Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It was all about slavery, and always had been

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post



    Have you a source for that sir? Thank you in advance.



    Here's a logic test for you: Abraham Lincoln was less of a traitor to the United States than Donald Trump.



    Yeah, the shot and shell that bombarded the US installation at Fort Sumter was merely moonlight and magnolia love notes.



    Perhaps the Southern states did indeed have a right to secede, but they did not have the right to take up arms against the United States. What the Southern states did have was a right to petition the US Congress for their secession, sort of a reverse procedure to their original applications to join the Union. They chose instead to effect their secession through force of arms, rather than political means. Wm Tecumseh Sherman was absolutely correct when he observed that "war is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."



    The 36th Congress remained in session until 3 Mar 1861: more than ample time for the Southern states to apply for secession.



    Praise from Caesar . . . .
    Your welcome, sir.https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDet...?RaceID=229514
    This was a referendum on whether to call a convention to consider seceding from the Union. A vote against the referendum was a vote to stay in the Union. While the bulk of the votes for the convention came from secessionists, some unionists voted for the convention. In the simultaneous election for delegates to the convention, 83 Union men were elected against 37 Secessionists



    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by walle View Post

      First off, Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states, the states had the constitutional right to secede.

      Secondly, it wasn't a rebellion, the South seceded.

      Thirdly, the pedestrian opinion here is to deny it was ever a country, it becomes even more pedestrian when the argument put forward is the reason for it not being one, was because it wasn't recognized as such.

      It was not for England, France etc to deny the Southerners that recognition in the first place, in fact, it wasn't for the Union to deny the recognition either.

      It had all the things in place making it a country.
      It's own people, it's own culture (even it's own language) it's on laws, it's own military, it's own navy, it's own national anthem, it's own currency, etc.

      They should have been allowed to go their separate way.
      You are ranting an opinion, not based on any thing other than an emotional response. The Confederacy was never recognized by any other nation, it's currency was useless, in the end, it's "president" high tailed out of the soon to be rubble of Richmond with the few sacks of gold his agents had been able to steal and his own portrait and headed for the high grass.
      The rebels confiscated federal property, post offices, armories, federal bases, ships, mints and court houses and you believe the president who suppressed such action was to blame, even though these acts largely took place before he was even sworn in as president?
      So in your opinion the US has no right to retaliate when attacked from within or from foreign forces?
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

        You are ranting an opinion, not based on any thing other than an emotional response. The Confederacy was never recognized by any other nation, it's currency was useless, in the end, it's "president" high tailed out of the soon to be rubble of Richmond with the few sacks of gold his agents had been able to steal and his own portrait and headed for the high grass.
        The rebels confiscated federal property, post offices, armories, federal bases, ships, mints and court houses and you believe the president who suppressed such action was to blame, even though these acts largely took place before he was even sworn in as president?
        So in your opinion the US has no right to retaliate when attacked from within or from foreign forces?
        What Wall-e has to consider is "how fair was the referendum process to leave the Union' State by state?" I became interested in the North Carolina 'process' after the 'tidewater planters legislature' came up with their loaded referwhatever, in which voting for the convention was a vote for succession. What the Poobahs didn't take into account was that the citizens would vote for Pro union convention delegates..

        so they kidnapped the succession process.....
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by marktwain View Post

          What Wall-e has to consider is "how fair was the referendum process to leave the Union' State by state?" I became interested in the North Carolina 'process' after the 'tidewater planters legislature' came up with their loaded referwhatever, in which voting for the convention was a vote for succession. What the Poobahs didn't take into account was that the citizens would vote for Pro union convention delegates..

          so they kidnapped the succession process.....
          And burned out pro union newspapers, lynched pro unionists burn out farms, etc. There is a reason Sherman chose the 1st Alabama Cavalry to be his personal escort , they were hungry for revenge.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Urban hermit
            The rebels confiscated federal property, post offices, armories, federal bases, ships, mints and court houses and you believe the president who suppressed such action was to blame
            When the Southern states seceded anything within their borders belonged to those states, not to the federal government of a foreign country. You can't confiscate something that belongs too you. Besides, the Southerners had paid for it all with their money via taxes in the first place.

