Freep this poll Civil War monuments

Richond Times Dispatch ^

[PATRIOT1876]

FREEPORT THIS POLL

[mojo114]

No is behind by a little.

[Gargantua]

Please add me to the Fearless Freepers Poll-Ping list. I’ll be more than happy to do my share.

[Gargantua]

I replied to the wrong thread. Please add me to the Fearless Poll-FReeping FReepers Ping List. I'll be more than happy to do my share.

Thank you.

G.

[nathanbedford]

I stand corrected, you are right and I was wrong, Jackson did in fact own slaves. I stand by my observation, however, that to teach that Sunday school class was to court social opprobrium.

Thank you for the correction.

[DoodleDawg]

The Civil War was about States Rights, not about slavery.

The leaders of the time would disagree with you. But what did they know?

[DoodleDawg]

It would certainly appear that way, wouldn't it?

Sometimes things are exactly as they appear.

[dynachrome]

I think you are on it. Let me know if the ping comes thru on this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3555337/posts

[DiogenesLamp]

Sumter belonged to the union - Anderson had every right to be there and the South Carolinian's had ZERO right to try to expel them.

Well that depends entirely on the question whether a Union voluntarily joined can be voluntarily left. The Declaration of Independence tells us that an Imposed Union over one thousand years old can be broken by this thing called a "natural right" granted by "nature and nature's God", so a rational person would conclude that this very same right which legitimized the USA, should also apply to anyone else that seeks independence.

What legal or moral argument do you assert that can stand against "nature, and nature's God"?

[DiogenesLamp]

What, you weren’t able to locate any Pravda quotes to defend your idiotic claims?

You aren't refuting the point.

"The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States"

You aren't refuting it because you cannot. The ugly truth is that the United States would have kept slavery had the South given up sooner.

[DiogenesLamp]

And as usual you ask irrelevant questions. Irrelevant to the primary issue involved anyways.

[central_va]

The lost cause was "preserving the union".

That cause didn't inspire enough blue bellies to go down to Virginia and get their head blown off. So the "Goon", half way into the war, passed conscription, a silly do nothing EO called the Emancipation Proclamation, and made it, the war, about slavery all of which went over like wet fart in church up North. What saved the "Goon" was the fall of Atlanta which really help him defeat McClellan in the 1864 election. It was all about getting re-elected.

[DiogenesLamp]

That was because the Federal Government had no Constitutional means to end slavery in any state were it was legal per Scott V. Sanford.

So what was the "constitutional means" by which it was ended in the South? Presumably if Lincoln had the power to end slavery, he also had the power to create slavery.

So did Lincoln have the power to enslave the "rebels"? Could he put chains on these people and make them work the cotton fields?

From whence came his constitutional power to end what was a legal practice and one that was explicitly protected by the US Constitution? Where did this man get such power?

From what clause of the constitution did his power to do this emanate?

Lincoln worked quite hard to get Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware to end the institution, but he could not force them to end slavery.

He bribed them and threatened them. He also deliberately refused to allow the Southern states to vote against this amendment. They were required to vote "yes" for this amendment because they had guns pointed at their heads.

This was a coerced amendment that did not accurately represent the free will of the citizens of those states at this time.

It was but one more example of extra constitutional dictatorial powers being used by a man that controlled the Armies of the North.

So you are going to talk to me about the US Constitution? Really?

[rockrr]

The “point” is as much a warm, stinky pile as you are.

[rockrr]

I would explain it but you don’t possess the requisite computing power to process it.

[DiogenesLamp]

DL needs to cling to the invented arguments of the giant windmills he creates or his mad fantasy will blow away.

If you don't think that most people believe the war was started to free the slaves, you haven't even read the comments in *THIS* thread, let alone the endless comments I see every time this topic comes up.

The vast majority of the people believe that the War was fought to end slavery.

[HandyDandy]

Shirley you don’t mean to imply that Davis started a War to free the slaves?

[DiogenesLamp]

Sometimes things are exactly as they appear.

But in this case, they clearly do not. We know this because we have the actual numbers that demonstrate where the vast bulk of the money to support the government came from.

It came from the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is why I don't bother much replying to you. You never have an intellectual rebuttal, with you it's always some sort of "eat my shorts!" or "up yours!" response.

Childish and simplistic.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would explain it but you don’t possess the requisite computing power to process it.

Then explain it for the benefit of the others who might read this.

"The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States"

[HandyDandy]

Well that depends entirely on the question whether a Union voluntarily joined can be voluntarily left.

Incorrect. South Carolina did leave the Union. But that didn't mean they could attack Federal Property. That is silly talk. If South Carolina truly believed that Fort Sumter belonged to them, they would have occupied it when they seceded, instead of letting it sit empty in the middle of their harbor. It didn't occur to the new Confederacy to takes steps in regards to Fort Sumter until Major Anderson moved into it.

In addition, you continue to promote the bad analogy of the relationship of the colonists to the British Kingdom, as being similar to the relationship of the States in a Union. In the 50 score years of the "Imposed Union" (your words), I don't recall the Colonies ever ratifying any constitution with Britain. You are laboring under a multitude of misapprehensions.