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 see you put telling the truth about the southern traitors in the same category as murder. Tells us more about you than it does about me.
*Chuckles* Alrighty then, you have a nice day now *sighs*
I disagree that Lincoln trampled the constitution.
In war, according to the constitution, the president has much more authority than in peacetime, and has nearly complete and legal authority over the theater of war. By their rebellion, by firing on Ft Sumter, the rebels started a war, and gave the president nearly complete authority over their states.
The militia, in war, must obey the orders of the US President as commander in chief. Each southern soldier which did not obey the presidents orders was subject to the penalty of mutiny for following the orders of the rebel leadership. It was kindness, and mercy that every southern soldier was not given a military court martial, with loyal officers on the jury, and a further kindness that every southern soldiers was not hung.
Of course if you would like to reject that kindness you could hang yourself.
“I’m sure that if the south won the slaves would have been repatriated back to their homeland...”
“Homeland?”
The human beings who were held in slavery in the US and the Confederacy had ancestors who had been in North America for 200 years.
Most slave owners could not claim roots in the Americas that went back 200 years.
The Homeland of those held in slavery was the United States of America.
On this thread you write:
“...also slavery wasn’t morally wrong by the standards of the day.”
However, on your FR Homepage you write:
“Slavery was and is evil.”
So which is it?
They cannot both be correct statements.
I guess your post is what passes for logic in YankeeLand.
Pelham, you are correct that slaves were held in all the states prior to the Civil War. However, the holding of slaves by the South was different in both quality and quantity. Slave breeding, the breaking up of families, and harsh and brutal treatment eclipsed anything in the North. But the sin was the US’s as a whole and God judged it in whole.
As for Jewish slavery in the Biblical times, there again is a massive difference in quality and quantity. it can be easily shown Biblically and historically that Jewish slave treatment was better than anything the South did to its slaves. And God expected the Israelites to treat them better because of the effect on non-believing nations.
What else was in that platform Lincoln was elected on?
The 12th declaration of the Republican Platform 1860 (emphasis mine):
That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
What did the Confederacy think of high tariffs to develop industry?
Article 1 Section 8 of the Confederate Constitution (emphasis mine):
(1) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
The South had it right.
[donmeaker said}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.
The Southern states never requested slavery be permitted in the Northern states, they simply requested their Constitutional rights be resepected. As to the territories in question, here's Thomas Jefferson's take:
of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of co-adjutors. an abstinence too from this act of power would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress, to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a state. this certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the general government. could congress, for example say that the Non-freemen of Connecticut, shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?
And here's what James Madison thought:
But whatever may have been intended by the term "migration" or the term "persons," it is most certain, that they referred exclusively to a migration or importation from other countries into the U. States; and not to a removal, voluntary or involuntary, of slaves or freemen, from one to another part of the U. States. Nothing appears or is recollected that warrants this latter intention. Nothing in the proceedings of the State conventions indicates such a construction there.[1] Had such been the construction it is easy to imagine the figure it would have made in many of the states, among the objections to the constitution, and among the numerous amendments to it proposed by the State conventions[2] not one of which amendments refers to the clause in question. Neither is there any indication that Congress have heretofore considered themselves as deriving from this Clause a power over the migration or removal of individuals, whether freemen or slaves, from one State to another, whether new or old: For it must be kept in view that if the power was given at all, it has been in force eleven years over all the States existing in 1808, and at all times over the States not then existing. Every indication is against such a construction by Congress of their constitutional powers. Their alacrity in exercising their powers relating to slaves, is a proof that they did not claim what they did not exercise. They punctually and unanimously put in force the power accruing in 1808 against the further importation of slaves from abroad. They had previously directed their power over American vessels on the high seas, against the African trade. They lost no time in applying the prohibitory power to Louisiana, which having maritime ports, might be an inlet for slaves from abroad. But they forebore to extend the prohibition to the introduction of slaves from other parts of the Union. They had even prohibited the importation of slaves into the Mississippi Territory from without the limits of the U S in the year 1798, without extending the prohibition to the introduction of slaves from within those limits; altho' at the time the ports of Georgia and S Carolina were open for the importation of slaves from abroad, and increasing the mass of slavery within the U. States.
[donmeakerwrote]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.
The Southern states had no problem with another state regulating slavery within their borders. They did have a problem with states not respecting Constitutional rights regarding fugitive slaves. And the unwilling white people you refer to didn't want black people around them. Period. The war was about state's rights - the 10th Amendment is very clear, but Lincoln and crew didn't want to let their cash cow go.
