Posted on 10/19/2002 3:41:11 AM PDT by shuckmaster
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:05:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
With a slow, deliberate gait, H.K. Edgerton walked along U.S. 25 toward Greenville on Wednesday wearing a Confederate soldier's uniform and resting a Confederate flag on his right shoulder.
Edgerton, who is black, is marching from Asheville, N.C., to Austin, Texas, to raise awareness and funds for Sons of the Confederate Veterans and the Southern Legal Resource Center, which advocates Southern heritage.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenvilleonline.com ...
You are apparently assuming that the high court had the ‘final say’ in constitutional matters. Perhaps you will enjoy the following (Walt refused to comment, for some reason):
”Resolved, That this assumption of jurisdiction by the federal judiciary...is an act of undelegated power, and therefore without authority, void, and of no force.
”Resolved, That the government, formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
”Resolved, That the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all Unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
;>)
The proposed amendment had support of Democrats and the remaining Southerners in Congress. It was also a reflection of the stated policy of the Republicans not to act at the federal level to abolish slavery where it existed.
It was to be a calling of bluffs: a concession to the argument of moderate Southerners that what they wanted was the protection of slavery where it existed and the recognition of the "state's right" to organize its own conditions of labor. And the Republicans were also willing to demonstrate that there was nothing abolitionist "up their sleeves," if doing so would preserve the union, thus indicating that their own rhetoric about accepting slavery were it existed had not been insincere. And the Amendement also reflects badly on the argument that Southern states only wanted to be left alone to abolish slavery in their own time and way, as it would have allowed them to do so and protected them from any possible constitutional amendment requiring emancipation.
The measure was known as the Corwin Amendment. It contained a major loophole: in forbidding Amendments allowing Congress to abolish slavery, did it forbid amendments that would directly abolish slavery and allow the courts or the executive the opportunity of enforcement?
Peter Suber of Earlham University relates that the Amendment was signed, but by Buchanan on his last days as President. More here. If you have contradictory evidence please present it directly as a part of your argument, rather than allude to it indirectly.
James Ford Rhodes gives Maryland and Ohio as the states which ratified the Amendment. In 1862, Illinois apparently did ratify the amendment, which was by then largely orphaned. The state also the way in ratifying the later 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in an act that was indeed regarded as a homage to Lincoln.
The proposed Amendment preserving slavery was certainly an unwise proposal, but chaotic times produce desperate measures. Such was secession, and so were the compromise efforts.
You write:
With regard to the pro-slavery amendment signed by Mr. Lincoln, ...
But please correct me if I am wrong...
Well, yes. You are wrong.
Buchanan was the President who signed the pro-slavery Amendment.
Lincoln did sign the ant-slavery 13th Amendment, though.
Sure he did - he wanted to expatriate them to build the Panama canal. They could vote - just not in the united States of America.
How long do you think it would have taken for blacks to get the vote in an independent confederate states? Just curious.
Sure he did - he wanted to expatriate them to build the Panama canal. They could vote - just not in the united States of America.
You -know- that is false. -- Or at least you know that John Wilkes Booth misunderstood, because he said, "This means nigger citizenship," and he vowed to kill Lincoln.
In fact, President Lincoln refers directly to the Louisiana state constitution in this speech, and you well know it.
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
I also found this:
Executive Mansion, Washington,
March 13. 1864.
My dear Sir:
I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a Convention, which among other things, will probably define the elective franchise-- I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in -- as, for instances, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewell of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
To Gov. Hahn -- March 13. 1864
Walt
free dixie NOW,sw
may i suggest that you check out BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY, by H.R. Blackerby,PhD, late professor emeritus of Tuskeegee University Dept. of History for further information.
by mid-1862 essentially ALL rebel formations were de-segregated, with the exception of 3 Battalion-size ALL BLACK units, which had been state militia units prior to the WBTS.
free dixie,sw
the CS Marines had about 600 regular members (throughout the WBTS about 2,000 marines served however).
there was also the REGULAR artillery unit (called the Confederate States Artilley), which had about 400 members.
this was the TOTAL NUMBER of REGULARS out of a total line strength of 1.2 million. the rest of the formations were state militia, privately-raised units, reservists & home guards.
free dixie,sw
do you REALLY think the CSA's own VETERANS were too dumb to know whether or not a particuliar person served as a soldier, sailor or marine?
or alternatively are you just a LIAR, as i believe?
free dixie,sw
Considering that Lincoln wanted blacks expatriated - even those that served as soldiers - the difference between "sometime" in the Confederacy, and "never" in the Union looms large.
how many REBEL POWs were MURDERED in COLD BLOOD at Point Lookout POW (DEATH) Camp?
can you say 15,000, children?
sure you can!
free dixie,sw
Lincoln had a lifelong stance against equality and negro suffrage - just before his death in 1865 he questioned General Butler about what to do with the blacks, who replied that he would send them to the "United States of Columbia" to dig the canal. I posted 4 pages of it the other day, did you miss it in the "record"?
So I think speculation is in order here, 4CJ. Since you take some of Lincoln's quotes and assume legislation and policy, how about some indication of what life for Mr. Edgerton's ancestors in a free confederacy would have been like?
So it was Ben Butler who suggested sending them to Columbia to dig and not Lincoln? You seemed to indicate it was the other way around.
Lincoln had a lifelong stance against equality and negro suffrage - just before his death in 1865 he questioned General Butler about what to do with the blacks, who replied that he would send them to the "United States of Columbia" to dig the canal. I posted 4 pages of it the other day, did you miss it in the "record"?
He had a public stance exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
Butler's comments are not backed up anywhere else in the record, in any case.
Lincoln is clearly on the record in 1858 as saying that blacks were entitled to the fruits of their labors. He said this when it was not particularly popular to say so. He did lose the 1858 election, after all. He is also clearly on the record in this letter to Governor Hahn in 1864. These same sentiments were evinced in his last public address on April 11, 1865. Like I say, the import was pretty plain to John Wilkes Booth.
He also said:
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood."
Lincoln never suggested that anyone be forced out of the country.
Your position on this is, shall we say, not well supported in the record.
Since I suppose you do post on these threads with some hope of credibility, it seems odd that you would pursue something that can in no way be supported except in League of the South/SCV hate rants.
Walt
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.