Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
Interesting post, sheltonmac. At the most basic human level, practical details notwithstanding, slavery is bad for those who are owned, and bad for those who own.
However, if the outrage expended on dead American slaveowners were instead directed at living Asian, Arab, and African slaveowners, I'd be much more impressed.
Arkinsaw-
Great reply (# 247)!!!
Concerning Stephen's "Cornerstone" speech, I think it is relevant, in the case of politicians, to realize that they- whether northern or Southern- often say things to get a RESPONSE. Sometimes we should give little weight to what politicians SAY,and look far more closely to what politicians DO! This is a point that Tom DiLorenzo forces home in an excellent manner in "The Real Lincoln". Stephens did indeed SAY that. BUT----
Since the northern controlled Congress was willing to keep the federal government from EVER interferring with slavery, and if Lincoln PUBLICLY STATED that he supported State's rights on the issue, that he supported the fugitive slave laws, and he even SUPPORTED THIS AMENDMENT, then did the Southern states truly secede over the issue?????
Truly, it makes a MASSIVE, almost UNDENIABLE CASE that the Southern states NEVER seceded over slavery, REGUARDLESS what Stephens or anyone may have said. Lincoln and the north would do ANYTHING to keep the South in the Union-- even a Constitutional guarrantee to prevent the feds from EVER interferring with slavery!!!! This also fully supports the view that the TARRIFF, NOT SLAVERY, caused the war!
There is another, perhaps even more important point that CANNOT BE OVEREMPHSISED here, that is simply LOST on most people: SECESSION did NOT cause the war. Lincoln could have simply followed the principles of self-determination laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and allowed the South to go freely. He would have been following the clear political inspiration and indeed, the very words of Presidents Jefferson and Madison. But he did NOT.
In using force to FORCE a government on Southerners that we no longer desired, Lincoln joined the list of tyrrants who have acted in similar manner, like King George, the Caesars, Krushev, and Chairman Mao. And that is the REAL story of the war that is completely LOST on most people.
I agree 100%.
The same could be said of Robert Lee, Jefferson Davis, and just about every other confederate leader.
"The idea that the Civil War was primarilyabout anything other than slavery is just ridiculous."
Zack, I'm sorry, but your sentiment flies directly in the face of what Lincoln and the entire northern controlled Congress said in 1861. In fact, they were willing to guarrantee slavery FOREVER if the South would stay in the Union. Please see my post # 236 to get the facts. The Joint Resolution of War even said specifically that the war had nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln even specifically said in his Inaugural speech that there would be no war as long as the states collected the tarriffs.
Your opinions may make you feel better, but they have no basis in documented history, according to your own heros. Or maybe you can tell us why Lincoln and the entire northern Congress LIED in 1861?????
And if the UN commanded US troops to fire on New York City your response would be ....?
Where in the Constitution is the anti-secession clause, again?
Actually, he's referring to real, documented history.
In the 1930's, the federal government sent out teams of people to interview the old, former slaves. These interviews are part of a fascinating and wonderful historical record commonly referred to as the Slave Narratives. You can read them, unedited, here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snhome.html
I would encourage you to read a random sample of 10 of these at your liesure. You will be SHOCKED at what you read.
In my statistical sample, only about 10% reported abuse or said they hated their former masters. (this is lower than the number of women today who claim they have been abused by their husbands).
Of the remaining 90%, views range from neutral to absolute, outspoken love (about 30%) for their former masters. Some even say things like "slavery times sure were good times", and refused to leave their masters.
And while most were indeed glad to be free, most of them also DID NOT LIKE the yankees. They were well aware of the rapes and abuses of the yankee soldiers.
I'm sorry if this documented history from the slave's own mouths does not square with your views, but maybe it's time to re-examine your views based on documented history, not the crap taught in the government schools.
Look, everyone is glad slavery is gone in this country today. But, the historical record shows Southerners predominately followed the instructions provided by the Apostle Paul for the institution.
I would also advise you to read Booker T. Washington's wonderful autobiography, "Up from Slavery". He spoke very highly of his former master. He also said that, even given the downfalls of slavery, that blacks had benefited because of it.
All that said, we are better off having moved beyond it.. although Lincoln deserves virtually none of the credit for that.
Now, if we could only end the practice of divorce, which Paul gives similar instruction on, although it is also destructive....
bttt
"The same could be said of Robert Lee, Jefferson Davis, and just about every other confederate leader."
No it can't. Lee, Davis, and others resigned their posts with the federal government, therefore, they had no oaths to that government to uphold.
"Where in the Constitution is the anti-secession clause, again?"
ANSWER: There is none. EXCEPT: the Constitution says that a section of a State may not secede from that State unless approved by the State legislature.
This is precisely what happened with West Virginia. They seceded from the State of Virginia UNCOSTITUTIONALLY-- the Virgina legislature NEVER approved it--- but Lincoln DID!!!
In other words, Lincoln approved of the only clearly unconstitutional secession in history!!!!
As for the States, here is the principle:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."--- the Declaration of Independence
There isn't one. But while secession itself may not be illegal, unilateral acts of secession as practiced by the southern states are.
I was being sarcastic - but thanks for the West Virginia information. I'd forgotten about that, if I ever knew.
The slavery in America about which we should be concerned now is the slavery of socialism, which reduces legally-free citizens to the status of pets.
It also turns otherwise decent people into the moral equivalent of Simon Legree: "Those people shouldn't be allowed to have children, since they're on welfare." "She should be sterilized; my tax dollars are supporting those children." "Put Depo-Provera in the public water supply; it will only affect those who can't afford bottled water." (This last is an actual FReeper quote, God help us.)
What's your source for that? The Constitution is the authority which governs relations among the States, and the Constitution is silent on the matter of States' seceding.
No, but I would have endorsed a successful capture.
Do you support the attempt to ASSASINATE President Davis and his cabinet via Dahlgren which failed?
Yes, if you mean assassinate.
True, but the Constitution is not silent on the fact that some powers are reserved to Congress and other powers are forbidden to the states. States cannot be admitted to the Union without the approval of Congress, cannot change their status without the approval of Congress, by implication should not be able to leave without the approval of Congress. After all, the secession of a state does not affect only that state, it can have a negative impact on the interests of the states remaining in the Union. Shouldn't they have a say in the matter?
Then you endorse Booth's assassination of Lincoln?
The question is, do you support the assassination of Lincoln?
I don't tend to have a problem with assassination of rebel commanders, but I draw the line at heads of state, depending on the circumstances. JD doesn't qualify.
I'm not so sure of that.
But, the historical record shows Southerners predominately followed the instructions provided by the Apostle Paul for the institution.
Cold comfort if you're the one deprived of liberty.
And don't you think there's some self-selection going on in the 1930s study? The poorly-treated slaves would by definition have been of poorer health and have been dead by the 1930s. Only those with the best treatment would have survived so long.
Conducting a survey about the quality of slave life seventy years after Emancipation is a very self-serving activity.
All that said, we are better off having moved beyond it.. although Lincoln deserves virtually none of the credit for that.
LOL, right. Lincoln was the first person to send armies to liberate the slaves, and succeeded. NOTHING to do with it? Right.
Per the rules of war, is the Commander-in-Chief a legitimate military target? Could we have assassinated Hitler?
JD doesn't qualify.
Sorry, but the Confederacy maintained diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and was addressed as the "Illustious and Honorable President" by the Pope. Regardless of your sentiment, President Davis was the head of the Confederate States of America.
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.