Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-29-2011, 10:12   #301
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,602
Blog Entries: 1
All original thirteen colonies had slavery in place. As slavery became unprofitable in the North, slaves were most often sold to Southern colonies and later states. Then the North wanted to tell the Southerners that they had to, willy nilly, free all their slave holdings, (read that millions and millions in 1860's dollars) that they depended upon for their survival. Gee. And they the South actually went to war over that??!!

Amazing!!

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 12:38   #302
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
My only question (well, I must admit, not the only question ) to all the Confederacy/"Neo Confederate" haters is why is all the fuss made over black slavery as practiced by the South for four years as a nation. No one seems to give the proverbial tinker's ______ about all the slavery that has existed for centuries and built all the civilizations in the world. I don't have the time or patience to list them all but...
Well gee lets see... maybe no one gives a damn about slavery in the rest of the world because this thread is about the confederate flag.

And the "Confederacy only had slavery 4 years" crap is the same red herring Natty regularly regurgitates. what you going to pretend that slavery only started and ended in four years in those states? slavery existed there before the confederate states because they are the same states as were previously union States. And in FACT they were still union states, no Foreign nation ever officially recognized the confederate states as a nation. The confederates could CLAIM they were a nation all they like but they in fact NEVER were Legally a nation.

Slavery for the most part was on the way out in the west (western europe) by the mid to late 1700's and 1800's. England finally outlawed it in 1833 though even before then there were cases clearly stating that slavery was incomparable with English common law and that any slave brought into England was automatically a free man.

Slavery was on the wane even in the colonies, even the confederates noted that the founding fathers had expected it to disappear on it's own. and in the Northern states it continued to disappear as Northern states either banned it or passed gradual emancipation legislation.

Even in the south slavery was declining until the invention of the cotton gin which increased the demand for slaves.

Quote:
Try to find Confederate Memorial Day on almost any calender today. That, children, is a sign of RACISIM!! Because the eeeevil Confederates even included the continuation of Black Slavery in their very Constitution!!
I got a better reason why there is no "Confederate" memorial day, why should the US celebrate the cause of traitors that took up arms against the union?

Quote:
Gee! Wonder why they did that??!! Well maybe. Just maybe. In the 1860s the Republician Party sought to redifine property rights sanctified by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution, to redefine said property rights to exclude slaves!
There is no guarentee in the constitution to own another human being and treat them as "Property".

Even the confederates understood this, that slavery was incomparable with the US constitution.

Our constitution is based on the premise that humans have INALIENABLE rights, Such as the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", That does not permit the practice of persons being Chattel property.

Quote:
Said slaves. Held in the South. Were worth roughly, in today's money, to be in the billions if not trillions of dollars. But never mind these facts children. They are only Neo Confederate lies made up to cover the evils of slave keeping in the South.

Slavery as practiced where people are chattel property is evil, But for folks like yourself and your confederate ancestors evil is ok as long as it is profitable.

So your opinion is that since a lot of money was involved then slavery was OK.

Quote:
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all evils,
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 12:55   #303
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
All original thirteen colonies had slavery in place.
So what? How many retained slavery? By 1804 8 of the original 13 states had either abolished slavery or put in place gradual emancipation legislation.

Quote:
Vermont: 1777
Pennsylvania: 1780
Massachusetts: 1783
New Hampshire: 1783
Connecticut: 1784
Rhode Island: 1784
New York: 1799
New Jersey: 1804
Slavery was banned in the Northwest terrritory when it was created in 1787.

Free states created in the NW territory.

Quote:
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
States created and admitted as free states befor ethe Civil War.

Quote:
Iowa
Maine
California
Oregon
Kansas
The claim that slavery died out in the North because it was not profitable is utter nonsense. it dies out in the North because of increased moral qualms about slavery, which increased as a result of the "great awakening" religious revivals of the mid 1700's.