            Originally posted by Urban hermit
            So in your opinion the US has no right to retaliate when attacked from within or from foreign forces?
            What attack from within and what foreign forces are you talking about? When the states seceded they were no longer part of the United States.The attack from within by foreign forces would have been by Union soldiers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by walle View Post
              When the Southern states seceded anything within their borders belonged to those states, not to the federal government of a foreign country. You can't confiscate something that belongs too you. Besides, the Southerners had paid for it all with their money via taxes in the first place.
              That's like saying that the property confiscated by the Bolsheviks from the Kulaks wasn't really confiscated, 'cause the state owned it anyway.

              Originally posted by walle View Post
              What attack from within and what foreign forces are you talking about? When the states seceded they were no longer part of the United States.The attack from within by foreign forces would have been by Union soldiers.
              Within the framework of the US Constitution -- the same Constitution that the Southern states ratified in order to gain admission to the Union in the first place -- how was the Southern states' secession legal?

              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by walle View Post

                Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states.

                The Southerners didn't seek to destroy the country either, they went th6,830,000 resultsDate Language Region
                1. Corruption in the Confederacy - The New York Times

                  https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/corruption-in-the-confederacy

                eir separate way and created their own country. Which they had every constitutional right to do.


                Furthermore, it wasn't their government at that point either.

                Nice try thou.
                along with their own - carpetbaggers, it seems....
                Between 1862 and 1865, officers of the Confederate District Court of North Carolina, empowered by a new national law, confiscated and sold millions of dollars worth of property from North Carolinians accused of being “alien enemies.” The proceeds of confiscated and sold property were to be sent immediately to Richmond, but most was never reported. Many officers of the District Court, like David Schenck of Lincoln County, became wealthy enforcing the Act of Sequestration while thousands of their fellow Tar Heels were deprived of their property
                6,830,000 resultsDate Language Region
                1. Corruption in the Confederacy - The New York Times

                  https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/corruption-in-the-confederacy







                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by walle View Post

                  When the Southern states seceded anything within their borders belonged to those states, not to the federal government of a foreign country. You can't confiscate something that belongs too you. Besides, the Southerners had paid for it all with their money via taxes in the first place.


                  What attack from within and what foreign forces are you talking about? When the states seceded they were no longer part of the United States.The attack from within by foreign forces would have been by Union soldiers.
                  This is as irrational as the decisions that led to the war.
                  Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                  Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                    This is as irrational as the decisions that led to the war.
                    When a state seceded, anything within its borders belonged to that state.

                    Before they seceded it belonged to the United States, which the state was a member of prior to secession.

                    Hardly irrational at all.

                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    That's like saying that the property confiscated by the Bolsheviks from the Kulaks wasn't really confiscated, 'cause the state owned it anyway.
                    Not even close.

                    Those resources etc ceased to be property of the United States the moment the states seceded and went their separate way. Like I said, the states that seceded couldn't confiscate their own property.

                    Also add to the fact that the Southerners had paid for it via taxation, long before they ever seceded.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by walle View Post

                      When a state seceded, anything within its borders belonged to that state.

                      Before they seceded it belonged to the United States, which the state was a member of prior to secession.

                      Hardly irrational at all.



                      Not even close.

                      Those resources etc ceased to be property of the United States the moment the states seceded and went their separate way. Like I said, the states that seceded couldn't confiscate their own property.

                      Also add to the fact that the Southerners had paid for it via taxation, long before they ever seceded.
                      The federal facilities belonged equally to the northern states. this is where your argument falls apart.
                      If what you say is true, why did so many future confederate officers have no problem enforcing similar federal reactions to previous uprisings and insurrections ?
                      The Utah War of 1857-58 is a perfect example, then Col. Albert Sidney Johnston (who later became a Confederate Gen. and actually signed my g g grandfathers enlistment paper into the Confederate army!) commanded the union forces that suppressed the insurrection.
                      Robert E Lee had no problem leading union forces in New York, Texas, etc. and other states that were in the Union for 30 plus years of his military profession, but suddenly felt different when Union forces might set foot on his precious Virginny.
                      Sort of make my BS meter spin like a top.
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by walle View Post

                        When the Southern states seceded anything within their borders belonged to those states, not to the federal government of a foreign country. You can't confiscate something that belongs too you. Besides, the Southerners had paid for it all with their money via taxes in the first place.


