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 ...
By launching the war the South saved solved him the dilemma. The concept of race doesn't exist in the US Constitution or The Declaration of Independence. For that matter are people classified according to race, skin color or ethnicity. Our founding principles are color blind. Our history has not been. But the Confederate Constitution was not and there was a delineation. There were owners, White owners and Black slaves. And it was the Democrat Party what enshrined it, fought a war to preserve it and lost. Today it appears the only thing different abut The Civil War is that the shooting has stopped.
Lincoln did not run on a platform to end slavery. He said over and over and over again he did not have the power to end slavery and did not desire to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln started the war. Furthermore he did so quite deliberately as his personal secretaries attest and as his own letter to his naval commander Gustavus Fox amply show. Any claim that the Confederate Constitution treated slavery any differently from the US Constitution is simply nonsense. Nobody was fighting over slavery.
No. He was invading South Carolina's and the CSA's sovereign territory.
No. He sent the civilian supply ship Star Of The West. Hardly a war ship. You can’t make up your own history Reb.
It doesn’t work that way.
There was no such thing as ‘’sovereign Confederate territory''. The Confederate States of America were an illegal entity.
Well the other lying liberal lawyer President from Illinois said:
"If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare."
Why should we care what Lincoln said *BEFORE* he supported an amendment to make slavery permanent? I think the simple explanation is he would lie when it was needful to him.
With warships that had orders to fire on them if they resisted. Wasn't a "supply" mission. It was a "lets start a fight" mission.
And Sumter had never been garrisoned. It was built for the defense of Charleston and no longer served any federal interest, nor did the Union government have any further legitimate claim to it.
There is no *PROHIBITION* of secession in the US Constitution. There is a very powerful assertion of it as a right in the Declaration of Independence.
Further, three states explicitly stated that they had a right to secede in their ratification statements for the US Constitution.
If they were incorrect, the framers would have objected immediately.
It was a warship. It had a contingent of riflemen and cannoneers below decks that it was attempting to sneak into Fort Sumter to reinforce it.
This force was offloaded from the USS Brooklyn out at sea, but they were spotted by Southern ships in the area who witnessed the transfer of troops.
The southern ships immediately sailed into port and telegraphed the Southern authorities about the offloading of troops onto the Star of the West.
Did you know this?
There is NO legal right to secession, The Star of The West was a civilian merchant ship, not a troop laden transport ship and the South started the ball by opening fire on Ft. Sumter. BY God, don't you Rebs EVER get tired of lying?
The steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, 181 officers and enlisted Armament: • 8 × 9 in guns, • 2 × 12-pounder guns
USS Powhatan, 289 officers and enlisted Armament: • 1 × 11 in (280 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore gun, 10 × 9 in (230 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore guns • 5 × 12-pounder guns, also transporting steam launches and about 300 sailors (besides the crew, these to be used to augment Army troops)
Armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, 150 officers and men (approx.) 4 × 32-pounder guns, 1 × 10-pounder gun, 1 × 20-pounder Parrot rifle
The Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, 95 officers and men Armament: 1 x 4in gun, 1 x 9in gun, 2 x 8in guns, 2 x 24 lb brass howitzers
Totals:
4 war ships
4 transports
38 heavy guns
<1200 military personnel (at least 500 of whom were to be used as a landing party)
Does this sound like "provisions" to anyone????
Nope. You're full of it Yank. Lincoln sent a flotilla of heavily armed warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. He wanted to start a war as his letter to his naval commander amply demonstrates.
"I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN."
South Carolina:Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Mississippi: Mississippi Declaration of the Causes of Secession
Georgia: Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession
Texas: A Declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union
Arkansas: Resolutions passed by the Convention of the people of Arkansas on the 20th day of March, 1861
Alabama: Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly of Alabama
Tennessee: Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Tennessee
And Virginia is clear in its ordinance about its sympathies with other slaveholding states.
Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States
>"Arkansas issued no declaration of causes."<
In the Arkansas Ordinance of Secession, Arkansas points to the "resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861."
>"The Jim Crow laws passed in the South after the war were modelled on the Black Codes already on the books in the Northern states."<
If your point is that the North was not perfect, either, you'll get no argument from me. We're only talking about the reason the southern states seceded. According to their own written declarations and resolutions, southern states said they were seceding because the Republican party of the North was anti-slavery. You refuse to believe those states were telling the truth.
>"According to the Republicans, they were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever via express constitutional amendment."<
Southern Democrats didn't think Corwin went far enough. In written documents linked above, they complain that the Republican party wants to end the expansion of slave states and eventually end slavery.
>"As you failed to explain before, it was not the way of life for 94.33% of the Southern White population. They owned no slaves."<
I answered the question. You just don't want to accept the answer: Slavery, and the social hierarchy based on it, had been the way of life in those states for generations.
On the other hand, those percentages might be misleading. I'd always read that a small percentage of southerners held slaves, but maybe the percentage is larger if you calculate by family unit. In some states, such as Mississippi and South Carolina, nearly 50% of families held at least one slave.
>"It was a lot more than "talk of freedom" as you put it."<
As I stated earlier, southern states put in writing that they feared "insurrection." They feared what might happen if their slave populations were freed. In South Carolina and Mississippi, the slave population outnumbered the free population. Those Southern Democrats liked the status quo, and they were fearful about what might happen otherwise.
Was there hypocrisy in the North? Yes. Did industries in the North capitalize on slave labor in the South? Yes. Did Lincoln take a moderate approach? Yes.
But, Southern Democrats were crystal clear about their reasons for secession. They put in writing that they wanted to keep slavery, and they complained that Republicans were anti-slavery.
As a side note, some strange coincidences today here in the NE: On the road, I ended up behind an SUV with a Texas license plate, and then I ended up behind a car with a South Carolina license plate for a while. Later, a car with a Massachusetts plate ended up in front of me, and at that moment, my music station started playing “More Than a Feeling” by Boston. Too coincidental...
The "war fleet" Lincoln sent to Charleston was tiny compared to the one President Buchanan sent in 1858 to Paraguay.
And yet Buchanan's "war fleet" resulted in a peaceful settlement of disputes, while Lincoln's is here alleged to have started civil war.
So what was the difference?
Only this -- the Paraguans decided to make peace, while Jefferson Davis decided to use Lincoln's fleet and, more importantly Fort Sumter, as his excuse to start civil war.
Lincoln DID not send a flotilla of ships armed to to ‘’invade’’ South Carolina’s sovereign territory. He sent merchant ships to resupply Ft. Sumter If he had, which he did not so as not to appear the belligerent , that wouldn’t have , theoretically not enough muscle to sweep old ladies of a porch.
Just what are you Rebs hoping to do, refight the war?
Your side lost. Accept it.
Nothing is going to change
OK, we'll just do this again and keep doing it as many times as it takes:
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of the 4, only Mississippi listed only slavery. The other 3 South Carolina, Texas and Georgia went on at length about the economic exploitation of the Southern states and the grossly unequal federal tax burden even though this was not unconstitutional.
What was unconstitutional was the Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. The states of the Deep South which seceded therefore listed that because it provided them a legal means of saying that the Northern states violated the compact. When offered explicit constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever, they TURNED IT DOWN. There was no popular support anywhere for abolition. Abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote anywhere in any election.
The states of the Upper South - Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Missouri - did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war of aggression for money and empire to convert a voluntary union based on consent to an empire based on threats and violence. Only when ordered by Lincoln to provide troops to attack other states, did the states of the Upper South secede - obviously over the tyrant Lincoln's war of aggression.
If your point is that the North was not perfect, either, you'll get no argument from me. We're only talking about the reason the southern states seceded. According to their own written declarations and resolutions, southern states said they were seceding because the Republican party of the North was anti-slavery. You refuse to believe those states were telling the truth.
YOU brought up the Jim Crow laws enacted by the Southern states after the war in an obvious attempt to gratuitously smear them. I merely pointed out they were acting in exactly the same way the Northern states had been and still were acting toward Blacks at the time. You refuse to believe the Southern states seceded for the exact same reason their parents and grandparents seceded from the British Empire - over money and over grossly unequal tax treatment....in the words of Jefferson Davis "the tyranny of an unbridled majority".