Quote:
(read that millions and millions in 1860's dollars) that they depended upon for their survival. Gee. And they the South actually went to war over that??!!
Their survival? not even, their wealth? sure. So again we come back to if slavery is profitable and will make you wealthy then it is ok.

The Great plantation owners and slave holders were the south's aristocracy, they had a firm grip on the south's politics. In many states you could not even hold high office unless you were a slave owner. The foot of the slave owners were not only on the necks of their slaves but on the necks of the free white NON slave holders as well.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 13:17   #304
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Then the North wanted to tell the Southerners that they had to, willy nilly, free all their slave holdings, (read that millions and millions in 1860's dollars) that they depended upon for their survival. Gee. And they the South actually went to war over that??!!
Starting in 1830 there was a change in the abolition moment from gradual emancipation to immediate emancipation. But the Republican party platform and Lincolns state goals were not to interfere with slavery where it already existed but to prevent it from spreading into new territories and new states. THIS was what the south would not tolerate. THIS is why they seceded. They were not worried that there would be an immediate freeing of their slaves, they were worried that Lincoln would stick to his avowed purpose of preventing slavery from spreading beyond where it already existed.

In the end their actions brought about the very thing they feared most.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 19:23   #305
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray_Rider View Post
Gee! Wonder why they did that??!! Well maybe. Just maybe. In the 1860s the Republician Party sought to redifine property rights sanctified by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution, to redefine said property rights to exclude slaves!

Said slaves. Held in the South. Were worth roughly, in today's money, to be in the billions if not trillions of dollars. But never mind these facts children. They are only Neo Confederate lies made up to cover the evils of slave keeping in the South.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
You just keep digging that hole deeper. You really expect sympathy for that bankrupt cause because you think your right to own a human being was enshrined in the Contitution? You think your right to own a person, dispose of him at will, to sell his loved ones down the river was "sanctified"---made holy---in the founding of this country? And then you want to whine about the lost property value when men were to be allowed to choose their own destiny?

Yes, sir. There's a strong possibility that God did vindicate via the Civil War. And I raise up a prayer of thanks that your brand of evil was swept from this land.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 20:28   #306
EmbryRiddle
Senior Member
 
EmbryRiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
You just keep digging that hole deeper. You really expect sympathy for that bankrupt cause because you think your right to own a human being was enshrined in the Contitution? You think your right to own a person, dispose of him at will, to sell his loved ones down the river was "sanctified"---made holy---in the founding of this country? And then you want to whine about the lost property value when men were to be allowed to choose their own destiny?

Yes, sir. There's a strong possibility that God did vindicate via the Civil War. And I raise up a prayer of thanks that your brand of evil was swept from this land.
FTMFW!
EmbryRiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 23:02   #307
Woodsrat
Member
 
Woodsrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: C.S.A.
Posts: 87
D44, You are wrong,there is a confederate memorial day in 4 states and we've introduced legislation in a few others this year. You just have to google it. Also the new Texas license plate may interest some of you. SS and ER, your looking at issues in 1860 through 2011 glasses. Slavery was a way of life for some then. They weren't owning men. Negroes weren't considered humans. Like they say hindsight is 20/20. Call confederates evil if you want, whatever, I refer you to my other posts, (last page or two, 290, 292. and 295, I believe.), including the black slave owners and black Johnny Rebs. Had I been alive at the time, and raised in the southern culture, I would've fought and died for the south. Not to advance slavery, none of my 4 ancestors that fought for the south owned slaves, but to keep the north out of our "nation states" business. SS said the C.S.A was never a legal country. Well spanky, the thirteen colonies weren't considered a legal country by the brits either. Only difference is they won. GR, I've found that dealing with yankee bigots on this subject is useless. They ignorantly and blindly except what the north has spoon fed them in schools and their propaganda for so long that it's now "TRUTH" to them no matter how false. They are too narrow minded to consider any different. Damn sure makes you wish dueling was still legal but i doubt many of these internet paper tigers would have the cajones to do it fairly 1 on 1 anyway. I'm movin' on before I blow a gasket or vaporlock or something.
__________________
"I worked twelve years to prevent the war,but I could not. The North was mad and blind,would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came." Pres. Jeff Davis. Deo Vindice

Last edited by Woodsrat; 06-29-2011 at 23:26..
Woodsrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 00:57   #308
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
D44, You are wrong,there is a confederate memorial day in 4 states and we've introduced legislation in a few others this year. You just have to google it.
I didn't make the claim there were no confederate memorial days Grey Rider did. Though I suspect he was talking about national holidays, at least that is how I took it.