The southerners wanted the right to re-enslave free blacks in the northern states. Further the Dred Scott decision was an example of a black man who was taken to free territory by his master, and after the master’s death his heirs wanted the institution of slavery legal in a southern state, but not in Illinois to be enforced against him.
Illinois had the state right to forbid slavery. When a slave owner violates that state’s laws, he can not then claim the law must return the slave to a state where slavery was legal, as if the owner’s illegal action had no consequence.
Tariffs could be adjusted up or down, and routinely were adjusted as the economy changed. Secondly, the Republican tariff policy clearly states that the adjustments were for the good of the whole country, not for any branch of industry. Third, no new tariff could make it through the Senate without the approval of the southern states.
Most tariffs were paid by the North. The northern states were growing faster, because no immigrant laborer wanted to move to the south where he would have to compete with people making nothing an hour. That was the effect of Slavery on the south. The constitutional compromise, that there could be centralized government powers so long as the south ran them, was being overcome by the failure of southern society, and the success of the industrial north. The southern plutocrats hadn’t anticipated that, and wouldn’t stand for it. They wanted to be the biggest turd in the bowl the whole way down, rather than permit another to succeed. Shame on them. Shame on there apologists.
yes, slavery, and the rape of slave women by whites was morally wrong. Everybody knew it. Some were well paid to pretend otherwise.
Which Southern state petitioned for re-enslavement of free blacks?
No states so petitioned. They did give their ultimatum that said they wanted the federal government to reenslave blacks who were not subject to their southern states, and denied that the northern states had the authority to not enforce southern laws. That was part of their price of not-rebellion. Among other things.
ping
You're arguing for Big Government and crony-capitalism. How interesting. The pertinent point from Lincoln's winning platform again:
...an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests...
Most tariffs were paid by the North.
Your source, please.
The northern states were growing faster, because no immigrant laborer wanted to move to the south where he would have to compete with people making nothing an hour.
I guess those high wages being paid in the North were why there were so many poor in the streets of the big cities like New York.
The constitutional compromise, that there could be centralized government powers so long as the south ran them, was being overcome by the failure of southern society, and the success of the industrial north. The southern plutocrats hadn’t anticipated that, and wouldn’t stand for it. They wanted to be the biggest turd in the bowl the whole way down, rather than permit another to succeed.
Exactly which Constitutional compromise would that have been? I don't recall any such Constitutional compromise which included centralized government powers. The success of the North was built at the expense of the South.
Shame on there apologists.
Shame on Big Government apologists. I'm a conservative (small c) and you are arguing in favor of Big Government.
1.
That African slavery in the Territories shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the Territorial Legislatures.
2.
That the right to slaveholders of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property, shall be recognized and respected.
3.
That the provision in regard to fugitive slaves shall extend to any slave lawfully carried from one State into another, and there escaping or taken away from his master.
4.
That no bill or ex post facto law (by Congress or any State,) and no law impairing or denying the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.
5.
That the African slave trade shall be prohibited by such laws of Congress as shall effectually prevent the same.
So that is your idea of small government, that the federal government will force states to protect slaveholders from their slaves, where ever they may chose to go, and forbid states. This would have the federal government provide a marshall to spread the female slaves legs so the slave owner could more easily rape her. That is what is meant by “right to slave property”.
Are you ashamed yet? Are you capable of shame?
Sans a petition, just how was this ultimatium requiring the federal government to re-enslave free blacks delivered? I don't recall any Southern state demand the re-enslavement of free blacks. It was the Constitution that the Southern states were requesting be upheld. It wasn't the Southern states that were disregarding the Constitution, it was the Northern states.
https://cenantua.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/it-was-all-about-taxes/
has a nice table of tariff paid at New York compared to ALL other ports. Over 60% of all tariffs were paid in NY for the last 5 years before the rebellion. Tariff was paid only on imports, not on exports. The south only had 25% of the population and the slaves didn’t consume much foreign luxury goods.
So you think the southern militia system wasn’t shot through with crony capitalism? That troublesome people didn’t show up on the duty roster for slave patrol more often? That people with water rights that were desirable by a big land owner didn’t get an unfavorable judge, when the slave owner voted his vote plus all the slaves on his property?
Pull the other one, it has bells on it
You've lost it. The discussion was Lincoln's platform sanctioned government supported industrial iterests. Employing Dem tactics of hysteria and theatrics doesn't work with me. You should be ashamed.
Would you like to re-think your argument supporting Lincoln's platform of crony-capitalism and Big Government?
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.