Confederate Effort Was Not About Slavery

It appears a March 30 letter-writer who condemned the Confederate flag has learned no more from his history courses than did Editor Beth Padgett. However to Ms. Padgett's credit, she has a better understanding of the word compromise.

Compromise is and always has been the lifeblood of survival. Both the letter-writer and the NAACP need to take a refresher course in human psychology to grasp that fact.

Neither President Lincoln nor Jefferson Davis could have gotten enough men together to have formed a single Boy Scout unit, let alone two opposing armies, had the issue been slavery. Slavery was a national institution, not a Southern preferential privilege, as was implied.

Lincoln should have first freed the slaves in the North. This would have removed the hypocrisy that so blatantly stands out. U.S. Grant's slave had to be freed by an act of Congress nine months after the war. The unstable Tecumseh Sherman was arrested on several occasions for physical abuse of his slaves. General Robert E. Lee, as a matter of conviction, freed his slaves prior to the war. Obviously his support of the Confederate war effort was not based on a pro-slavery cause.

Southerners fought for noble causes, not slavery. States' rights, the consent of the governed, was the primary issue. Thomas Jefferson stated "without the consent of the governed, a people have not only a right but an obligation to expel such a government."

BTW, as one native texican to another: where did you misplace your courtesy? you seem awfully angry.

one of the things i have always admired about true texicans/tejanos/texans is our collective good manners. we have been well-known for our good humor for a very long time; please don't change that image on this forum. has living in sprawling,grubby, overgrown and "metropolitan" Houston made you forget that grace counts?

for dixie LIBERTY,sw

i got my information from records of the Camp County Public Library, which has tax and property records from the founding of the county on.

Well that is most interesting given that Camp County WAS FORMED IN 1874!Perhaps the reason there were only two slave holders was because slavery had been abolished nine years earlier?

Camp was formed from Upshur County so you would have to look at the records for that County and none would exist for Camp during the slavery period.

I will look into the 1850 Census for Upshur this weekend but it may interest you to know that the 1998-1999 Texas Almanac (Dallas Morning News) describes the area that is now Camp County as: "Caddo area. Anglo-American settlers arrived in late 1830's. Antebellum slaveholding area."

The same Almanac states (page 53)" Texas' population almost tripled in the decade between 1850 and 1860, when 604,215 people were counted, including 182,921 slaves ....... Although three-quarters of the Texas population .... did not own slaves ..." This means that 25% DID own slaves. Very Close to my first guess of 30%.

You want to apologize now or await the Upshur County data, after which I shall expect dinner not just words!!!

Please elaborate.

Article V provides as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So long as no one attempts to dilute a state's voting power in the Senate without its permission, the Constitution can be amended without limitation.

If we want to, we can by amendment:

1) Establish a national religion;
2) Require that every citizen smoke a cigarette on Saturdays at noon;
3) Outlaw Freerepublic;
4) Abolish the Supreme Court or require that its Justices wear orange skirts; and/or
5) Expand or diminish the enumerated powers of the U.S. Government as we see fit.

All of this and more is perfectly constitutional.

What enumerated powers of the U.S. government might you like to eliminate?

SORRY, but you make the exact same mistake that all too many others on this forum commit: you believe that what is written down on the WorldWideWierd is factual.

in point of fact, NO SERIOUS historical RESEACH of ANY kind can be done with a computer; truth lies in dusty tomes in libraries.

as for lincoln, what is written down and "endless studied" is the MYTH-lincoln was a TYRANT, war criminal and wouldn't have told the truth about southron liberty, had he known the truth. he was just another cheap politician (his evil twin, separated by time, is wee willie klintoon). nothing more, nothing less.

for dixie,sw

BTW, as one native texican to another: where did you misplace your courtesy? you seem awfully angry. one of the things i have always admired about true texicans/tejanos/texans is our collective good manners. we have been well-known for our good humor for a very long time; please don't change that image on this forum. has living in sprawling,grubby, overgrown and "metropolitan" Houston made you forget that grace counts?

Sir or Madam,

As you post no profile I know not which. My good manners went out the door when YOU said I posted a lie about the number of slaves held in the South. I have seen revisionist history being written and repeated by those who do not have a clue what they are talking about.

I come from a long line of slave holders so I know what the facts are. I research my genealogy so I read the records. I HATE to be attacked by those who have no idea what they are talking about, and then complain about my manners.

I also assure you that not only are my manners impeccable, when the situation warrants, but I am unintimidated by those who would use this type question as a cover. However, my dear Southern Mother thanks you for your concern.

the REVISIONIST HISTORY you so seem to dispise came out of the poison-ivy covered walls of NE, damnyankee academia. traditional scholarship was PRO-southron. BTW, i never said you lied, but rather that your understanding of the records was flawed. BUT there are damn sure many lies posted here on FR by the damnyankees, liberals, south-haters & damnfools who believe the bilge that is posted.

for dixie,sw

the REVISIONIST HISTORY you so seem to dispise came out of the poison-ivy covered walls of NE, damnyankee academia. traditional scholarship was PRO-southron.