Quote:
your looking at issues in 1860 through 2011 glasses. Slavery was a way of life for some then. They weren't owning men. Negroes weren't considered humans. Like they say hindsight is 20/20. Call confederates evil if you want, whatever
The confederates endlessly complained that the MAJORITY of Americans were against the institution of slavery. Were the majority also looking at the issue through 2011 eyes?


Quote:
Not to advance slavery, none of my 4 ancestors that fought for the south owned slaves, but to keep the north out of our "nation states" business.
More neo confederate BS, that the average southerner was somehow passionately concerned with "States rights". And that is besides the point that the Confederates made no such argument about secession being over "states rights" until AFTER they lost and tried to dress up their treason as something noble and pretend Slavery was not the main issue of secession.

Quote:
SS said the C.S.A was never a legal country. Well spanky, the thirteen colonies weren't considered a legal country by the brits either. Only difference is they won.
Wrong as usual spanky, Several nation formally recognized US independence in 1777, France, Morocco, and the Netherlands being ones I recall off the top of my head. The C.S.A NEVER had ANY official recognition from ANY other Nation.

Quote:
I've found that dealing with yankee bigots on this subject is useless. They ignorantly and blindly except what the north has spoon fed them in schools and their propaganda for so long that it's now "TRUTH" to them no matter how false. They are too narrow minded to consider any different.
That is absolutely hilarious considering it is you neo confederates that have had your claims decisively refuted with FACTS.

Quote:
Damn sure makes you wish dueling was still legal but i doubt many of these internet paper tigers would have the cajones to do it fairly 1 on 1 anyway. I'm movin' on before I blow a gasket or vaporlock or something.
Feel free to go indulge in your little Walter mitty fantasies about what a bad ass you think you are.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 21:29   #309
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsrat View Post
SS and ER, your looking at issues in 1860 through 2011 glasses. Slavery was a way of life for some then. They weren't owning men. Negroes weren't considered humans.
And yet they freed slaves. Allowed them to own property, including slaves of their own. Gave them lip service as having rights under the law when they were free. Demanded that they be counted as men for federal representation.

Either they were schizophrenic, or they knew that they were dealing with men.

They knew.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 05:56   #310
EmbryRiddle
Senior Member
 
EmbryRiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
I didn't make the claim there were no confederate memorial days Grey Rider did. Though I suspect he was talking about national holidays, at least that is how I took it.




The confederates endlessly complained that the MAJORITY of Americans were against the institution of slavery. Were the majority also looking at the issue through 2011 eyes?




More neo confederate BS, that the average southerner was somehow passionately concerned with "States rights". And that is besides the point that the Confederates made no such argument about secession being over "states rights" until AFTER they lost and tried to dress up their treason as something noble and pretend Slavery was not the main issue of secession.



Wrong as usual spanky, Several nation formally recognized US independence in 1777, France, Morocco, and the Netherlands being ones I recall off the top of my head. The C.S.A NEVER had ANY official recognition from ANY other Nation.



That is absolutely hilarious considering it is you neo confederates that have had your claims decisively refuted with FACTS.



Feel free to go indulge in your little Walter mitty fantasies about what a bad ass you think you are.

owned again......
EmbryRiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2011, 03:53   #311
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
History not taught in Northern schools

Somehow, there is a misconception about slavery being blamed on the South.

Even my fine educated friends here are doing it.

Here are some facts to enlighten my Yankee sympathizer friends...

-----------------

The USA had slavery for 89 years.

The Confederate States of America had slavery for 4 years.

Not one slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship.

They all came here on USA ships and European countries ships.

Many people, even so called 'historians', like to say that the Civil War ended slavery.

After the war was over there was still slavery in the Union/Northern states.

Owning slaves was legal and protected by the United States Supreme Court... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Abraham Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).

Lincoln's own family were slave owners (Mordecai Lincoln).

Lincoln, as a lawyer, went to court and argued to have a runaway female slave, and her children, returned to their slave owner. (Matson slave case).

Union General Ulysses S. Grant was a slave owner.
Union General Don Carlos Buell was a slave owner.

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the US, from New York, was a slave owner.

William Penn, famous Pennsylvanian was a slave owner.

Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania was a slave owner and slave trader.

Hero of the American Revolution, John Hancock from Massachusetts, was a slave owner and slave trader.

There was slavery in the North for 200 years, starting when they were colonies and lasting until after the Civil War was over.

Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2011, 09:04   #312
RichardB
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
RichardB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post

Feel free to go indulge in your little Walter mitty fantasies about what a bad ass you think you are.
Dragoon, Your post got me to thinking which is dangerou. With a partial Irish heritage my thinking can be outside the conventional boxes and formulae.

Do you think that Walter Mitty should be named as the deputy patron saint of Glock Talk?

Revisionist history is like cats trying to cover up their newly deposited treasures and it pisses me off; especially when it contradicts what I learned growing up in the South. Keep posting.
__________________
Richard

“Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing”
RichardB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2011, 10:19   #313
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?
The only sentence in your post that matters.

First, the Civil War was not fought---on the North's part---to free slaves. It was fought to preserve the "Perpetual Union" that all had voluntarily joined.

Second, the timing of the war was forced by the South, not the North. Hostilities began when the South started shooting. Prior to that act of war/treason/rebellion (you call it), the North offered the Crittenden Compromise, that would have amended the Constitution and given the South almost everything they claimed they wanted. Obviously, it was rejected.

Third, slavery wasn't ended earlier because the South had manipulated the political process, giving themselves undue political power. This is most obvious in the counting of property (slaves) as men for apportionment and representation in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise wasn't the South keeping blacks down---they wanted their slaves counted as whole men so they could grab more seats in the House, and more votes in the Electoral College. Naturally, your idols balked when it came to giving blacks the other things due to men: that whole Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness thing applied to owners.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Last edited by Sam Spade; 07-02-2011 at 10:24..
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2011, 12:47   #314
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

The Confederate States of America had slavery for 4 years

The Confederate states were never a legal union they were rebel states committing treason.

The states in question were the same states as before only proclaiming themselves seceded from the Union.

Quote:
Not one slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship.
The vast majority of slaves by 1860 didn't come over on ANY ship. They were born here. The U.S. outlawed the importation of slaves as of 1808.

Quote:
Many people, even so called 'historians', like to say that the Civil War ended slavery.
it did for the most part. The Civil war was the catalyst for the 13th and 14th amendments.

Quote:
After the war was over there was still slavery in the Union/Northern states.
The North had pretty much abolished slavery by out right banning it or legislating gradual emaciation. Like N.J. by 1860 there was 18 slaves left in NJ as a result of the gradual emancipation legislation.

The North had never had that many slaves to begin with, Thomas Jefferson pointed this out when he said.

Quote:
Where the disease [slavery] is most deeply seated, there it will be slowest in eradication. In the northern States, it was merely superficial and easily corrected. In the southern, it is incorporated with the whole system and requires time, patience, and perseverance in the curative process.
Apparently Jefferson viewed the Slavery issue through "2011" glasses as well.
in his annual message to congress in 1806 Jefferson spoke of the upcoming 1808 deadline for the outlawing of importation of salves.

Quote:
“I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at
which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the
citizens of the United States from all further participation in those
violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the
unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation,
and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe.
Although no law you may pass can take prohibitory effect till the first day
of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening
period is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, expeditions which
cannot be completed before that day.”

Quote:
Owning slaves was legal and protected by the United States Supreme Court... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Dred Scott still stands as the greatest stain on the SCOTUS, it was bad legislation all the way around. regardless the 13th and fourteenth amendments made Dred Scott a moot ruling.


Quote:
Abraham Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).

Lincoln's own family were slave owners (Mordecai Lincoln).

Lincoln, as a lawyer, went to court and argued to have a runaway female slave, and her children, returned to their slave owner. (Matson slave case).

Union General Ulysses S. Grant was a slave owner.
Union General Don Carlos Buell was a slave owner.

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the US, from New York, was a slave owner.

William Penn, famous Pennsylvanian was a slave owner.

Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania was a slave owner and slave trader.

Hero of the American Revolution, John Hancock from Massachusetts, was a slave owner and slave trader.
Big whoop, it was the south that held onto slavery determined not only to preserve it but to expand it. And ultimately started a war to try and achieve their goals.

And as far as how slavery started, The Founding Fathers were not silent on the matter, it was part of their greviences against the English crown.

Quote:
In 1774, Jefferson was selected to draft the instructions for the Virginia delegation to the first Continential Congress, and which were later printed under the title ``A Summary View of the Rights of British America.''

For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those Colonies, where it was, unhappily, introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesties negative; thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice

Quote:
Jefferson makes it clear by including the following paragraph later in the document, on the list of King George III’s
“abuses and usurpations” through which he had attempted to impose “absolute Despotism” upon the Colonies:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most
sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who
never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This
piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the
CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative
[i.e., his veto powers over Colonial legislation], suppressing every
legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And
that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he
is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to
purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the
people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes
committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges
them to commit against the lives of another.”

Quote:
George Mason 1787


This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns, not importing alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the Tories.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 06:11   #315
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
The Confederate states were never a legal union they were rebel states committing treason.
This is simply not true.

Treason as defined in the US Constitution. Article III section 3...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them...

During the Union witch-hunt after the war many Confederate leaders were arrested or charged with treason such as Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. The best lawyers the Union had could not make Treason stick, so they were released.

Conversely, Abe Lincoln was charged with Treason and War Crimes. He was 'arrested' by a Confederate operative and his Presidency was terminated.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 07:29   #316
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 35,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
The Confederate states were never a legal union they were rebel states committing treason.
I disagree. Nothing in the constitution prevents any state from voting to secede. They voted to join, which implies that they could, likewise, vote to un-join.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 08:42   #317
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
This is simply not true.

Treason as defined in the US Constitution. Article III section 3...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them...


Conversely, Abe Lincoln was charged with Treason and War Crimes. He was 'arrested' by a Confederate operative and his Presidency was terminated.
I'll answer your claim that the Confederate States were in fact legal in my answer to Bren.

As far as your allusion to John Wilkes Booth being a CSA operative, I guess you are calling the Confederate leadership Liars, since they claimed Booth was not a CSA operative.

Last but not least the Confederate states did commit acts of war against the union, they seized Union property, ( Forts and arsenals) and fired on union ships, they also attacked and seized a union fort (Sumter) by force of arms. Those are all acts of war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
I disagree. Nothing in the constitution prevents any state from voting to secede. They voted to join, which implies that they could, likewise, vote to un-join.

The SCOTUS says you are wrong and so do many of the Founding Fathers.

Quote:
John Adams
“In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a state to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion.. The right of a state to secede from the union is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”

James Madison

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830] In his letter to Daniel Webster, Madison wrote, "I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. ... But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism." [James Madison to Daniel Webster, 15 Mar 1833]

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of -98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a SINGLE [emphasis in original] party, with the PARTIES [emphasis in original] to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the PLURAL [emphasis in original] number, STATES [emphasis in original], is in EVERY [emphasis in original] instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word RESPECTIVE [emphasis in original], prefixed to the 'rights' &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should united in contending for the security of them to each.

"It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, Vol. 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 23 Dec 1832]
______________________________________

SCOTUS rulings BEFORE The war.


Quote:
In Fletcher v. Peck, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "But Georgia cannot be veiwed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass." [10 U.S. 87, 136]

In McCullough v. Maryland

Quote:
"From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . . *The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.*" [17 U.S. 316, 402-404]


Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court ruled, "When these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their Congress of Ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, the whole character in which the States appear, underwent a change." [22 U.S. 1, 187]



Cohens v. Virginia the Court ruled, "That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire." [19 U.S. 264, 413-414]

"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19 US 264, 389]



SCOTUS rulings after the war

Texas Vs. White

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union." [74 U.S. 700, 725-726]

White v. Hart

"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. If need be, it has the right also to call on the government of the Union for the requisite aid to that end. Whatever precautionary or penal measures the State may take when the insurrection is suppressed, the proposition would be a strange one to maintain, that while it lasted the county was not a part of the State, and hence was absolved from the duties, liabilities, and restrictions which would have been incumbent upon it if it had remained in its normal condition and relations. The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also the authority to guard against the renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same." [80 US 646, 650-651]


Hickman v. Jones


"The rebellion out of which the war grew was without any legal sanction. In the eye of the law, it had the same properties as if it had been the insurrection of a county or smaller municipal territory against the State to which it belonged. ... The union of the States, for all the purposes of the Constitution, is as perfect and indissoluble as the union of the integral parts of the States themselves; and nothing but revolutionary violence can, in either case, destroy the ties which hold the parts together. ... The rebellion was simply an armed resistance to the rightful authority of the sovereign." [76 US 197, 200]

Williams v. Bruffy

"The pleas aver that a confederation was formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, and that under a law of this confederation, enforced in Virginia, the debt due to the plaintiffs was sequestrated. Now, the Constitution of the United States prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another. The organization whose enactment is pleaded cannot, therefore, be regarded in this court as having any legal existence." [96 US 176, 182]

Lamar v. Micou

"The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States." [112 US 452. 476]



__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

Last edited by Dragoon44; 07-03-2011 at 09:06..
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 05:04   #318
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 20,745


The Furball Forum
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2011, 09:55   #319
EmbryRiddle
Senior Member
 
EmbryRiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
I'll answer your claim that the Confederate States were in fact legal in my answer to Bren.

As far as your allusion to John Wilkes Booth being a CSA operative, I guess you are calling the Confederate leadership Liars, since they claimed Booth was not a CSA operative.

Last but not least the Confederate states did commit acts of war against the union, they seized Union property, ( Forts and arsenals) and fired on union ships, they also attacked and seized a union fort (Sumter) by force of arms. Those are all acts of war.




The SCOTUS says you are wrong and so do many of the Founding Fathers.



______________________________________

SCOTUS rulings BEFORE The war.





In McCullough v. Maryland

EmbryRiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2011, 16:01   #320
Gray_Rider
Senior Member
 
Gray_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jacksonville Fla.
Posts: 1,602
Blog Entries: 1
Still waiting on a review of the books mentioned, including "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" Larry Tagg (which covers the multitude of unconstutitional and dictatorial powers sized and used by Lincoln)* for all you Delorenzo haters, and "The South was Right" J,R. & W.D. Kennedy Pelican Press, for all the rest of you Confederacy haters. (See Chapter 8, Secession: Answering the Critics) I would love a dissertation on that chapter please.
The other books mentioned still apply also, including the one on War Crimes against Southern civilians.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Unreconstructed Southerner

*But thats ok. Those dictatorial powers were used against the "evil" South (That wasn't a country anyway) so is it still cool that helpless American citizens including hundreds if not thousands of blacks free and slave were pilliaged and murdered in cold blood against then existing international law right?
Gray_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
slavery caused civil war
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:24.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 629
195 Members
434 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31