Posted on 05/28/2002 8:33:23 AM PDT by Lazamataz
MACON, GA (LAZNEWS) – A lawsuit launched to reclaim damages suffered by the owners of slaves and their descendant has moved to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The suit names the United States Government, the NAACP, and several companies that supported Abolition in the 1800’s, most notably Con-Edison and the various Bell companies, which descended from the Morse Telegraph Company. Con-Edison was formed from Edison Company, and the Bell Telephone descended from the Morse Telegraph Company – both staunch opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century.
"The robbery of our legal property will never be forgotten, never forgiven," remarked Samuel Whipback, "Our family was ruined by the Emancipation Proclamation. We demand reparations, now!"
Whipback’s family, who was black, owned over 400 slaves at the end of the Civil War. County property records show that the Whipback plantation was sold in 1872 to satisfy property tax obligations.
"Our family has suffered 130 years of destitution by having our property stripped from us," lamented George Denywater, "I thought America was based on respect for property rights. When are we getting our check?"
Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-WV) introduced legislation into the full Senate today to claim reparations for the descendants of these slave owners. Said Byrd, "We must never forget, the vestiges of this crime against humanity must be repaired."
I suggest you go to an opthamologist. If there is no defect in your vision, then a reading comprehension clinic is in order.
BTW, I'm just a regular Confederate. "Neo" refers to something new. Like my ancestors, I believe in self government and self determination....
Your ancestors believed in limiting that self-government and self-determination to some human beings, with the rest to be considered property, and held that to be the absolute basis of the Confederate States of America. Do you hold those beliefs as your ancestors did? If so, how do you determine who gets to be the master and who gets to be the slave? If not, would you concede that you hold an overly romanticized view of the Confederacy, that you are not a Confederate in the original sense, and are thus a neo-Confederate?
God bless Dixie.
He did. Too bad some of the neo-confederates can't be bothered to realize that.
Heh,heh...
Here's another one:
Reparations for Slave Breeders NOW!
Many "slave breeders" were free blacks. Could anyone have been more immediately and finally put out of business by the Emancipation Proclamation than the slave breeders? Sounds like grounds for reparations to me. So... who is willing to step up and claim that their ancestor was a slave breeder? Anyone? Anyone?
Yeah... that's what I thought. ;^)
That's the understatement of the week. Kicking states out of the union that wanted to be out in the first place until they agree to the amendment and ignoring votes from other states that changed their mind after they saw what was being done to the South. Impeaching a President for not going along with the Radical Republicans. All that is just shenanigans? I'd call it throwing the Constitution to the wind
So did our Founding Fathers and those before them who arrived with slaves. This was an acceptable practice a long time ago. It is not acceptable now, not even among the "neo" confederates. I believe you might try your own trip to the eye doctor and worry about your own defects.
I am pointing out that you don't believe in the founding principles Confederacy as defined by the original Confederates. Slavery was defined as the raison d'etre for the Confederacy.
That makes you a neo-confederate, not a confederate. And that was my point.
The "Emancipation" Proclamation didn't free anybody. Nada, nobody, zilch, not one person.
I also don't believe it should be Constitutionally protected either by ANY governemtn, as it was by the Yankee government at the time the South seceeded.
Again I will ask you. If you don't believe in slavery, even though it was Constitutionally protected by the US Government prior to the 1860's, does that make you a neo-American?
The only constant is change. Verily, change is inevitable--unless, of course, you are dealing with a vending machine.
The Confederacy refused to countenance any limitation on the growth of slavery--that is why they seceded. They would look at you and say "you're no Confederate." Slavery was a bedrock value for the Southron elites. They'd look quite askance at the defenders of the Confederacy here on FR for not defending slavery and for attacking slavery in the Union.
The land beneath Ft. Sumter was owned by South Carolina. The U.S. government NEVER purchased this land. The fort, however, was a different story ... it clearly was built and maintained by the U.S. BUT, the disposition of the fort had already been addressed by the two parties in an agreement prior to the Sumter incident.
