4um: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Editorial
See other Editorial Articles
Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 9, 2015
Author: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Post Date: 2015-03-09 12:57:06 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 838
Comments: 92

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
James Deffenbach posted on 2015-03-09 12:59:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
It's not clear if slavery was the *reason*, your honor?
South Carolina Statement of Secession:
'The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "
Georgia:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-09 16:07:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: war (#2)
Your discussion of reasons submitted by various state governments, is categorical proof that slavery was not the reason for secession.
It was a state's rights issue directly concerned with how new states were defined by federal government; albeit slavery was a central consideration. What was genuinely happening was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This federal decree placed the political influence of the southern states into a defensive position given the fundamental tenets of the US Constitution for apportionment as physical state governments were added.

Pridie Nones posted on 2015-03-09 16:32:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: war (#2)
war, look at when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, a year-and-a-half into the war.
Slavery wasn't not only the primary reason, it wasn't even on the short list at the start of the war. Lincoln and The Union signed it so as to avoid France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy, for no other reason.
This myth that the American Civil War was fought over slavery is yet one more example of how our history books are littered with propaganda.
In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation did not even apply to the states in The Union, so how was it to be that the war was fought over that when numerous Union generals had slaves, plural? That's impossible.
One more whitewashing of history, but that's the norm. So too is it the norm for few to actually figure that out for one or more reasons.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-09 23:16:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: Pridie Nones (#3) (Edited)
Your discussion of reasons submitted by various state governments, is categorical proof that slavery was not the reason for secession.

Right...because when someone/something states that their "position (i.e. trying to leave the Union) is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" they really mean that it *isn't* thoroughly identified with it.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-10 7:34:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Katniss (#4)
war, look at when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, a year-and-a-half into the war.

POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC.
Read Lincoln's House Divided speech. That's why the South tried to secede.
Now, you can make the argument that the undercurrent to the Civil War was to preserve the Union and make a compelling argument but the fact is...had there not been slavery, there would have been no Civil War.
I also submit that the timing of the 13th amendment renders moot any protest that slavery was not the issue.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-10 7:41:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: Katniss (#4) (Edited)
In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation did not even apply to the states in The Union

Given that it was first issued as an ultimatum unique to the States in rebellion and then a month or so later as a decree against the States in rebellion to cripple their war effort, why would it have applied to the *Union*? None of those states were in rebellion.
To me, you are offering an example of how the reasoning behind the EP has been bastardized through the years. It had one target...the cSA's war effort and no higher purpose.
BTW, it also made immune certain sections of NOLA...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-10 7:45:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#8. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Who gives a rats ass, it was over 150 years ago, get over it. BTW: he just wants to be on TV.

Darkwing posted on 2015-03-10 9:02:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#9. To: Darkwing (#8)
Better for him to be on tv than that rat bastard, Obama.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
James Deffenbach posted on 2015-03-10 9:58:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: war (#6)
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC.
Read Lincoln's House Divided speech. That's why the South tried to secede.
Now, you can make the argument that the undercurrent to the Civil War was to preserve the Union and make a compelling argument but the fact is...had there not been slavery, there would have been no Civil War.

That is incorrect grasshopper!
That's like saying that Pearl Harbor caused WWII or that 911 caused the Iraq war. Why do you assume that things were different as such in the mid-19th century? If you believe the public education history books, if you do, then shame on you.
If you recall, a much bigger reason, along with the spinoffs of it, was the South threatening to secede. Slavery was a convenient excuse.
Some reasons for the Civil War
This is even better
As usual and as with most wars fought by western nations, this was about power and wealth, and as usual, liberty lost.
I'm a little astonished that you don't know this yet post here regularly.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-12 1:04:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#11. To: war (#7) (Edited)
Given that it was first issued as an ultimatum unique to the States in rebellion and then a month or so later as a decree against the States in rebellion to cripple their war effort, why would it have applied to the *Union*? None of those states were in rebellion.
To me, you are offering an example of how the reasoning behind the EP has been bastardized through the years. It had one target...the cSA's war effort and no higher purpose.

You just contradicted your prior post here.
Why would it apply to the states not in rebellion?
You serious?
It's called moral high ground and integrity. We comment here constantly about how our liberties at home have been trounced and quenched, as we "fight for liberty" around the globe.
Surely you cannot believe what you're pitching about the Civil War.
No matter how you slice it, if the war was primarily about slavery, then freeing only slaves in the Confederacy would make zero sense.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-12 1:06:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#12. To: Katniss (#11) (Edited)
You just contradicted your prior post here.

"Do I contradict myself...very well...I contradict myself...I am large...I contain multitudes..."
t's called moral high ground and integrity. We comment here constantly about how our liberties at home have been trounced and quenched, as we "fight for liberty" around the globe.
Um...uh...in the 19th century we had no such policy as we weren't in to Empire Building. I may *judge* history, as I sit here today, only if I limit my judgement to the *events* of history and not the *ethics* of it.
Ethics belong to the philosophers not the historians.
We also comment here, from time to time, about what the Framers and Founders *envisioned* and *created*. Some were drunkards and some were elitists, fornicators, slave holders, and some were corrupt businessmen who gained their wealth through the Black Market. Should I reject what they have created based upon my 21st century *sense* of morality?
No matter how you slice it, if the war was primarily about slavery, then freeing only slaves in the Confederacy would make zero sense.
Non-sequitur...had Lincoln made the EP universal, he most likely would have lost the support of the border states. Most of those States had their own internal *hot* wars going on.
You really need to ask yourself this question: If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.
When you add slavery and the political and legislative conflagrations that the issue had been causing since the FOUNDING then the *probability* rises to near certainly.

I had a bad tag in this post which is why it was *EDITED* but neither of your links work.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-12 8:10:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#13. To: war (#12)
You really need to ask yourself this question: If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.

I'm not sure what to say.
The Civil War was fought primarily, and initially entirely over the South's decision to secede.
A number of people, many in fact, have written and stated that slavery would have been worked out over time anyway, just as women's voting rights and black civil rights were in the 1960's for example.
No fool would start a war over just slavery. You need to review real history. You're wrong, flat out wrong.
Slavery was a tool, brought into the conflict to gain favor from certain parties, least of which was not public opinion. And look how well it has worked.
Kind of like everyone thinking that Hitler was responsible for WWII or that Germany was responsible for WWI, nonsense. It was much more Britain in both cases.
Again, I'm not sure what to say, but if you believe that then no doubt you believe that Oswald actually shot Kennedy too, or worse yet, that 911 wasn't an inside job. It's essentially the same thing.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-12 9:30:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#14. To: Katniss (#13)
The Civil War was fought primarily, and initially entirely over the South's decision to secede.

Why did it decide to secede?
Because they felt picked on.
Why were they picked on?
Because they allowed slavery...
No matter how you construct the paradigm...slavery is always at the vortex.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-12 9:50:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Katniss (#13)
A number of people, many in fact, have written and stated that slavery would have been worked out over time

Good for them...what was it that made them *think* that? The total lack of willingness of the Slave States to *negotiate* a diminishment of the institution up until Lincoln's election when they decided to secede?
The cSA's constitution forbade manumission and clearly established slaves as property. That alone makes that *observation* moot.
...just as women's voting rights and black civil rights were in the 1960's for example.
The Civil Rights movement required the presence of the US Military to enforce. It required the ABSOLUTE force of government to institute.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-12 9:58:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#16. To: Katniss (#13)
Kind of like everyone thinking that Hitler was responsible for WWII...

He was. And it was a role that he readily admitted to and relished...
or that Germany was responsible for WWI, nonsense. It was much more Britain in both cases...
WWI started because of the misreading of a treaty...
IN neither case did the wars start because of Great Britain.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-12 10:01:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#17. To: Katniss (#13)
Again, I'm not sure what to say, but if you believe that then no doubt you believe that Oswald actually shot Kennedy too, or worse yet, that 911 wasn't an inside job. It's essentially the same thing.

Well...that's just kind of a silly conclusion...
I believe neither and neither of those are tied to what I believe about other unrelated events...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-12 10:03:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#18. To: war (#14)
Again, you're wrong.
I'm not sure why that second link didn't work but here's the URL.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?125433-Real-reasons-for-the-Civil-War
Here's the content;
This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.
Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.
The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.
I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.
Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.
Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.
It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.
Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began.
M-O-N-E-Y!!! Follow the money!
Here's an audio link for you;
http://www.ihr.org/audio/archives/american-civil-war
Here's an excerpt from the summary, and IHR is a tremendously well researched site.

In waging war to force southern states back into the federal union, President Lincoln for example suspended the constitutional rights of free speech and habeas corpus by shutting down anti-war newspapers and jailing without trial anti-war political figures. Although slavery did end as a consequence of the conflict, it was not the cause of the war, nor was it Lincoln's goal.

Money and power my friend, same as today!
Hell, even someone on HuffPo got it right!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html
An excerpt, and about the most concise accurate summary I've seen of the CW;

Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.

Slavery factored into, but was hardly the primary reason, why the Confederate states wanted to secede. The northern states, with DC at its core, had been taxing the daylights out of them too.
Slavery was simply the piece of the bigger picture that was highlighted due to its emotional volatility, you can understand that, right? I mean it's the same as how the FFs of 911, OKC, Waco and the BDs, Israel via the Palestineans, etc. etc. are sold. It could just as easily have been the south not "paying its fair share" or some other shit like that.
It's clear that you won't be swayed and have your viewpoint cemented in your head, I did once too on this topic insofar as I cared, so let's simply part ways on this topic each thinking what one will.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-12 14:29:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#19. To: war (#17)
BTW, that HuffPo piece is hardly apologetic for the South. I disagree with the author's final premise, or the notion that the welfare of the United States is or should be more important than the individual rights of each and every state, a huge issue today even, but he gets the cause of the war correct.
I just wanted to state that I do not agree with the underlying premise of the author, I merely agree that he's done an accurate job of laying out the background behind it.
I'll save myself some major hits here by stating all that. LOL

Katniss posted on 2015-03-12 14:35:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#20. To: war (#12) (Edited)
If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.

Yes, with a high degree of probability because swarms of warmongers agitated methodically then, before that and as they still do now to achieve their massive slaughters and destructions. The only difference to them would have been that they couldn't have instigated for slave revolts to massacre Southerners like they were doing, even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.
Neither secession or the war started over slavery. Lincoln's election and attempted takeover of South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter, caused all of that. Even so, 8 slave States didn't move to secede when South Carolina did first and then 6 others. Months later, 4 of the 8 decided to secede, too -- in objection to Lincoln's use of force when it was clear that he was going to invade the South. So, do the math and that'll give you the answer to how many Union slave States there were.
Btw, northern states were the first to move for secession in America's history and, until the American Revolution ended, slavery on this continent was the business of Britain and other nations. General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves before going to war. General U.S. Grant didn't free his until after the war when he had to. South America had more slaves than we did and Native Americans were the last slaveholders here.
Here is a link that explains some the THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR: States' Rights, taxation/tariffs enriching the North and impoverishing the South, Northern domination politically and of electoral votes, the new Republican Party of Lincoln excluding Southerners, federal protectionism and subsidies for Northern business interests...
Edited spelling and punctuation.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-13 2:32:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#21. To: Katniss (#18)
Again, you're wrong.

Well...you're basing this on a false premise...I never stated that slavery was the only issue...but what I did state was that slavery was at the root of every issue.
Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.
States don't have *rights* they have power; only people have rights. The power that they sought was to determine the status of a human as free or property.
Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority.
Can you cite a compelling casus belli circa 1840-50 that was not linked to Slavery and that would have resulted in state secession?
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-13 9:43:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#22. To: GreyLmist (#20)
...even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.

The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery.
Neither secession or the war started over slavery. Lincoln's election and attempted takeover of South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter, caused all of tha
Fort Sumter was US government property. When South Carolina seceded they declared their sovereign soil. So, yea, secession was at the root of Sumter.
States' Rights, taxation/tariffs enriching the North and impoverishing the South
Those taxes and tariffs were *punishment* for slavery...again...read the statements of secession...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-13 10:25:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#23. To: Katniss (#18)
Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations.

Why is that point relevant? I've been asking that question for over 30 years and have never gotten a decent answer...
Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.
Again...what *rights* did the small farmer *think* that he was fighting for? Taxes and tariffs were aimed at what, today, would be corporate farms...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-13 10:58:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#24. To: war (#21)
Well...you're basing this on a false premise...I never stated that slavery was the only issue...but what I did state was that slavery was at the root of every issue.

Well it wasn't.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-13 19:47:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#25. To: war (#22)
The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery.

It's fully on record that numerous Union generals had multiple slaves.
Do your homework.
Ironically Grant had them, Sherman had many, even after the war, while neither Stonewall Jackson nor Lee did.
I'm suprised that you don't also believe that 911, OKC, and JFK are all according to government history books as well.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-13 19:54:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#26. To: war (#23) (Edited)
Don't nitpick the article and go off on a tangent. That's not even germane to this conversation.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-13 19:54:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#27. To: war (#21)
...I never stated that slavery was the only issue...but what I did state was that slavery was at the root of every issue.

Are you aware that there were numerous Black slaveholders here?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-14 6:33:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#28. To: All (#27) (Edited)
numerous Black slaveholders here

Example:
John Casor - Wikipedia

John Casor (surname also recorded as Cazara and Corsala),[1] a servant in Northampton County in the Virginia Colony, in 1655 became the first person of African descent in Britain's Thirteen Colonies to be declared as a slave for life as the result of a civil suit.[2][3] In an earlier case, John Punch was the first man documented as a slave in the Virginia Colony, sentenced to life in servitude for attempting to escape his indenture.[4]
In one of the earliest freedom suits, Casor argued that he was an indentured servant who had been forced by Anthony Johnson, a free black, to serve past his term; he was freed and went to work for Robert Parker as an indentured servant. Johnson sued Parker for Casor's services. In ordering Casor returned to his master, Johnson, for life, the court both declared Casor a slave and sustained the right of free blacks to own slaves.

Link edit.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-14 6:49:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#29. To: war (#22)
Fort Sumter was US government property.

No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-14 7:30:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#30. To: war (#22)
...even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.

The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery.

Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did. We're not discussing the Mason-Dixon line's colonial border disputes of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware but the war between the Union and the Confederacy aka "The North" and "The South". Go ahead, though, and read the "northern" phrasing as "Union slave-holding states" instead, if that helps to clarify. Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union and became West Virginia -- its 5th slaveholding border State, which does span well north of the supposed "cultural boundary" between the North and the South. The other four slaveholding border States of the Union were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. New Jersey and New Hampshire were two more slaveholding Union States that were well above the Mason-Dixon line.
Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia

Most northern states passed legislation for gradual abolition, first freeing children born to slave mothers (and providing for them to serve indentures to their mother's masters, often into their 20s as young adults). As a result of this gradualist approach, New York did not free its last slaves until 1827, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848, slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865.

-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-14 9:40:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#31. To: war (#21)
States don't have *rights* they have power; only people have rights. The power that they sought was to determine the status of a human as free or property.

Power is a right of the States, which are more than government "powerhouses" on land. They are representatives of the rights and powers of the people. For example, the first 13 original States had the right to join the Unions of the Articles of Confederation and then that of the Constitution or not. They had the right to delegate some of their power to the Federal government for purposes of the common defense and such. They had the right to retain all of their State powers which weren't so delegated. Just as rights of the people are inherent, so are rights of the States inherent with their statehood for the necessary and proper administrative duties as protectorates of their citizenry and territory -- rightfully empowered, not tyrannically empowered or limited to "mightfully" empowered if they can muster enough clout.
The Truth About States' Rights by Adam Freedman, City Journal - Autumn 2014, Ecerpts:

A plaque at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery describes states’ rights as a doctrine that “protected the institution of slavery.”
This conventional history provides a handy rhetorical weapon for liberal commentators, who accuse states’ rights conservatives of embracing a doctrine historically identified with “pro-slavery ideologies and . . . the disenfranchisement of African-Americans,” as the Nation puts it.
But what if the lessons of history are wrong, and the doctrine of states’ rights was actually an antislavery ideology?
Federal law guaranteed the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. [...] Congress did prohibit international slave trade in 1808; but by that time, every Southern state except South Carolina had already passed laws banning or restricting the slave trade.
[A] major states’ rights issue leading up to the war concerned the right of free states and territories to exclude slavery within their borders.
The Confederate Constitution was a nearly verbatim copy of the U.S. Constitution —except that, when it came to slavery, it gave more power to the central government and less to the states.
contrary to many such arguments you hear today, the Civil War was not sparked by federal efforts to abolish slavery: there were no such efforts before the South seceded. The war arose from Northern assertions of states’ rights [...]. After the war, however, it became irresistible for federal politicians—eager to justify an expanded role for the national government—to associate states’ rights with the Confederacy and, therefore, slavery.

-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-14 12:09:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#32. To: All (#20)
THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR - Excerpt:

Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery. Those four states—Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—only seceded months later when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion. In fact, those states initially voted against secession by fairly sizable majorities. However, they believed the Union should not be maintained by force. Therefore, when Lincoln announced he was calling up 75,000 troops to form an invasion force, they held new votes, and in each case the vote was strongly in favor of secession. Thus, four of the eleven states that comprised the Confederacy seceded because of their objection to the federal government’s use of force and not because of slavery.
Virtually no history textbooks mention the fact that each Confederate state retained the right to abolish slavery within its borders, and that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states to the Confederacy. In his analysis of the Confederate Constitution, historian Forrest McDonald says the following:

All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)

-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-14 12:36:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#33. To: GreyLmist (#32)
All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains

Nope. 100% wrong.
ARTICLE IV

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave...

, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders.
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery.
Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state. That said, it most certainly did sight slavery in its secession ordinance...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 13:15:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#34. To: GreyLmist (#30)
Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did

And I was correct when I *said* it.
Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union
IRC, the Line did not include what is now the WVA panhandle...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 13:47:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#35. To: Katniss (#24)
Well it wasn't.

Well...that's just plain incorrect...
There is not one issue cited in any statement or ordinance of secession that is not tied directly to slavery.
Again, make the case for secession that does not include acts and inducements with a link slavery...you won't be able to...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 13:49:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#36. To: GreyLmist (#27)
Are you aware that there were numerous Black slaveholders here?

*Numerous*?
No...was not aware that there were *numerous*...nor am I aware of a significant number of men of 100% African ancestry as slaveholders...
The fact is, this bit of *sophist's* history depends upon labeling those of mixed race as *black*...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 13:56:35 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#37. To: Katniss (#25)
It's fully on record that numerous Union generals had multiple slaves.

I'm well aware of Grant et al marrying Southern women who had slaves and because of sexist laws the *property* defaulted to their husbands. It's a meaningless bit of moral relativism. I'm also aware of his alleged ownership of William Jones whom Grant manumitted not long after *acquiring*....
I'm unaware of Sherman owning any slaves. I have seen it alleged but have never been shown proof.
I'm suprised that you don't also believe that 911, OKC, and JFK are all according to government history books as well.
I witnessed 9/11 first hand to the point of being at the corner of Liberty and Church/Trinity when the second plane went in...so...I'm not sure what your point there is...do I believe there was a controlled demolition? No. I do believe that flight 93 was shot down.
OKC, I find it hard to believe that the conspiracy wasn't wider...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 14:22:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#38. To: Katniss (#25)
...while neither Stonewall Jackson nor Lee did.

Please. Both owned slaves. Again, it's sophistry to promote the idea that Grant owned slaves (which he did via his wife) and state that Lee did not but his wife did.
Lee wasn't a landowner until he married...
Jackson owned several slaves and apparently leased them to local business.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 14:42:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#39. To: Katniss (#26)
Don't nitpick the article and go off on a tangent.

Wha...HUH?
Did you respond to the correct post??
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 15:00:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#40. To: GreyLmist (#29)
No it was not.

Sure it was and, in fact, still is.
Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 15:30:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#41. To: GreyLmist (#29)
The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territorie

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards and other needful Buildings."
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-18 15:33:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#42. To: war (#33)
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery.

Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state.

Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter. West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-18 18:46:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#43. To: war (#39)
You're a microcosm of exactly why we'll never get anywhere in this country by anything close to a majority.
You'd rather be right than accurate and factual.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-18 20:39:35 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#44. To: war (#34) (Edited)
Me: Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did

You: And I was correct when I *said* it.

Me: Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union

You: IRC, the Line did not include what is now the WVA panhandle...

No, you weren't correct when you said at #22: "There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery." Even though you misinterpreted my point at paragraph 1 of #20 in regard to the Union's slaveholding States (northward of the Confederacy but see also the westerly U.S. territories) throughout the entire war, as if that pertained to border states only, you should easily be able to confirm that WVA still spans well above the Mason Dixon line -- as does New Jersey and New Hampshire referenced at #30, which were two more northern slaveholding States of the Union all during the war and not border States only (which you seemingly overlook as excusable). Those slaveholding States (one of them -- New Hampshire -- squarely in New England) in addition to the 5 border States amount to fully 1/3 of the Union being slave States and Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" freed none of them from slavery. It was a year into the war before slavery in the Union's own capitol-city of Washington D.C. was monetarily facilitated towards being ended there by the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. Even with that, the fugitive slave laws still applied and D.C. was reportedly among slaveholders after the war until slavery was officially abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment [Ref. Slavery in the United States: The end of slavery - Wikipedia].
You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too. Native Americans were the last to free their slaves after the war, Military personnel of the Union were among the last and Lincoln himself was married to the daughter of a slave owner. As I recall, we even had to abolish slavery in America again after we acquired Alaska from Russia. At the time of the "Civil War", America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here. Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war. Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb but is rather worse than that, imo. More like barbarous in a "horrific ends justify the annihilative means, however unnecessarily" sort of way.
Contextual edits at paragraph 1.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-18 22:04:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#45. To: war (#36)
Are you aware that there were numerous Black slaveholders here? *Numerous*?

No...was not aware that there were *numerous*...nor am I aware of a significant number of men of 100% African ancestry as slaveholders...
The fact is, this bit of *sophist's* history depends upon labeling those of mixed race as *black*...

Black Slave Owners - americancivilwar.com
You can do your own research but that's just one source citing census data for the "Civil War" era. In New Orleans alone, 3,000/28% of free Blacks were slave owners. Many black slaveowners had numerous slaves. Your racial blood level speculations are like grasping at straws but do suggest that slavery here was mostly an economics-based problem and on that I wouldn't disagree.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-18 23:27:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#46. To: war (#33) (Edited)
From the source at my post #32: All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains

Nope. 100% wrong.
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave...

Also from the above linked source at my post #32: and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed— the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)

Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders.

You have misread your own Article IV example of the Confederate Constitution, which actually doesn't prohibit the abolition of slavery in those States nor does it prohibit the admission of new States without slavery. It's simply a citizenry rights clause, inclusive of their interstate travel and property protection rights, which is also inclusive of slaves as property. By stipulating all of that, it extends protecton of travel and property for slave owners (of any race) within existing States of the Confederacy and/or new ones which might choose to be independent of whatever slave-commerce entanglements and such were still extant among the others. It doesn't even go to the enforcement extent there of the U.S. Constitution's Article IV fugitive slave clause. [Edit to add also that a two-thirds majority vote in agreement for the admission of new States, with or without slaves, was nothing unusual. Compare to the U.S. standard operating procedure so.]
There were many freed Blacks within the Confederacy, so your assertion of perpetual slavery is ostentatious as well as 100% wrong, as is your assertion about an establishment of slavery intra-territorially as a condition of Confederate statehood. The U.S. Constitution established slavery lawfully within its domain. Slavery was notoriously even a legality Biblically. Not only did South America have more slaves than we did, there's problaby no realm on earth that didn't have slavery at some point and likely more of it longer. The most unusual thing about it here is that it ended much quicker after America's nationhood than it did in virtually all other places throughout history.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 2:00:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#47. To: war (#41) (Edited)
The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."

That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C. (not exceeding ten Miles square) as the positional seat of Federal government under Congressional authority and upon its locality acceptance of land(s) granted for that construction project by one or more of the States; as well as structural appropriations therein requiring consent of the State legislature(s) wherein "the Same" D.C./District of Columbia was to be situated for administrative purposes -- not for a monarchal ownership of the United States. Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]

That amounts to a "power of attorney" for Congress to act regulatorily as needed on behalf of the States and per agreed land zoning for Indian tribes too -- not a title transferance of State Property to "the government" or even to the Congress of it. As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union. It does not have the power, for example, to dispose of the Constitution's Union by disposing of our States if it wants to (secessionist though they leaningly may be, like Hawaii and Texas).
Edited formatting + 1st and last sentences of comment paragraph 1.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 4:27:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#48. To: GreyLmist (#42)
Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter...

When Virginia voted to secede it did not agree to join the confederacy. What it did do was enter in to a temporary military treaty with it. They had called a May 1861 plebiscite to determine if they should join the confederacy or remain an independent republic. About 10 days after the secession vote and after intense negotiations with the provisional government of the confederacy led by the VP, Alexander Hamilton something(his last name escapes me and I'm too lazy to google at this time) they decided to join IF Richmond was made the capital.
West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
Actually, it's evidence of the opposite.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 7:07:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#49. To: Katniss (#43)
You're a microcosm of exactly why we'll never get anywhere in this country by anything close to a majority.

Okay thanks for that...
You'd rather be right than accurate and factual.
You can't be *right* unless you are accurate and factual. Nor can you be *right* simply by stating your beliefs in the broadest of terms while offering no support whatsoever for them. That's why religion is so screwed up.
PS: Now would be a good time for you to make an argument.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 7:10:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#50. To: GreyLmist (#44)
"There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery."

There was one...Delaware...sorry...I stand corrected...
You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too.
Can you point out where I have disputed that?
America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here.
Huh? You sound like my neighbor. He's a high end general contractor who seems to be on a mission to educate everyone about the *evils* of illegal immigration. 75% of this *workforce* is itinerant Hispanic labor. So It Goes.
The subject of ending slavery was contemporary to just about every eve3nt that led to the Revolution. America did that to itself. We cannot blame other nations.
Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war.
Legal manumission was free. You, yourself, stated that states could determine if slaveholding was legal or not.
Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb (sic) but is rather worse than that, imo.
I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 7:22:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#51. To: GreyLmist (#47)
That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C....

