The foolishness of Civil War reenactors

Discussion in 'The Furball Forum' started by Smashy, Jun 27, 2011.


  1. Sorry but this is simply not true. The US may have passed a law to feel better but they did not use their own ships to enforce this law for the next 50 years.

    Read about the Slave ship 'Wanderer' from New York. It flew the New York yacht club flag and the US flag. They certainly went to Africa and picked up slaves and delivered them to the US in 1858. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wanderer_(slave_ship)

    It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

    Union states of Delaware and Kentucky also rejected the 13th Amendment and would not ratify it until many years later.

    As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

    :cool:
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. deleted
     

    #82 vikingsoftpaw, Jul 2, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2011
  3. Given that it is Salon Magazine and the author would rather be reporting from Burning Man, what should we really expect?
     
  4. Lots of discussion about slavery in these documents of independance. Maybe it was about slavery after all...at least partly. :supergrin:
     
  5. G26S239

    G26S239 NRA Patron

    So? The importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808.
    And they were prosecuted for doing so, although not convicted.


    The 13th Amendment still passed the Senate in April 1864. It still passed the House in January 1865. It was still adopted in December 1865.

    Contrast that with Article 1 Section 9 .4 of the Constitution of the CSA "No bill of attainder, ex post fact law or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#A1Sec9
    And the CSA is still defunct. :cool:
     
  6. G26S239

    G26S239 NRA Patron

    :thumbsup:
     
  7. RichardB

    Silver Member

    1,353
    14
    888
    Are there any old farts here who would like to go to a reenactment of Hamburger Hill or a thousand other bad dreams?
     
  8. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    You know, revisionist history is one thing, but you far exceed even that label. NJ outlawed slavery in 1810. The youngest slave possible in NJ would have been in his late 50s, well beyond the life expectancy of people in that day and age. Besides which, the 1860 census shows that there was a grand total of 0 slaves in the state. I know this has been pointed out to you before. So your claim that the state "didn't want to give them up" can only be seen as a lie.

    For your Ft. Sumter claim, its significant that you use the weasle word "proven". The Union, in remarkable mercy for that day and age, chose to not pursue charges of treason against anyone. Even so, it's trivial to prove that firing on a US installation and US soldiers is a criminal act.


    Edit: fixed it on checking. There were a mere 256 slaves in NJ in the 1850 census and absolutely no slaves at all listed in NJ in the 1860 census. Here, from a pro-secesh site: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm
     
    #88 Sam Spade, Jul 2, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2011
  9. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    Fort Sumter was the legal property of the Union. It was obtained from SC legally and the SC legislature gave up all claim to the property.

    So in short you are trying to claim there is nothing illegal in seizing someone else's property by force.

    Even Robert E. Lee knew secession was not legal.

    And since you are so fond of SCOTUS rulings ( at least the Dred Scott one) here are some SCOTUS rulings for you on secession.

     
  10. The wealth in slaves' aggregate value held in the South translated into todays dollars would be five to six trillion dollars. See "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" Larry Tagg. As I have stated in many other posts; the Southern slaves were probably treated far better than in any other country in the history of the world. Had the slaves been treated as badly is commonly taught, they would have revolted long before the war and or during the war as was Lincoln's plan with his famous proclamation. The proclamation caused thousands of Union troops to desert. Indiana considered leaving the Union over it. The New York "draft riots", 1863, were caused by it. Yeah, the Union, and the war, was all about ending slavery. And before any Confederacy haters go on a rampage about the "evils" of slavery, I never said the "institution" was wonderfull. I have said repeatedly that it WORKED. When I see some symphathy for all the other slaves kept throughout history, I will be happy to discuss it with anyone here. And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys. He knew he had time on his side. Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment in March of 1861. Fort Sumter wasn't fired on till April 9. The 13 amendment, boiled down, said the Southern states could keep their slaves; Just accept the proposed 13 amendment and it would all be over. Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.

    Gray_Rider
    Deo Vindice!
     
  11. G26S239

    G26S239 NRA Patron

    So did Dr. Watson's experiment on baby Albert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment The fact that the experiment was a success doesn't justify abusing babies for science.
    Why should he have done that? Any such action on his part could have been construed as tacit recognition of the legitimacy of the CSA.
    Amendment XIII
    Section 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    Section 2 Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    What part of the 13 Amendment allows slavery to continue in any area under US jurisdiction Gray_Rider?
     
  12. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    You've quoted the ratified 13th. Prior to that, there were several proposed Amendments that went nowhere, but would have been the 13th. I'm unaware of what he means to the tariffs associated with any such proposals. Google the Crittenden Compromise to see some of the attempts to keep the South in the fold.
     
  13. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    So what? Lincoln plainly stated he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. He would however prevent it from spreading into new territories and new states, and it was THIS that was intolerable to the south.They demanded the right to bring slavery into the territories and any new states.

    there were slave revolts and the south lived in fear of them.

    Of course refused to see them, to do so would have given the Confederacy the appearance of legitimacy which Lincoln was not willing to do. President Buchanan Received the emissary of The State of South Carolina whose message was surrender Fort Sumter or prepare for war.


    Except that tariffs were never brought up in the articles of secession . The "tariffs" argument was created after the south lost and tried to rationalize why their rebellion was noble and legitimate.

    To be sure Tariffs were a matter of discord between the North and the south. But Not a single article of secession mentions Tariffs as a reason for secession.
     
    #93 Dragoon44, Jul 2, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2011
  14. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    The one Grey rider is referring to is the Corwin amendment which passed Both houses but was never ratified. For some strange reason the "Peaceful" South was not interested in the amendment that would have constitutionally protected slavery in their existing states.

    Here is the amendment as passed, and it was passed in Feb 1861, not proposed by Lincoln in March 1861 as Grey rider claims.

    Lincoln urged the states to ratify it.
     
    #94 Dragoon44, Jul 2, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2011
  15. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    That had nothing to do with tariffs, either. GR seems to be claiming a quid pro quo between Northern acceptance of slavery and Southern acceptance of tariffs. I still don't know what he meant.

    Anyway, notice the repeated offers from the North to bend on slavery and preserve the Union, even with Lincoln elected. But the Fire-eaters carried too much clout in the South. They had too much wealth tied in human flesh and too much control over press and pulpit. The CS soldier may have fought for a lot of reasons, but he was manipulated into fighting to preserve wealth: slavery. Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
     
  16. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    GR like the other neo confederates are simply bleating the Neo confederate dogma in keeping the the "lost cause" mythology promoted by the losing confederates AFTER the war.
     
  17. RWBlue

    RWBlue Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    I think reenacting Grenada might be interesting.:supergrin: Let me go lie on the beach for a while. Fly around in an helo and see the island.


    I would suggest reenacting D-day, but I think freeing France twice last century is enough. If I landed there with a gun they probably would not be happy and might start shooting real bullets.
     
  18. "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".

    ...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, 1848.
     
  19. G26S239

    G26S239 NRA Patron

    "This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Abraham Lincoln, April 6, 1859. Letter to Henry Pierce.


    "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Constitution of the CSA Article 1, Section 9.4 Adopted March 11, 1861. Too bad Natty, no more slaves for you. :crying:
     
  20. "Whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

    -- Declaration of Independence, 1776.
     

Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
The foolishness of Civil War reenactors The Okie Corral Jun 27, 2011
Register civilian guns to shoot on post Gun-Control Issues Sunday at 12:45 AM
civil unrest Survival/Preparedness Forum Jul 8, 2015
Religous freedom as a civil servant Religious Issues Jul 6, 2015
Civilian LE fail Cop Talk Jul 4, 2015

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus