Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. (fact checking time)
breitbart.com ^ | July 5th | TruthFinderXXX

Posted on 07/07/2015 3:17:08 AM PDT by dennisw

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-315 next last
To: DiogenesLamp

So you agree then with the Dred Scott decision?


261 posted on 07/07/2015 4:04:42 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels."--Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
It simply counts this as an ongoing aspect of the War between the English and the Scots-Irish.

Hmmmm....maybe that's why when I traced my momma's line back it went to the Scottish Wemyss line in the late 1600s(changed to Weems here in the 1700s). My daddy's line was in SC but they were mostly Heinz 57 I think. Not many records on them.

I guess I just got a little tied up in the terminology and in the English/Scottish thing, but it seems to make sense. Regardless, we are now left with a very distinct difference between the North and South - completely different mindsets about nearly every subject, IMO.

262 posted on 07/08/2015 4:29:47 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
I personally think the Supreme Court's rulings on Roe, on Kelo, on Wickard, Obamacare and on Gay Marriage are all destructive of these ends, and in my opinion ought to be grounds for separation.

No you are deliberately, obdurately wrong.

You disagree? You think we should just roll over and beg for a bigger mouthful of sh*t Sandwich?

263 posted on 07/09/2015 6:10:13 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
If others didn't bring it up, I assure you I wouldn't either.

BS.

Disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable? What possible reason would anyone who is arguing a right to leave, bring up Slavery? What possible benefit is it to my side of the argument?

I address it because it is the constant "LOOK SQUIRREL!!!!" argument of those who insist on justifying what their side did with an ex post facto moralism. I have no interest in discussing the topic at all.

264 posted on 07/09/2015 6:14:01 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Only if you are people without any sense of right and wrong.

Like the Founders?

265 posted on 07/09/2015 6:15:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
You dimwit, he is responding to you and stating why the SOUTH WENT TO WAR. You dimwit.

The South went to war to defend itself from a 35,000 man Union Army invading it. *THAT* is why the South went to war. Dimwit.

266 posted on 07/09/2015 6:16:36 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
But it's impossible to separate those issues. If I understand you correctly, then announcing that I'm now a foreign country because I want to, say, kill all the left-handers, is just as fine a reason as any, and opposing by force such an announcement is somehow more evil than breaking up the United States in order to murder left-handers.

If "Left-Handers" are deprived of rights under the existing Union, then the Union has no moral high ground from whence to condemn whatever happens to "Left-Handers" when someone else does the same thing they did.

This argument is pushed even further into the realm of absurdity when the Union argues that "We'll let you keep killing left handers just so long as you rejoin the Union."

It shows that their priority is control, not creating new rights for others.

267 posted on 07/09/2015 6:21:16 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
So you agree then with the Dred Scott decision?

I think it is legally valid while morally repugnant, which is the exact same circumstance as slavery was at that time.

The Central claim of Dred Scott, that the Declaration was never intended to comprehend rights for slaves, is demonstrably correct, and ample evidence is available to prove this claim beyond the requirements of even the most stringent, but intellectually honest critics.

Now where Tanney goes too far is by claiming it was never intended to comprehend the rights of "Blacks". This is demonstrably incorrect, because Black Freemen exercised the same rights as Whites prior to the Declaration of Independence, up to and including owning slaves.

I say again, according to the laws of that time period, the Dred Scott decision was legally correct while remaining morally repugnant.

268 posted on 07/09/2015 6:30:44 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
I guess I just got a little tied up in the terminology and in the English/Scottish thing, but it seems to make sense. Regardless, we are now left with a very distinct difference between the North and South - completely different mindsets about nearly every subject, IMO.

I thought it was very interesting. Not to say it's proven, but it is something to keep in the back of your mind when discussing this demographical split.

269 posted on 07/09/2015 6:32:54 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You disagree? You think we should just roll over and beg for a bigger mouthful of sh*t Sandwich?

What's your beef with Kelo?

270 posted on 07/09/2015 6:46:15 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
What's your beef with Kelo?

That you can use the power of Imminent Domain to seize the property of one person and give it to another. You don't find that objectionable?

271 posted on 07/09/2015 6:49:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The South went to war to defend itself from a 35,000 man Union Army invading it. *THAT* is why the South went to war.

But why did the South fire on Sumter to begin with?

272 posted on 07/09/2015 6:49:28 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Dimwit, the south went to war BEFORE the north called upon those troops to defend its homeland.

Dimwit.


273 posted on 07/09/2015 6:54:29 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No, just dimwits like you.


274 posted on 07/09/2015 6:55:47 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
That you can use the power of Imminent Domain to seize the property of one person and give it to another. You don't find that objectionable?

The court that ruled that the state had the power to use eminent domain to take the proprty was the Connecticut Supreme Court. All the U.S. Supreme Court did was uphold their decision. Now we can argue if the state court decision was proper all we want, but for someone who claims to be a 10th Amendment supporter then I would think you would be completely in favor of the Kelo decision.

Or are you saying there are limits to what states can be trusted with in regards to 10th Amendment powers?

275 posted on 07/09/2015 7:02:15 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Let’s put it another way:

When you say “If others didn’t bring it up, I assure you I wouldn’t either” you are lying through your teeth. It isn’t us bringing it up it’s you, you dolt. You constantly and deliberately mischaracterize the positions of others.


276 posted on 07/09/2015 7:04:26 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If "Left-Handers" are deprived of rights under the existing Union, then the Union has no moral high ground from whence to condemn whatever happens to "Left-Handers" when someone else does the same thing they did.

Except that, as you've repeatedly said, states have the power to sever their relationship with the United States for any reason at all, so a state's desire to kill all left-handers is just as valid legally, if not morally, as any if one follows your line of reasoning.

277 posted on 07/09/2015 9:08:06 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels."--Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
But why did the South fire on Sumter to begin with?

I've been pondering that question (once again) since Tuesday, and as near as I can tell it was because they were gullible @ssholes.

Thinking that they had the ability to weigh pros and cons of doing such a thing, I can conceive of only one calculation which puts firing on Ft. Sumter into the "pro" category.

Now someone had mentioned to me before, and perhaps it was you, that some states were having mixed feelings about secession and were thinking about re-joining the Union, and so Jeff Davis needed such an incident to galvanize them into staying the course, and perhaps to convince others to also join them.

Perhaps this is what they were thinking, but one of the Cabinet members (and I forget who) told them in no uncertain terms what would very likely happen, so it cannot be argued that they weren't and clearly warned.

What did they expect to happen when you Humiliate a much larger and more powerful adversary? Especially when you consider that they are just looking for an excuse to kick your @ss anyway?

Hubris, is probably the most intellectually honest reason for why they did it.

278 posted on 07/09/2015 10:03:41 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Dimwit, the south went to war BEFORE the north called upon those troops to defend its homeland.

While it may be argued that kicking people out of a Fort on their own territory is a belligerent and ill thought out act, the response was excessive.

The strike on the Fort was an affront, but of no real threat to the Union or it's interests.

Dimwit.

279 posted on 07/09/2015 10:06:37 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
No, just dimwits like you.

You really don't like it when I point out how similar were the two events. It doesn't fit your narrative. :)

280 posted on 07/09/2015 10:07:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-315 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson