Candorville this week...
Mike Marshall
-Mike
Robert
> Poor Lemont, so obviously in the right place... a psychiatrist's office...
>
> -Mike
The shrink has it wrong, anyway. When someone repeats a simplistic
soundbite they heard on Fox Noise or talk radio they should be ignored
or challenged, not "validated". If I heard someone say that the Civil
War was not about slavery, I would ask them what it was about. The pat
answer nowadays would probably be something about the heroism of
confederate soldiers. Then I would ask them why the confederacy was
fighting in the first place. Ultimately it gets down to the decision
of some southern states to secede, and they decided to secede because
they wanted to keep their slaves.
Mike Marshall
>The pat
>answer nowadays would probably be something about the heroism of
>confederate soldiers.
Fooey on modern pat answers.
>Then I would ask them why the confederacy was
>fighting in the first place. Ultimately it gets down to the decision
>of some southern states to secede, and they decided to secede because
>they wanted to keep their slaves.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
South Carolina seceeded because the instant the Yankees gained enough
control of the central government they ditched the last 30 or 40 years
of compromise over the shared wealth of the western territories and
decided to start dictating how it was going to be. Nobody was threatening
anyone's slaves, where did you hear that?
Virginia seceeded because their only other choice was to supply soldiers
to a Southern invasion force that was going to march over their state.
-Mike
Carl Fink
> South Carolina seceeded because the instant the Yankees gained enough
> control of the central government they ditched the last 30 or 40 years
> of compromise over the shared wealth of the western territories and
> decided to start dictating how it was going to be. Nobody was threatening
> anyone's slaves, where did you hear that?
This has vague similarities to certain aspects of the truth. Several of the
nouns refer to actual entities.
> Virginia seceeded because their only other choice was to supply soldiers
> to a Southern invasion force that was going to march over their state.
You mean "Most of Virginia" seceded. The current West Virginia remained
loyal. And you're also making up that motivation.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Robert
Guess you never heard of the abolitionist movement...
Freezer
> South Carolina seceeded because the instant the Yankees gained
> enough control of the central government they ditched the last
> 30 or 40 years of compromise over the shared wealth of the
> western territories and decided to start dictating how it was
> going to be. Nobody was threatening anyone's slaves, where did
> you hear that?
"It is not at all surprising, while such is the character of the
Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess
power over all the institutions of the country. The agitations on
the subject of Slavery in the South are the natural results of
the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility follows
power; and if the people of the North have the power by Congress
"to promote the general welfare of the United States," by any
means they deem expedient, why should they not assail and
overthrow the institution of Slavery in the South? They are
responsible for its continuance or existence, in proportion to
their power. A majority in Congress, according to their
interested and perverted views, is omnipotent. The inducements to
act upon the subject of Slavery, under such circumstances, were
so imperious as to amount almost to a moral necessity. To make,
however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the
North must consolidate their power. It would not be united on any
matter common to the whole Union -- in other words, on any
constitutional subject -- for on such subjects divisions are as
likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was
strictly a sectional interest. If this could be made the
criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in
its power, and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition,
encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional
predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first
abolished by constructions; but that being done, the
consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and
Slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things."
-- South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States
http://civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
Freezer
>Nobody was threatening anyone's slaves, where did
> you hear that?
From them:
"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."
-- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the
Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
( http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#SouthCarolina )
Mike Marshall
>You mean "Most of Virginia" seceded. The current West Virginia remained
>loyal.
Heehee... bless your heart... my family is from West Virginia, they
were Confederates. Robert E. Lee learned a lot from the failed
effort to protect western Virginia from the Yankees, and used that
knowledge when he was in charge of fortification of the South
Carolina coast.
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>Guess you never heard of the abolitionist movement...
Did you see anything about "abolitionists" in the document
I provided?
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>> enough control of the central government they ditched the last
>> 30 or 40 years of compromise over the shared wealth of the
>> western territories and decided to start dictating how it was
>> going to be.
Freezer <free...@hotMAPSONmail.com> writes:
>Slavery was strictly a sectional interest. If this could be made the
>criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in
>its power, and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition,
>encroachment, and aggrandizement.
>-- South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States
>http://civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
Rhett asserted, as I do, that Yankee ambition, encroachment and
aggrandizement was the cause of secession.
>>Nobody was threatening anyone's slaves, where did
>> you hear that?
Rhett wasn't theratening anyone's slaves... anybody else... Lincoln maybe?
Good post.
-Mike
Joseph Nebus
>Freezer <free...@hotMAPSONmail.com> writes:
>>Slavery was strictly a sectional interest. If this could be made the
>>criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in
>>its power, and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition,
>>encroachment, and aggrandizement.
>>-- South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States
>>http://civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
>Rhett asserted, as I do, that Yankee ambition, encroachment and
>aggrandizement was the cause of secession.
Meanwhile reality comes down on the side of ``The south went
traitor because it was scared its efforts to force slavery down the
mouth of everyone in the United States and shout down everyone who
pointed out that it was an evil, evil thing to do was somehow drawing
objections from the people who had any sense of morality.''
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Marshall
>>Nobody was threatening anyone's slaves, where did
>> you hear that?
Freezer <free...@hotMAPSONmail.com> writes:
>From them:
>"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."
>-- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the
>Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
>( http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#SouthCarolina )
The several Yankee states that section of the Secession document was
refering to were ignoring the Constitution and the Supreme Court WRT
the Fugitive Slave Act. That a few people harbored escaped slaves
didn't threaten slavery. "Black codes" in the border states, such
as the one known as The Land Of Lincoln, prohibited black immigration.
"Free" states were free of black people.
The Federal Government in 1859 was not threatening anyone's slaves, anywhere
in the South. If they were, you could find it in, say, the Congressional
Record.
-Mike
Freezer
> The Federal Government in 1859 was not threatening anyone's
> slaves, anywhere in the South. If they were, you could find it
> in, say, the Congressional Record.
That the South thought they were (or eventually would) is the
rather obvious point here.
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
http://mst3kfreezer.livejournal.com/
JC Dill
Mike Marshall
>Bringing us full circle to:
>http://comics.com/candorville/2010-04-22/
>jc
By which you mean that you and the Candorville guy think there's some
indication in the Congressional Record (or some such authoritative place)
that indicates that the Federal Government had some movement in the
works to abolish slavery?
I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in
this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best
way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a
length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and
perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the
territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery
under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no
compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution
on soil owned by the nation. And any trick by which the nation is to
acquire territory, and then allow some local authority to spread
slavery over it, is as obnoxious as any other.
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> The several Yankee states....
I think the good citizens of Red Sox Nation resent being called
"Yankees"
Stephen Graham
> JC Dill<jcdill...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Bringing us full circle to:
>> http://comics.com/candorville/2010-04-22/
>> jc
>
> By which you mean that you and the Candorville guy think there's some
> indication in the Congressional Record (or some such authoritative place)
> that indicates that the Federal Government had some movement in the
> works to abolish slavery?
As I'm pretty sure you know, Mike, the Secession Commissioners sent out
by South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama certainly emphasized the
threat to slavery posed by the Republican party, as laid out in Dew's
_Apostles of Disunion_.
JC Dill
> JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Bringing us full circle to:
>> http://comics.com/candorville/2010-04-22/
>> jc
>
> By which you mean that you and the Candorville guy think there's some
> indication in the Congressional Record (or some such authoritative place)
> that indicates that the Federal Government had some movement in the
> works to abolish slavery?
This is a red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
The United States presidential election of 1860 set the stage for the
American Civil War. The nation had been divided throughout most of the
1850s on questions of states' rights and slavery in the territories. In
1860 this issue finally came to a head, fracturing the formerly dominant
Democratic Party into Southern and Northern factions and bringing
Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party to power without the support of
a single Southern state.
Hardly more than a month following Lincoln's victory came declarations
of secession by South Carolina and other states, which were rejected as
illegal by the then-current President, James Buchanan and
President-elect Abraham Lincoln.
jc
Alexander Mitchell
Mike Marshall
>As I'm pretty sure you know, Mike, the Secession Commissioners sent out
>by South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama certainly emphasized the
>threat to slavery posed by the Republican party, as laid out in Dew's
>_Apostles of Disunion_.
None of those 52 guys were Republicans. Lincoln, and the Republicans,
threatened to exclude Southerners from the western territories. As you
know Virginia chose secession when the only other option was participation
in the invasion.
-Mike
Stephen Graham
> Stephen Graham<gra...@speakeasy.net> writes:
>> As I'm pretty sure you know, Mike, the Secession Commissioners sent out
>> by South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama certainly emphasized the
>> threat to slavery posed by the Republican party, as laid out in Dew's
>> _Apostles of Disunion_.
>
> None of those 52 guys were Republicans.
We wouldn't expect them to be Republicans. But they were the individuals
sent out by the secessionists to convince other states to secede as
well. So their explanations as to why secession was necessary are good
indications of why it happened.
> Lincoln, and the Republicans,
> threatened to exclude Southerners from the western territories.
Any US citizen could go to the Western territories. They just couldn't
bring slaves with them, just as they couldn't if they moved to, say,
Vermont. Such a limit had been in place since the establishment of the
Northwest Territory.
> As you
> know Virginia chose secession when the only other option was participation
> in the invasion.
What invasion? You can't invade your own country. It's ironic that some
Virginians took a step that ultimately destroyed the very institution
they wished to protect: slavery.
Stephen Graham
> It was about BOTH states' rights AND slavery, all right?
>
Actually, the secessionists were pretty much opposed to states' rights
and for the enforcement of federal power, as long as it served their needs.
Mike Marshall
>It was about BOTH states' rights AND slavery, all right?
It was more complex than most sound bytes, all right?
Mike Marshall
>Any US citizen could go to the Western territories. They just couldn't
>bring slaves with them
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-Mike
Stephen Graham
Yes, Mike, we understand you don't care for the answer. Doesn't change
the history, though.
Freezer
> It was more complex than most sound bytes, all right?
>
> http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/d.oldcartoons/history.gif
>
No. No it isn't. By every surviving document there is, the
reasoning is clear: We don't want to give up slavery and will fight
to keep it.
Jym Dyer
> states' rights and for the enforcement of federal power,
> as long as it served their needs.
=v= Precisely. Lest we forget, the war began in response to
the great state of Massachusetts exercising *its* states'
rights and resisting the federal Fugitive Slave Act by not
extraditing an escaped slave.
=v= For revisionists to come along and claim that the war was
about states' rights is the height of irony and hypocrisy.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
=v= Demonstrably false. Certainly the North was not free of
racism and racial discrimination, but there were black folks
living in every state. Including the escaped slave who made
it to the great state of Massachusetts, whom the South started
the war over (in protest of Massachusetts exercising its states'
rights).
<_Jym_>