That particular clause was quoted directly to you and it clearly establishes the power to acquire property for forts. IF we were discussing speech and I cited the First Amendment would you state that I was *wrong* because 1A was the *religious* amendment?
But giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you did not read the *entire* clause:
Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever...over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings...
Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:
Art IV (3) assumes that the property is already purchased and grants the government the power of rule making over their assets or *management* and *control* over it.
As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes
You were wrong *before*, too.
and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union.
See: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).
Only when the state makes a clear claim of concurrent governance. South Carolina, as I showed above, did not when it deeded Sumter to the Fed Gov...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 8:03:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#52. To: war (#49)
Boy, nothin' gets by you, does it. (sarc)

Katniss posted on 2015-03-19 8:21:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#53. To: Katniss (#52)
Nope.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 8:36:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#54. To: war (#40) (Edited)
You at #22: Fort Sumter was US government property.
Me at #29: No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural.
You at #40: Sure it was and, in fact, still is.

Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836

Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid. Reference the withdrawl of American colonies from Britain comparative to South Carolina's withdrawl from the Union in that aspect -- and that Revolutionary founding of the States as Sovereign Republics of a voluntary Union which acts equitably for them in accordance with our Constitution is still the correct view in perpetuity, regardless of how many govbot claims have accrued to the contrary since then. The difference secessionally now is that individuals opposed to the Constitution have been seceding from it, as well as their rogue commercial entities and such, not our States -- all of which are established in agreement with it.
Lincoln won the November election of 1860 because all but 30 of the required electoral vote tally of 152 to do so were concentrated in 6 northern States. Even then, South Carolina considered staying in the Union for about a month and a half until December 20th, when it seceded alone and peacefully before Lincoln was officially inaugurated. Even the firing of warning shots in January of 1861 to turn back ships sent to Fort Sumter then wasn't construed by Buchanan as cause for war, who was still President of the Union at the time. That episode of Federal encroachment, though, did effectively prompt some other States to secede. When Lincoln was officiated into office March 4, he began moving to invade by Military force and seizure of Fort Sumter, which prompted more States to secede. Even after he had maliciously done that, South Carolina tried to peacefully negotiate an evacuation from its premises which was refused. South Carolina was within its self-defense rights to dislodge what amounted to an armed and hostile foreign power inserting itself dictatorially and advantageously into its midst.
"In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to 'maintain the Union.'" -- THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR:
Edited for punctuation + sentences 1, 5 and 6 of comment paragraph 2.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 9:09:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#55. To: war (#50) (Edited)
I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War.

war, no matter how insistently you push slavery as the root cause of the Civil War, starkly at the root of slavery it's a property and economics issue among the divisive others and not simply a bondage issue of injustice, racially or otherwise.
Spelling edit and to move an appended block of text to another post.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 9:35:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#56. To: GreyLmist (#55)
war, not (sic) matter how insistently you push slavery as the root cause of the Civil War, starkly at the root of slavery it's a property and economics issue among the divisive others and not simply a bondage issue of injustice, racially or otherwise.

Never stated that it was not.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 9:41:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#57. To: GreyLmist (#54) (Edited)
Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid.

That's like saying that if Sears bought Best Buy and you had bought your TV from Best Buy, that Sears could confiscate it for resale.
The land purchase was an act of Commerce.
"In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to 'maintain the Union."
I'm aware of the Crittenden Resolution and have stated here that a good case is made that the war was fought to preserve the Union. That is a separate issue form the casus belli the root of which was slavery...neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed?
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 9:53:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#58. To: war (#57)
I'm aware of the Crittenden Resolution and have stated here that a good case is made that the war was fought to preserve the Union. That is a separate issue form the casus belli the root of which was slavery...

Comments previously at #55 moved here: Try to stay mindful of fact that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution. As such and also conjunctive with all of the Union's slave states and territories, it cannot reasonably be assigned as the flashpoint for war.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 10:05:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#59. To: GreyLmist (#58)
Try to stay mindful of fact that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Okay...I am...
And your point is?
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 10:19:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#60. To: GreyLmist (#58) (Edited)
You're still arguing/debating with the fence post I see. If you enjoy beating your head over the wall then carry on.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
James Deffenbach posted on 2015-03-19 10:33:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#61. To: GreyLmist (#54)
In the late 19th century, James McCrellis embarked on a title search of all Federal properties to ensure that Fed Gov did, in fact, own, among other forts and properties, Sumter:
Bottom of page 214:
tinyurl.com/lfab3qw
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 10:53:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#62. To: war (#57) (Edited)
Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid.

That's like saying that if Sears bought Best Buy and you had bought your TV from Best Buy, that Sears could confiscate it for resale.
The land purchase was an act of Commerce.

Ah, an "act of Commerce" -- which isn't "co-Governor" of the U.S. But that wasn't documentation of a purchase either, just movements-in-process directionally towards acquisition-clearance.
As there's scarcely anything much worth watching on TV as it is and so difficult to find, too, I might just give mine to Sears if they wanted to cart it away for me and especially if they offered to reimburse my costs expended on it, as South Carolina did regarding any Union claims of improvements made to the property of Fort Sumter and other usage expenses; which would probably have been in the range of negligible, if not overinflated, and largely offset by deliberately destructive U.S. damages to Fort Moultrie, another of South Carolina's. Here's a reason for why I suspect that D.C. owed substantial compensation to South Carolina instead of the other way around:
Southern Side of the Civil War

One of the commissioners from South Carolina, I. W. Hayne, said the following in a letter to President Buchanan after he refused [under pressure politically] to evacuate the fort:
[...] Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent [South Carolina] fort, which was then abandoned [Fort Moultrie].