Let's use the original sources then.

Soon to be CSA congressman Lawrence Keitt, speaking in the South Carolina secession convention, said, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Walt

Stand Waitie constantly refers to sources that cannot be checked by anyone but him/her.

Thanks for the info, but these facts are easy to find. A friend of mine from Rotary runs the genealogy room at the Fort Bend County Library and I just placed a call to him. If he can't come up with what I want, I will make a trip into Houston where the Clayton Branch of the Library is one of the best 2 or 3 genealogical sources in the South.

For some reason some of us take telling the truth as being anti-Southern. I guess the picture of Robert E. Lee that hangs beside my study window (just under the stuffed Wood Duck) counts for very little! I wonder if it would help if I posted my line back to Capt B. L. Taylor 4th Texas Cav or General A Mouton 18th Louisiana Inf.?

Sorry, but I have read many posts supposedly explaining that the Civil war (or perhaps you prefer War Between the States) was somehow not about slavery. Anyone who reads a history of the Civil War knows, as Lincoln stated quite clearly in his Second Inaugaral Address, that the war was about slavery.

Sorry, but you have been duped by revisionist historians - slavery was a VERY minor side issue of the war of northern aggression. Those of us who went through public education before the NEA and gays got ahold of the "educational" agenda (actually a movement for socailly engineering mind-numbed robots with no sense of right and wrong) KNOW the facts (i.e, REAL, not revisionist) history, and slavery wasn't what the civil war was about!! Try economics or states rights, but don't presume to be so simplistic or revisionist to say slavery was THE issue!!

It wasn't!

I disagree. I do not believe that the Founders ever meant to install a "democracy" and that is how you interpret that section of Article V. However, the truth of their intent can probably only be determined by studying the debate.

I do appreciate the fact that you are conversant. Tell me, according to your reading of the Constitution, do you think it was constitutionally within his power, as president, for Abraham Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus as he did, without the consent of congress?

I am interested in your "take" on that point.

re: reply 128.

So much for his manners. But maybe you can answer this one from his reply 126. He claims that tax records go back to the 1830's when Camp County was part of yet another county. Texas became a state in 1845. Did Mexico or the Republic of Texas even have counties in the 1830's? I'd ask him but he seems a bit touchy today.

Mexico did not have counties as such, more like areas of control, San Antonio, Nachogoches (where Camp and Upshur came from). Original Texas Counties were formed by the Republic in 1836.

I do not remember the details about the early census numbers but there were "running" records kept from 1829 until 1836 by Mexico. There was a Texas Census in I THINK 1836 and a more formal one in 1840 along the lines of the US Census. The first US one was in 1850.

Keep in mind that while much of this information is in truth incorrect it was written by people who KNEW each other. The Census taker was paid by the number of calls he made and was not going to miss out because no one was home. They tend however to be correct as to number of people.

Think about your neighbors and you doing the work. Some guy is not home but you know the family. They came from Louisiana so you write that down, not knowing they moved there from Georgia 15 years before. The oldest girl is Lizbeth about 17 so you write that down. Sad to say her name is Elizabeth, she is 18 and was born in Georgia not Louisiana. This is how mistakes were made, not by saying that 25% of the people had slaves when only 2% did.

I do appreciate the fact that you are conversant. Tell me, according to your reading of the Constitution, do you think it was constitutionally within his power, as president, for Abraham Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus as he did, without the consent of congress?

No, heavens no, they most certainly did NOT mean to install a democracy. That was a dirty word in those days -"mob rule", the unwashed rabble, etc. They established a republic, but they also included Article V so as to permit fundamental changes in the way we do business.

I'd really like to know more about the controversy surrounding Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus so that I might develop an opinion. I note that the language itself ("The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it") does not provide an obvious answer to the question, but the fact that it is found in Article I suggests that someone may have been thinking about legislative powers when it was drafted. You're just going to have to give me more time on that one.

I see the pinko brigade has shown

Wlat you are just asking for a

PINKO ALERT

Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

==================================

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/639516/posts?page=1544

someone may have been thinking about legislative powers when it was drafted.

Precisely, and for those following the thread who may not have a copy of the grand old document at hand; allow me to provide the first paragraph of Article I, which reads like this:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

and not like this:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives and Abraham Lincoln.

LOL

I hope that you won't be unduly shocked if, after learning more about the issue, I wind up agreeing with you.

But I feel like I need to know more about the whole mess so that I can develop an opinion with which I'm comfortable. Believe me, I won't faint if I discover that someone might have committed a constitutional foul or two.

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.