Posted on 05/25/2017 11:20:02 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
FREEPORT THIS POLL
Well according to you, that's what happened, isn't it?
You say Davis started the war, and of course you and I both know, without a war, the Union retains slavery into the foreseeable future.
As Mohammad Ali said "I'm glad my grandaddy got on that boat!" so too should people who wanted abolition be glad that the War started, because without it, the Union would have kept slavery.
It sounds as if we should all be thanking Davis for what you claim he did.
Thanks for reply. Your twisted response is a very good insight into how your warped mind can distort anything. Just curious, do you hear voices? I just wonder because you speak of things that I said, that I never said. If you mean things I have said in threads, then I am sure you can reproduce the posts. You know, those things that you say I claimed about Davis, e.g.
That's just you. If you want to make that claim it's as true of the South as of the North -- more so if you leave the slaveowners out of the picture. But people aren't always on that wavelength.
If you ask the question you can expect some people will give that answer. Same thing in 1960 as in 1860. Same thing if you asked about Jews in the 1930s or Japanese in the 1940s. Same thing if you asked Africans about Whites and Asians in the 1960s.
But most people aren't asking or answering the question. That's just you. Not say, the average New England farmer in 1860. Why bother getting rid of 1 or 2 percent of the population? Who were they bothering?
Their objection to slavery was not based on a concern for the slaves, it was based on the economic threat that slaves would pose to wage earners like themselves. Their objection were based on self interest, not on love for their brother. Some were, but most were not.
Well, when you do come across expressions of love for Black brothers you mock and demean and insult it as in the case of Harriet Beecher Stowe and others. Northerners can't win with you, and you end up sounding like the most rabid slave owner of the 1850s.
Not when you advocate it to protect your own pocket rather than to right a wrong. It is a calculated self interest. It is only when your concern is for the wrongness of coercing someone that it becomes a moral preference.
Again, whatever makes you think that many people of the day didn't recognize the wrongness of coercing the slaves? They'd have told you that. But they recognized that they had to tolerate slavery in the Southern states to keep the country together. That's what your beloved slave owners wanted from the rest of the country, and the country more or less gave it to them. But that doesn't mean that there was no recognition of the wrong of slavery -- especially among the abolitionists you attack and demean.
But whether it's slavery the US in 1860 or Syria today, you can have moral concerns about how people are mistreated without wanting all of them to move in next door. It's the friends of tyrants who argue the other side.
I absolutely do not deny that, I consider that immoral even today, and I note most of our "rulers" in Washington and New York do this very thing now. I simply pointed out that some of the hatred for these people was born of envy, which is the strongest motivating force that the left uses to gain support.
Envy and resentment run through everything you write. It only bothers you when it's directed against slave owners.
I'm sorry you were born wherever you were born, and you hate it so much, and you think people elsewhere look down on you, but trust me on this, son: wherever you're born, life ain't no picnic.
How ever shall I endure the pain of your disfavor?
Simply, Lincoln had no authority to end slavery in any state where it was legal. Cajoling and bribery were acceptable legally. They did not work. As CinC he could try to end slavery in the states that had seceded from the Union and were in a state of rebellion against the United states. Slaves supported the Confederate war effort. Slaves built the vast earth works around Petersburg under Warwick river in Virginia. Slaves were necessary for the Southern War effort. That was a legitimate effort on Lincoln’s part to win the war. As far a “Constitutional power is concerned. The Constitution designates the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces in war time. Lincoln used that authority granted by the Constitution to conduct the war.
Now did Lincoln follow the Constitution to the Letter. No, He violated the rules of Habeas corpus in early in the war. But Lincoln adheared to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Scott V. Sanford. Show me where he deviated from that ruling. What amendment did Lincoln did he force the loyal Union states where slavery was legal to vote on?
If you ask the question you can expect some people will give that answer.
We don't have to ask the question. We can see by their actions. Before Lincoln was elected to the legislature, he was an officer in an organization dedicated to sending black people out of the country. The State of Illinois passed laws prohibiting black people from living in their state. Other Northern states passed similar laws to prevent Black people from living in their states.
But that doesn't mean that there was no recognition of the wrong of slavery -- especially among the abolitionists you attack and demean.
The Abolitionists were the only people in the North that opposed slavery on strictly moral grounds, but there were very few of them in the beginning, and most people looked at them the way we look at the "LBGT" people nowadays. They were regarded as kooks.
Here is what Charles Dickens (Very Anti-Slavery and very critical of the South) had to say about the Abolitionists.
"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."
.
.
But whether it's slavery the US in 1860 or Syria today, you can have moral concerns about how people are mistreated without wanting all of them to move in next door.
So are you suggesting we should go over there with armies and kill 750,000 of our people to liberate these people? Of course we won't do that. They don't produce 3/4ths of our export trade, so there is no financial incentive for us to liberate them.
Lincoln was going to sell out the slaves if he could keep the money. (Corwin Amendment) This is a point that does not seem to be getting through to you. He didn't fight the war for them, he fought it to prevent the loss of the European trade, and to prevent the economic competition which the Southern states would bring.
Just regard this message as containing the appropriate level of snark in rebuttal to your own.
The Declaration of Independence does not have standing in United States Law.
Not my disfavor, the disfavor of others who are disappointed because you won't explain this principle to them.
"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"
I know you can't explain it, but the other casual readers may think you can.
Makes perfect sense to me. But I don't have your...imaginative view of things.
Was it not legal in the Southern states?
Cajoling and bribery were acceptable legally.
When you have the armies of the North, everything is acceptable legally.
As CinC he could try to end slavery in the states that had seceded from the Union and were in a state of rebellion against the United states.
Where in the Constitution did he get the power to do this?
The Constitution designates the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces in war time.
So this gives him the power to suspend all rights which were supposedly protected by the Constitution? He can suspend trial by Jury? He can suspend due process? He can suspend the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment, and the rest?
No, He violated the rules of Habeas corpus in early in the war.
And freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and pretty much anything else he saw as interfering with his agenda. His bodyguard even claimed that he had signed an order to have Chief Justice Taney arrested.
He took on the powers of a Dictator. The law was what he said it was, not what was agreed to by the founders.
Had Lincoln not broken the Constitutional bounds on his powers, he could not have done what he did.
It is the sole authority for all subsequent law created in the United States. It is the mother of US Law.
"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"
I understand it too. It is correct. Slavery was accepted by the United States so long as you kept paying the money to the government in Washington D.C.
This clearly demonstrates that not giving them a cut is a greater crime than is slavery in the eyes of Washington D.C.
Lincoln did not make slavery illegal in the rebelling states. He freed the slaves. There is a difference.
Where in the Constitution did he get the power to do this?
Under the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862. The legality of which was upheld by the Prize Cases ruling issued by the Supreme Court in 1863.
And freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and pretty much anything else he saw as interfering with his agenda. His bodyguard even claimed that he had signed an order to have Chief Justice Taney arrested.
And you're drifting into lala land again.
He took on the powers of a Dictator. The law was what he said it was, not what was agreed to by the founders.
Really deep into lala land.
Try citing it in a court of law. It has no legal standing.
It is not law.
It makes perfect sense to me too. The South was paying for 3/4ths of the Government, because the South was producing 3/4ths of all the Import revenue.
The Government ran on import tariff's you know, so when the Southern money came back into the country, it did so in the form of European products, most of which landed in New York because the laws of the time made it unprofitable for them to directly to a Southern port.
The Southern States left the United States. The Constitution of the United States no longer applied to them. Article II section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives him the legal authority to conduct the war. If you would take the time to read the Constitution, you would know the answers to these questions. It was not his “body guard”, it was his office secretary that related the information about an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. You know him, he was the one that issued the Dred Scott Decision. Had the Confederacy not started a War with the United States he would not have done what he had to do.
A
Lawyer hair splitting. It is a "difference" without a distinction. It is an amusing fiction.
Under the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862. The legality of which was upheld by the Prize Cases ruling issued by the Supreme Court in 1863.
In Calvin's Case, the Court did exactly what the King wanted them to do as well. This is just more Kabuki dance to create the perception of legitimacy, a court prior to Lincoln would not have ruled in such a way.
And you're drifting into lala land again.
I've already posted the statement made by Lincoln's body guard, and another reference to it made by a former Mayor of Boston. It is better sourced than a lot of other things in history that are accepted.
The problem with you is that I could go to the trouble of finding this information again, posting it, and it would not cause you to make the slightest effort to recant your claim or your snark. You just don't care what is the truth, You have what you want to believe, and you don't want to see anything that doesn't fit into your mantra.
Your response to anything you don't want to hear is "La la la la la la la!"
Not the case. Southern Ports were less developed than the harbors in Boston and New York. There was no law in place that discriminated against Southern Ports. But the infrastructure to move goods away from the port were much superior in the Northern States.
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.