Edited spacing and spelling.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 11:16:35 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#63. To: GreyLmist (#62)
As there's scarcely anything much worth watching on TV as it as and so difficult to find, too, I might just give mine to Sears if they wanted to cart it away for me and especially if they offered to reimburse my costs

Ha...
Ah, an "act of Commerce" -- which isn't "co-Governor" of the U.S. But that wasn't documentation of a purchase either, just movements-in-process directionally towards acquisition-clearance.
I posted a link which cites the legislative transfer. That link also provides where the sale is recorded.
Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government.
100% horseshit...even though it was still under construction at the time of the Southern Hissy Fit, there were men and cannon there...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 11:38:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#64. To: war (#48) (Edited)
West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.

Actually, it's evidence of the opposite.

Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:
At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
Edited formatting.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-19 12:29:35 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#65. To: GreyLmist (#64)
Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:

Other States had internal squabbles as well in which a government was formed...Missouri is a classic example..they had delegates in the confederate legislature while the government of Missouri, itself, was part of the Union...they didn't have the geographical advantage that the ante-bellum Northwestern Virginians had in establishing a government.
At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail.
Alexander Hamilton Stephens is the name I was looking for previously...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-19 13:53:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#66. To: war (#57)
neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed?

I answered that at #20.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-20 13:07:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#67. To: GreyLmist (#66)
Yes, with a high degree of probability because swarms of warmongers agitated methodically then, before that and as they still do now to achieve their massive slaughters and destructions. The only difference to them would have been that they couldn't have instigated for slave revolts to massacre Southerners like they were doing, even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.

Sorry...I didn't consider that a very good answer...still don't...and if any *faction* of the time was filled with warmongers it was Calhoun's.
And as has been pointed out to you, when the Southern states threw their hissy fit they all cited slavery in their statements and ordinances of secession.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 13:44:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#68. To: war (#65)
Me at #42: ... West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
Me at 64: Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:
At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

You at #65: A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail.

Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State, West Virginia, in the jurisdiction of Virginia unless it endorsed Virginia's secession first. Rebellion doesn't give the U.S. government power to subvert the Constitution.
Another example of the Union violating the Constitution:

Southern Side of the Civil War
If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional. Neither Lincoln nor Congress had the right to abolish slavery in any state. The only legal ways to abolish it would have been by a constitutional amendment or by the states abolishing it on their own.

Thanks for the info about Missouri at #65 and Virginia at #48. Even though it wasn't exactly counterpoints, was interesting nonetheless. Will check the link you supplied about Fort Sumter when I can.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-20 14:04:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#69. To: GreyLmist (#54)
OK ...

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 14:05:16 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#70. To: GreyLmist (#54)
You're wasting your time at this point GL as am I.
He's made up his mind and no factual evidence in the world is going to alter his mindset.
As I said, it's a perfect microcosm of all that's entirely wrong with our current world.
As you said, he's not "totally oblivious," yet, he knows better than all of the contrary evidence and facts out there, much as everyone seems to "know" that muslims and Islam are our core problems and that every muslim in the ME wants to come to America and kill them, or that our "men in blue" "protect and serve" anything but the establishment and the forces against both individual as well as corporate liberty, or that our wars are all good wars.
I guess I'm just stunned to see it here.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 14:09:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#71. To: James Deffenbach, GreyLmist (#60)
You're still arguing/debating with the fence post I see. If you enjoy beating your head over the wall then carry on.

LOL
Yes, that's exactly where this is.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 14:10:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#72. To: GreyLmist (#66)
"neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed?"
I answered that at #20.

You know, it's funny, indeed there would have been, it's just that the 20/20 hindsight historical reasons would have been different.
I'll contrast it with WWII. Everyone says, due to incessant propaganda since 1945, that WWII never would have happened had Hitler not come to power.
Well the truth is that just about everyone with a brain in a political position 20 years earlier was predicting, and long before anyone knew who Hitler even was, that a WWII would be spawned from the results of WWI, namely the Versailles Treaty. In fact, many allied politicians lobbied for easing the stipulations of that ridiculous treaty shortly after it was formalized, hell, and even during.
The other truth is that WWII never would have started had Churchill not been in power, really the one pushing for the War on all fronts, politically that is, and had England not given a blank-check to bail out Poland should Germany attempt to reannex the portion of Poland which was almost entirely occupied by German speaking Germans that was part of Germany prior to WWI.
The lies after the fact truly are fabricated by the winners of the wars.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 14:16:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#73. To: war (#67)
as has been pointed out to you, when the Southern states threw their hissy fit they all cited slavery in their statements and ordinances of secession.

It was, as I've said, a property and economics issue of the times -- in Union slave states as well. So, it would have been unusual if it wasn't mentioned as an aggravating factor but it wasn't what started the war. What else did they cite?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-20 14:18:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#74. To: GreyLmist (#68)
Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State...

*Virginia* was in rebellion. By that fact, it was no longer a *state*.
Approach it this way. Under what circumstances and by what method would Fed Gov first determine that a State no longer had a *republican* form of government and what action or actions could it then take?
If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.
Again, a *conundrum* is being created where none exists. Put simply, there are executive powers that exist in time of war that do not exist in time of peace. A person who openly rebels is, in fact, no longer a civilian. What would that be any different for a legislature or a governor who does?
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 14:21:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#75. To: GreyLmist (#73)
What else did they cite?

