Posted on 01/18/2023 11:11:53 PM PST by CFW
The University of Richmond recently removed the name of T.C. Williams, an early benefactor, from its law school because of his alleged ownership of slaves in the 19th century.
The family argues he contributed to the demise of slavery and now argues the university should refund Williams’ previously donated money to the institution.
“If suddenly his name is not good enough for the University, then isn’t the proper ethical and indeed virtuous action to return the benefactor’s money with interest? At a 6% compounded interest over 132 years, T.C. Williams gift to the law school alone is now valued at over $51 million, and this does not include many other substantial gifts from my family to the University,” Rob Smith, Williams’ great-great-grandson, said in a letter to President Kevin Hallock.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegefix.com ...
Wasn't "Day One" April 12 or something? Took them till August?
As he understood it for the first two years of the war. Suddenly he developed a new understanding by January of 1863. Funny how he was wrong about not having the legal authority before that time.
That's not true. Every time you ask it I answer that it would have lasted from 20 to 80 years longer, but very likely it would have been gone in 80 years because it was no longer economical.
Well, for a ''dying institution'' it sure went kicking and screaming.
Well if they had agreed to let Lincoln rescue it with his Corwin Amendment guaranteeing permanent slavery in the USA, then it wouldn't have died at all, would it?
Why would Lincoln try to save slavery? Hmmmm?
You are hearing it wrong. Lincoln supported *MONEY* and to get it he was willing to keep slavery.
They didn't have to fight to do that. All they had to do was stay in the Union. The Union would have kept the slaves in bondage.
You aren't getting it. You have been lied to, and now you are trying to convince us of something that doesn't even make sense to you.
Staying in the Union means permanent slavery in the Union, and Lincoln was fine with that solution. Why? Because he got the money.
And with the Corwin Amendment, they could vote it back in.
Federal government could abolish slavery in US territories.
And with the Corwin Amendment, once a territory became a state, it could vote in slavery if it wanted.
Federal government could abolish slavery in Washington, DC.
Not necessarily. The constitution forbids the taking of property without just compensation. By what legal argument could you forbid men from traveling to DC with their slaves?
Federal government could abolish new imports of foreign slaves.
Already did that in 1808.
Federal government could regulate interstate transportation of slaves and SCOTUS could rule on when a slave must be considered freed.
They did, and the answer was never. (Dred Scott vs Sanford)
Point of order. The Corwin amendment could *NOT* be overturned. It contained language expressly forbidding it from being amended or repealed.
It was forever. Lincoln was going to put forever slavery into the US Constitution.
They didn’t give a shit about slavery
They fought to preserve the union and because they were called up after the first wave of volunteers
They didn’t give a shit about slavery
They fought to preserve the union and because they were called up after the first wave of volunteers
Some DID fight for slavery
Some DID fight for the Union
Some DID fight for the adventure.
There were many reasons.
Here you go with that Corwin nonsense again Reb . Lincoln had no intention of saving slavery.
Lincoln declared himself anti-slavery and ran on that platform. Prior to the South’s launching the war Lincoln had wanted to wait to make sure he had both the legal authority to do so and the broader support of the American people to end it.
By de facto and sheer stupidity the South saved him the trouble.
You know something , you know why I call you Reb?
It’s because your f’ing sympathies always coming down on the side of the damned Confederacy, you know that?
For years here you, Diogenes, far above others have ALWAYS been savaging Lincoln but I’ve NEVER seen you ever take that vile creature to task who was the cause of all that transpired between 1861 and 1865, Jefferson Finis Davis.
Why don’t you rip him a new one once and a while?
Arkansas passed resolutions clearly stating the reason was slavery: Resolutions passed by the Convention of the people of Arkansas on the 20th day of March, 1861.
In those resolutions, Arkansas complains that northern states "have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character; the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the southern States." (Arkansas is talking about our party.)
Arkansas goes on to talk about "protection to their slave property," to complain that the North wants no more slave states admitted into the Union, and to claim the North "degraded American citizens by placing them upon an equality with negroes at the ballot box."
Then, it calls for the U.S. to pass constitutional amendments requiring (1) that the "President and Vice President of the United States shall each be chosen alternately from a slaveholding and non-slaveholding state," (2) that south of latitude 36 deg. 30 min., "slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress," (3) that "Congress shall have no power to legislate upon the subject of slavery, except to protect the citizen in his right of property in slaves," (4) that "the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave" not returned to the slaveholder, and (5) that people of the "African race" cannot vote or hold office.
Nowhere in that document does Arkansas demand an amendment against a tariff. Arkansas never even mentions the word "tariff" in its resolutions. Their only concern was slavery, more specifically slavery of the "African race."
Yes, the war was about money, but not in the way you say it was. Slaveholders invested a lot of money in human chattel. Because slaves were part of their property, slaveholders even used them to secure loans and pay off debt. And the slave market was profitable.
Maybe you don't want to believe the southern states seceded over slavery, but it's true.
Two points. As has previously been mentioned, Arkansas issued no declaration of causes. Secondly, no matter how much Southerners hated it, sky high tariffs, even tariffs that wrecked the economy of one region, sectional partisan legislation that blatantly discriminated against one region, WERE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They were unfair as hell, but they were not unconstitutional. There was no limit in the constitution on the tariff rate, there was no requirement that federal funds be distributed evenly, there was no requirement that the states pay equal or proportionate contributions to the federal coffers. None. Zip. Nada.
You know what was unconstitutional? Refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. The Northern states were clearly guilty of that. It clearly violated the constitution. It gave the Southern states all the justification they needed to say "it was the other side which broke the deal, not us.....and therefore because they broke the deal, we're outta here."
Notice how when the North offered to remedy this via express protections of slavery in the constitution effectively forever, and strengthened federal fugitive slave laws, even the original 7 seceding states turned that down. They were not interested. Why? Because obviously slavery was not their real concern. There was no widespread support for abolition anywhere in the US anyway. Also, did you notice that Arkansas did not secede until ordered by Lincoln to provide troops to attack other states? If they were oh so worried about slavery....why did they wait and not secede until Lincoln chose war?
Yes, the war was about money, but not in the way you say it was. Slaveholders invested a lot of money in human chattel. Because slaves were part of their property, slaveholders even used them to secure loans and pay off debt. And the slave market was profitable.
But slavery was not threatened in the US. Even if it were, what explains the motivation of the other 94.33% of White Southerners who did not own any slaves? You still haven't explained why all these people were willing to fight and suffer and die to protect the property of others....which wasn't threatened anyway.
Maybe you don't want to believe the southern states seceded over slavery, but it's true.
You clearly don't want to believe the Northern states started a war of aggression for money and empire, but its true.
"For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!" London Quarterly Review 1862
“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” London Times, November 7, 1861
“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” Times of London September 1862
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." --Charles Dickens, 1862
“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” London Times, November 7, 1861
“…But as time went on, and the issues of the war came out more clearly, this spring of Northern sympathies began to fail. It soon became apparent that the grievance of the South went very far beyond the mere refusal to allow slaves to be held in the territories of the United States, and it became still more clear that whatever the North was fighting for, it was not for the emancipation of the Negro. It was impossible to believe that the North was crusading for abolition, in the face of the President’s reiterated denials, and of the inhuman treatment which Negroes were constantly receiving at Northern hands. If anything was wanting to confirm their skepticism, it has been supplied. Emancipation to be a military resource of his extreme necessity, shows how little he cared for it as a philanthropist. He values it not for the freedom it may confer, but for the carnage that it may cause.” London Times
"The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. 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." --London Spectator, 1862
" If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862
“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale. As to secession being rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing. Massachusetts now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede again and again.” Charles Dickens.
Let me guess. Now the English are bad guys, "Lost Causers" etc. ANYTHING other than to admit what is obvious to everyone who doesn't buy Yankee propaganda hook, line and sinker which is that the North started and waged a war for money and empire. They couldn't have cared less about the slaves. Indeed, that was the first bargaining chip they offered up to keep that sweet sweet cash flowing Northward.
The U.S. produced around 5-million bales of cotton in 1860, said to be 80% of the world's supply.