                        What attack from within and what foreign forces are you talking about? When the states seceded they were no longer part of the United States.The attack from within by foreign forces would have been by Union soldiers.
                        The Secession being unconstitutional ...
                        Extract from Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation ...
                        No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war ...

                        the Confederation has no legal existence and therefore has no right to claim national property

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by daddut roger View Post

                          The Secession being unconstitutional ...
                          Extract from Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation ...
                          No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war ...

                          the Confederation has no legal existence and therefore has no right to claim national property
                          What you had, in the spring of 1861, was a growing cooperation its movement in the South, lead by Sam Houston, Texas Govenor, to try to work out a solution without going to war.

                          Which is why , I suspect, Governor Pickney and General Beaurgard opened fire on Fort Sumter to open the war. Why P.e.t Beauregard is a lost cause hero beats me .


                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                            What you had, in the spring of 1861, was a growing cooperation its movement in the South, lead by Sam Houston, Texas Govenor, to try to work out a solution without going to war.

                            Which is why , I suspect, Governor Pickney and General Beaurgard opened fire on Fort Sumter to open the war. Why P.e.t Beauregard is a lost cause hero beats me .

                            Probably the name alone qualifies him
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                              The federal facilities belonged equally to the northern states. this is where your argument falls apart.
                              No it does not, and for reasons clearly explained.

                              They ceased to be federal facilities the moment the state had seceded, at that point the state was no longer part of the United States of America.

                              Hence secession.

                              The federal government of the United States could therefore not make claims on any property and or resources that was no longer part of the country.

                              Furthermore, as established already.

                              Far less than half of the population lived in the Southern states yet they paid more than 60% of the taxes
                              Which means that not only did they pay for these facilities to begin with (facilities you say equally belonged to the Northern States), but also that any claim made on these facilities by the Federal government of the United States was null and void after the state had seceded.

                              If anything the United States should have paid the Confederate States of America compensation for having bore the brunt of taxation.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                [QUOTE=walle;n5139953]

                                First off, Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states, the states had the constitutional right to secede.

                                Secondly, it wasn't a rebellion, the South seceded.

                                Thirdly, the pedestrian opinion here is to deny it was ever a country, it becomes even more pedestrian when the argument put forward is the reason for it not being one, was because it wasn't recognized as such.

                                It was not for England, France etc to deny the Southerners that recognition in the first place, in fact, it wasn't for the Union to deny the recognition either.

                                It had all the things in place making it a country.
                                It's own people, it's own culture (even it's own language) it's on laws, it's own military, it's own navy, it's own national anthem, it's own currency, etc.

                                They should have been allowed to go their separate way.[/QUOTESe

                                First, the rebels fired the first shot, not Union forces. Seen in reality, Lincoln's acts were self-defense against an aggressor. What right to secede? No where is that stated in the Constitution. You merely voice an opinion, period. Had the slavers truly thought their action was constitutional, why not do it then test it in the courts? The South chose to settle the issue by combat by initiating same. The verdict as to the constitutionality of their acts was rendered on the battlefields of America.

                                Second, it was a rebellion because it was contested at the south's instigation by force of arms.

                                Thirdly, to deny the conventions of international law in terms of recognition of a country's existence toward the rebel states places them outside international law. So, by your very statement they remain a bastard or illegitimate entity. Thanks for finally seeing the light.

                                No nation denied them recognition, but yes it definitely is each nation's place to extend or deny recognition. To state otherwise, as you have clearly done throughout your last point is absurd.

                                Regards,
                                Dennis
                                If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

                                Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X