They cited acts of the federal legislature that were directed solely at slaveholding states to punish them for...wait for it...allowing slavery...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 14:22:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Katniss (#70)
Just because you're in over your head, please don't lash out.
Sit back, read and learn...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 14:23:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#77. To: Katniss (#70)
You're wasting your time at this point GL as am I.

Don't have much time to continue with this today -- screen going dark. Good points about the World Wars.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-20 14:25:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#78. To: war (#74)
*Virginia* was in rebellion. By that fact, it was no longer a *state*.

If it wasn't a State, it wasn't in rebellion.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-03-20 14:28:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#79. To: GreyLmist (#78)
The Story Behind The Most Insidious Rothschild Dynasty Conspiracy The
Hailed as the pioneers of modern finance, the Rothschilds have amassed an incredible fortune that has lasted for centuries.
The family's vast wealth and secrecy have also made it a target of countless conspiracy theories.
If you believe everything you read, the Rothschilds have facilitated the assassination of multiple U.S. Presidents, control the world's money supply, and have a network of clandestine agents that served as puppet business associates during the family's rise to power.
While most of these theories fail to present a shred of evidence, we thought we'd investigate one of the more famous stories regarding the family that has ever been told: that Nathan Rothschild was the driving force behind the War of 1812.
Conspiracy theorists allege that:
Alexander Hamilton acted as an agent of the Rothschild family when he helped create the First National Bank;
The First National Bank was dominated by foreign investors, including the Rothschilds; and
Nathan Rothschild ordered the War of 1812 after the charter for the First National Bank was not renewed in 1811.

Lines between truth and inaccuracies may have blurred as time passed, but it's clear as day that this war wasn't a one-man show.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rothschild-family-war-of-1812-conspiracy-2013-1?op=1#ixzz3Ux51cdP1

Neo TryingtoWarnYou posted on 2015-03-20 14:30:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#80. To: Katniss (#72)
The other truth is that WWII never would have started had Churchill not been in power,

WWII started with Chamberlain in power. It wasn't until Germany took over Norway in 1940 that Chamberlain realized that his efforts to avoid war were all for naught and so he stepped aside. The ink hadn't even been dry on Churchill's appointment when Germany invaded France.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 14:32:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#81. To: war (#76)
I'm sorry, I don't recall responding to you.
You and I are finished here.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 14:33:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#82. To: war (#80)
WWII started with Chamberlain in power. It wasn't until Germany took over Norway in 1940 that Chamberlain realized that his efforts to avoid war were all for naught and so he stepped aside. The ink hadn't even been dry on Churchill's appointment when Germany invaded France.

I'd quit while people reading here simply think that you're biased on one topic.
You're starting to come off as an idiot.
Chamberlain is the one that gave Poland that idiotic guarantee.
I'm not going to start arguing with retarded points about WWII with you at this point.
We're finished in this thread. I will not respond further to you in it.

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 14:36:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#83. To: Katniss (#81) (Edited)
Maybe another concept that you need to learn is that the *Reply* button on a forum is not user specific.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 14:45:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#84. To: Katniss (#82) (Edited)
I'd quit while people reading here simply think that you're biased on one topic.

I see no reason for you to refer to yourself in the plural.
Chamberlain is the one that (sic - s/b *who*) gave Poland that idiotic guarantee.
Nice non-sequitur there, Sparky.
I'm not going to start arguing with retarded points about WWII with you at this point.
Chuckles...you may want to *edit* that sentence...unless you're *proud* that the points that you use to argue are *retarded*...
WWII started because Hitler wanted WWII. In his sequel to Mein Kempf, he expressed the hope that Great Britain would understand the benefit of German rule over the Continent and not react to it as hegemony.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 14:57:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#85. To: GreyLmist (#78)
If it wasn't a State, it wasn't in rebellion.

Non sequitur...
A part, in this case a state, in rebellion against the whole, i.e. fed gov, has abrogated its, for lack of a better word, *rights* under the compact. That includes the security of its border.
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 15:01:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#86. To: Katniss (#81)
You and I are finished here.

Sprinkle some Holy Water on the thread and hit Ignore.

Jethro Tull posted on 2015-03-20 15:24:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#87. To: Jethro Tull (#86)
Sprinkle some Holy Water on the thread and hit Ignore.

Speaking of *Flute* players...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 15:49:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#88. To: Jethro Tull (#86)
Sprinkle some Holy Water on the thread and hit Ignore.

Can a thread be ignored?
I don't think I would ever ingore a fellow poster. ... well, except for maybe Liberator, but he's kind of like the flies in summer, ... seasonal. LOL

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 16:01:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#89. To: Katniss, Liberator (#88)
I don't think I would ever ingore a fellow poster. ... well, except for maybe Liberator, but he's kind of like the flies in summer, ... seasonal. LOL

See...we're more *like* minded than you may *think*...
--Are you a *Jew*?
war posted on 2015-03-20 16:27:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#90. To: Katniss (#88)
Yes, go up to the original post and there is an Ignore Thread link on the bottom. When threads become infested with *vermin* it can become a wonderful feature :)

Jethro Tull posted on 2015-03-20 17:05:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#91. To: Jethro Tull (#90)
Oh yeah, thanks!

Katniss posted on 2015-03-20 22:34:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#92. To: war (#85)
Continued at Post #43 of 4um Title: "The Fall of the South: A Sesquicentennial Wake By Bill Buppert"
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-17 13:54:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um