were settled at Isle a Vache in Haiti, but it was a debacle and starvation and smallpox wiped them out.”
http://www.slavenorth.com/colonize.htm
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/lincoln.htm
It was purposed as a compromise measure because the South wanted the slaves counted as individuals for purposes of representation.
The South was still overrepresented by the 3/5 of those who were slaves, since none of them had a vote.
The slaves should have been counted as zero for the purpose of representation.
Not trying to pick a fight as it is indisputable that Davis was a Democratic President who was rejected by the American People during his first term.
“You couldn’t make Isrealites slaves, they could become bondservants and after 7 years had to be released.
Non-Jews could be held in slavery, but there were restrictions on it.”
I went back to look at the passages this morning to refresh my memory.
You are right that Israelis held by other Isrealis were not considered slaves, but indentured servants. While Ex. 21:1-6 and Deut. 15:12-18 limited the period of indentured servanthood for Isrealites to six years, Lev. 39-46 provided only that the Isrealite indentured servant must be released in the Jubilee year.
Baruch A. Levine, in his commentary on Leviticus for the Jewish Publication Society, wrote this concerning Lev. 25:40: “This provision differs from the laws of Exodus 21:1-6 and Deuteronomy 15:12-18, both of which set the limit of service at six years. According to our legislation [Leviticus], indenture may last as long as fifty years. If contrasted with actual slavery, or with serfdom, which continue through the generations, our law is relatively lenient; but compared with the other laws of the Torah, it is most severe and allows for almost lifetime indenture.”
Lev. 25:44-46 provided as follows: “Such male and female slaves as you may have - it is from the nations round you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves.”
Hey, I guess George Washington, Mason et al Virginians are just slave owning evil white guys. Drop the ‘h’ from your moniker.
A temporary set back. Appomattox resolved nothing. Secession is not unconstitutional, wasn't then and still isn't now. Why wasn't the honorable Mr. Davis granted a trial for treason post-bellum, like has asked for over and over?
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
-- Jefferson Davis, First(but probably not last) President of the CSA.
This was about war and not elections. Memorial Day is about respecting all Americans who served and who have passed on - North and South. Most folks on FR understand that fact.
“I don’t have anything backward”
Oh, I see, Then the accounts of the debate over the 3/5 Compromise are wrong, whereas you are right. I get it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html
I wonder what kind of conservative you are..... I guess you don’t realize that slaves were brought in by yankees.... also slavery wasn’t morally wrong by the standards of the day.......I bet if somebody stole your property u would howl pretty loud.....
I wonder what kind of conservative you are..... I guess you don’t realize that slaves were brought in by yankees.... also slavery wasn’t morally wrong by the standards of the day.......I bet if somebody stole your property u would howl pretty loud.....
I wonder what kind of conservative you are..... I guess you don’t realize that slaves were brought in by yankees.... also slavery wasn’t morally wrong by the standards of the day.......I bet if somebody stole your property u would howl pretty loud.....
The tariff was low at the time of the rebellion, in part because the tariff law was written by the southerners, and passed with their votes. There was no tax on exports. Most tariff was raised in the northern ports.
Tariffs were raised after the southern plutocrats left the congress, in part because the legislature realized that putting down the rebellion was going to cost some money.
States rights died before that, because the failure of the pretended confederacy occurred because of its inability to organize an effective defense.
Some 40 regiments of southern men fought for the Union. They didn’t think the pretended confederacy protected their rights.
Slavery was the north’s business, which is why they banned it in their territory. Lincoln was elected on a platform to restrict slavery to the states where it existed, banning it from the territories, as had been done under the articles of confederation.
The ultimatums from the south claimed a special southern plutocrat right that slavery be permitted in northern states, or the territories. That was their final, take it or leave it position.
So no, the rebellion was not about states rights, because the rebels were opposed to a state’s rights to regulate or ban slavery within its own borders. It was about the plutocrats rights to force slavery on unwilling slaves, and on unwilling white people, who were, and would be forced to protect the plutocrats slave property from that nasty freedom thing.
More than half the population of S. Carolina was slaves. For purposes of argument, say it was exactly half, and that all other proportions of voters to non-voters were exactly the same as other states that did not have slaves. That would mean that a voter in SC would have 1.625 times the representation in congress as the non-slave owning voter in another state. It was worse than that. Large plantations were essentially their own district, and the plantation owner, or his designated substitute was always elected the congressman, and thus he would gain political power from his slaves. With that political power in the state non-slave owners were required to serve in the militia, and the militia was required, by law, to run patrols without pay to search for runaway slaves. So non-slave owners were thus enslaved by wealthy slave owners to further and protect slavery.
That is the system that the southern plutocrats wanted to extend to the territories, and to enforce on the unwilling northern states. Not states rights, but slavery for all to further the demands of the rich.
I suppose that Davis wasn’t granted a trial for the same reason that Lincoln wasn’t granted a trial. Southern traitors were willing to murder to get their way. In that situation, a fair trial was not possible.
Davis was discredited by his actions during the war. His book is an interesting work of fiction. Must I say that he is not an unbiased party?
Like you aren’t unbiased. Lincoln trampled the Constitution,
you do remember that part right?
Slaves were mostly brought in before independence, by british flagged vessels. Even after the slave trade, slaves were brought in by Jean Lafitte the pirate and Jim Bowie. They would be landed at New Orleans, picked up by the federal customs agent, then auctioned with federal title as contraband. Jim Bowie’s thugs would nudge as necessary to discourage anyone else from bidding, so his very low bid would always win.
Just to be sure you are up on your Texas history makers.
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.