Sumter is built on a man-made island. Made, I should add, from granite hauled down from New England. There was never any agreement made to turn Sumter over by either Lincoln or Buchanan.
The issue at Ft. Sumter was not ownership, it was breach of contract by the U.S. The C.S.A. & U.S. had reached a peaceful agreement requiring the U.S. to turn over U.S. occupied lands in the sovereign states of the Confederacy. As per the agreement, these posts were NOT to be reinforced by the U.S.
There was no such agreement. All federal property appropriated by the confederates to date had either been abandoned at the time or was turned over by local commanders who were confederate sympathizers.
The commander of the garrison at Ft. Moultrie, MAJ Anderson, under secret orders from Lincoln, left that fort and occupied Ft. Sumter. This was STRICTLY PROHIBITED by the agreement reached between the two countries.
Major Anderson moved his command to Sumter in the last days of December 1860 while Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 1861. Lincoln wasn't in a position to issue orders, secret or otherwise, to Major Anderson. Likewise the agreement you spoke of was made by Buchanan and promised that Sumter would not be reinforced if the people of South Carolina did not occupy any government property. The agreement did not forbid shifting of the existing garrison to different positions in Charleston. In any case the agreement became moot when South Carolina violated it by occupying Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney as well as the Charleston Armory.
On the 11th of April, 1861, GEN Beauregard demanded the surrender of the fort, as per the agreement. MAJ Anderson at first declined to do so then indicated that he would surrender only if he did not received controlling instructions from Washington City. He knew very well that a fleet of U.S. ships was, at that time, off the coast of South Carolina with men, arms and resupplies waiting out a gale. (N.B.: resupply of Ft. Sumter was STRICTLY PROHIBITED by the agreement between the two countries.)
Again, an agreement that was null and void because of South Carolinian violations of it.
Ft. Sumter was the trigger that Lincoln needed to start the war. It was his Gulf of Tonkin. Conspiring to have South Carolina "fire on the flag" was a perfect scheme for him. War sentiment was already rampant and this infraction, made to look as if the Confederates were at fault, would practically guarantee to fill his call for 70,000 volunteers.
A simple solution to that would have been for the confederate army not to fire. Firing on the fort was suicide and members of Davis' one cabinet told him it was insane to fire on Sumter. But Davis refused to listen. He fired and the south paid the price for his actions over the course of the next four years.
The most cunning treachery was practiced by the U.S. in the negotiations for the evacuation of these various forts, occupied by the U.S. but situated in the sovereign states of the C.S.A., and every principle of honor violated by U.S. government authorities in communications with the commissioners representing South Carolina and the then recently organized Confederate government.
No treachery at all. Davis sent the representatives and Lincoln refused to deal with them. Recognizing them would have been tantamount to recognizing the confederacy as a separate country rather than a rebellious section of the US. Lincoln was not about to give the confederacy a status that it did not deserve.
Referring to the aforementioned agreements regarding the evacuation of the forts in the C.S.A., Horace Greeley, who was certainly not pro-Confederate in his views, stated: "Whether the bombardment and reduction of Fort Sumpter shall or shall not be justified by posterity, it is clear that the Confederacy had no alternative but its dissolution."
But once the confederates started the war, this same Horace Greely coined the phrase, "On to Richmond" as a goal of the war.
I guess he obeys the Ranger's Rules: lie all you want to anyone except another Ranger or an officer...
And that goes for all we Israelites who became part of the Northern Kingdom as well!
Actually you are wrong. The Confederate Constitution banned the importation of slaves. And the south was forced to buy products manufactured in the north or pay crippling tarrifs to import goods of better quality from Europe, which was the basis for secession, an issue that was a source of contention between North and South some 40 years prior to secession.
I am glad to see however, that we do agree on the vending machines! :-)
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.