There are no numbers saying how much cotton was produced by slaves versus freed-labor, and slaves are credited with at least helping to produce ALL US cotton.
For example, those small farmers who grew cotton, still hired slaves from their neighbors to help with picking and processing.
Not when he started, but if it came to a choice between losing the money or saving slavery, he picked saving slavery.
Lincoln declared himself anti-slavery and ran on that platform.
Politicians will say whatever they think the majority want to hear. There was a time when I would have believed Lincoln was honest, but that time passed about three years ago.
Prior to the South’s launching the war...
I have no interest in arguing under a false premise.
It’s because your f’ing sympathies always coming down on the side of the damned Confederacy, you know that?
You touch on a point that I was thinking about this very morning. People are too stuck on the South seceding, and if the topic is mentioned, people's minds are so polluted with negative propaganda about the South seeking independence that they cannot argue the essential point without becoming emotionally involved in the discussion.
So this morning I think I hit on a better way to argue the essential point; the essential point being "do states have a right to leave?"
Connecticut and Massachusetts put forth that they had the right to secede at the Hartford convention, I believe in 1814.
Did Connecticut and Massachusetts (and I think some other states) have a right to leave the Union in 1814?
For years here you, Diogenes, far above others have ALWAYS been savaging Lincoln but I’ve NEVER seen you ever take that vile creature to task who was the cause of all that transpired between 1861 and 1865, Jefferson Finis Davis.
That is because I see him as a bystander, and not someone who had control of whether or not there was a war. Only Lincoln controlled this. No other person did or could.
Why don’t you rip him a new one once and a while?
He is insignificant. A nobody in the larger scheme of things.
Lincoln needed a battle field victory for impetus to enact the Emancipation Proclamation.The Battle of Antietam gave him that impetus. You have no interest in admitting the South launched the war? You're a poor debater Diogenes and a politically and historically ignorant one at that. Jeff Davis was a bystander? That's like saying Hitler was a bystander in starting WW2. Jefferson Davis was the catalyst for the war and when, after Gettysburg it was obvious the South would lose the war instead of seeing the hand writing on the wall that the war was lost and the Union blockade was starving the South he could have ended it but both Davis, and Lee continued the slaughter for another two years. So your are a Reb after all. While you seem to be an agreeable sort, over all, as knowing anything of the causes of the Civil War, respectfully dude, you're dumb as dirt.
“...respectfully dude, you’re dumb as dirt...”
That comment would apply to you. You damn Yankees can’t admit that your war to centralize power has given us the authoritarian government run by libs we have today. The most enthusiastic Northern states of 1861 are today the most leftist states. The most enthusiastic Southern states of 1861 are today the most conservative. Coincidence? No, not at all.
I didn’t say there were no conservatives in the northeast. But there are more in the South. Did New Jersey go for Trump? Did Massachusetts? Did Connecticut? Did New York state?
Alabama went for Trump. Arkansas went for Trump. Mississippi went for Trump. Georgia went for Trump. South Carolina went for Trump. Louisiana went for Trump. Florida went for Trump.
Oh, and by the way you are not supposed to use profanity on this forum.
Trump missed it by 4 points. Maybe you didn’t notice but any of the states who went for Trump had their votes stolen. This was stolen election. And you’re not going to tell me there are no liberals in the South. Don’t even go there and as to profanity pal, you called me a ‘’damn Yankee’’.
Regardless of whatever reasons you may have mentioned, Lincoln's support of the Corwin amendment means he went over to the other side and supported the continuation of slavery... for awhile.
Jeff Davis was a bystander? That's like saying Hitler was a bystander in starting WW2.
I hadn't heard about Blitzkrieg Davis before. Do go on.
Davis was insignificant. He never had control of whether there would be a war or not.
...and the Union blockade was starving the South...
They imported a lot of food, did they?
While you seem to be an agreeable sort, over all, as knowing anything of the causes of the Civil War, respectfully dude, you're dumb as dirt.
Fine. Can we get to Massachusetts and Connecticut? Did they have a right to leave the Union in 1814? They said they did. Did they?
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.