That grossly unequal tax treatment and an inability to prevent further economic exploitation would spark secession and conflict was hardly a surprise. In the history of the Anglo-Saxons, that was the 3rd time it had happened in a couple centuries. Charles I collected taxes for "ship money" that were only supposed to be minor little fees and did so without the consent of Parliament in violation of the Magna Carta. That sparked the English Civil War in the 1640s. The British Government started imposing more and more taxes on the Colonies without the colonies having representation in Parliament. The British offered the colonies seats in Parliament but not being fools, the Founding Fathers realized it would be nowhere near enough seats to prevent their economic exploitation at British hands.
And here once again we see the same thing. The South was being taxed for the North's benefit and the South knew it no longer had enough seats in the Senate to block even further economic exploitation for the North's benefit. Having been through this already a generation earlier - see the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crisis - they had had enough. Its not hard to see for anybody who cares to look at the facts rather than the federal propaganda. Southern leaders themselves made exactly this argument over and over again for years prior to and during secession.
Southern Democrats didn't think Corwin went far enough. In written documents linked above, they complain that the Republican party wants to end the expansion of slave states and eventually end slavery.,/p>
Southerners weren't placated by the Corwin Amendment which the Republicans orchestrated, wrote and passed and which would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever because slavery was not the issue....not even for the original 7 seceding states of the Deep South. Notice how there was no promise to impose the federal tax burden equally or to expend federal revenues equally.
I answered the question. You just don't want to accept the answer: Slavery, and the social hierarchy based on it, had been the way of life in those states for generations.
Oh I accept that it had been. That however does not explain why 94.33% of the Southern White population would be willing to fight and die to protect property which was not theirs.
On the other hand, those percentages might be misleading. I'd always read that a small percentage of southerners held slaves, but maybe the percentage is larger if you calculate by family unit. In some states, such as Mississippi and South Carolina, nearly 50% of families held at least one slave.
That percentage is based on the 1860 US Census. Yes, slave owners had families. Then again, you cannot assume there was only slave owner in each family. Ergo you can't take the roughly 5% and say the average family size was X and therefore that multiplier is the percentage of families which owned/were involved in, slavery. Families which owned slaves tended to own a lot of slaves. Children would be gifted slaves. Women too would inherit slaves from their families. Ergo, you could have 3, 4, 5, different slave owners in one family. So what percentage of Southern White families owned slaves? Unknown but its still a very small minority.....less than 1 in 5 beyond a doubt. Of the 5.67% who did own slaves, half owned 5 or fewer. These were usually domestic servants like a maid, a nanny, a butler, etc. There were a few big plantations a la Terra which had hundreds of slaves. These were of course, far from the norm. They represented about two and a half percent of the Southern White population. Contrary to depictions on TV and in the movies, these were quite rare. They were massively outnumbered by middle class farming families and by tradesmen and their families.
As I stated earlier, southern states put in writing that they feared "insurrection." They feared what might happen if their slave populations were freed. In South Carolina and Mississippi, the slave population outnumbered the free population. Those Southern Democrats liked the status quo, and they were fearful about what might happen otherwise.
They feared slave insurrections like Nat Turner's which were wantonly violent toward pretty much all White people they came across including infants. Note that the slaves being freed and a violent slave revolt are not the same thing.
Was there hypocrisy in the North? Yes. Did industries in the North capitalize on slave labor in the South? Yes. Did Lincoln take a moderate approach? Yes.
Lincoln was arguably more moderate on slavery. He certainly was not moderate when it came to pushing for even more economic exploitation of the Southern states. He wanted sky high tariffs and even more federal corporate welfare - for the Northern states overwhelmingly of course.
But, Southern Democrats were crystal clear about their reasons for secession. They put in writing that they wanted to keep slavery, and they complained that Republicans were anti-slavery.
Republicans were only too willing to address that concern via express constitutional protections of slavery effectively forever.
When a fleet of heavily armed warship invades the territory of another country, that is an act of war. Whether that fleet is 5 warships or 100 warships does not matter. An aggressor is one who invades the home of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.
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.