Question for descendants of Yanks
Natty
What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
How do you really feel now?
Natty
Huddle...@comcast.net
from the Cabinet in late 1914 because England had gone to war with
Germany.
In 1917, he published his _Recollections_ (New York: The Macmillan
Company):
"Humanity fought one of its most glorious battles across the
Atlantic. An end had been brought to the only war in modern times as to
which we can be sure, first, that no skill or patience of diplomacy
could have averted it, and second, that preservation of the American
Union and abolition of negro slavery were two triumphs of good by which
even the inferno of war was justified." (p.20)
Take care,
Bob
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
huddle...@comcast.net
..the greatest and the noblest man of the last century was Abraham
Lincoln...Though America was his motherland and he was an American, he
regarded the whole world as his native land.
Mahatma Gandhi, August 26, 1905
S Witmer
Natty wrote:
> Was it worth it?
> What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
>
> Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
Yes.
>
> How do you really feel now?
Just fine, thanks. You?
ray o'hara
"Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1155681111....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
they were fighting to preserve the union and the constitution. freeing the
slaves was an upshot of that.
yes it was worth it , to them and to me.
if you don't feel the united states and the constitution was worth the
sacrifice then i doubt i can convince you otherwise.
now let me ask you. a question
the south was fighting to preserve slavery and class priviledge . hundreds
of thousands died, many lost all they owned.
was slavery worth that to you?
"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new
constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating
to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us --
the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the
immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution"
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the
negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the
superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great
physical, philosophical, and moral truth"
excerpts from the "cornerstone "speech given by alexander h stephens,
vice-president ,CSA. march 21st 1861
Reg Pitts
Natty wrote:
> Was it worth it?
> What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
yup
>
> Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
you betcha.
> How do you really feel now?
just peachy, thanx. And you?
Reg Pitts
Blank...@yahoo.com
Natty
Less than 5% of the Southerners had slaves. And the rich people had
slaves not the ones doing the fighting.
Many Northern states also had slaves.
Even William Penn of PA was a slave owner.
The secession of Southern states was for basically the same reason we
wanted to leave England earlier.
The South was fighting because their land was invaded by the northern
Army.
Maybe the Yanks were told they were fighting to free the slaves, but
gee why didnt they start in their own backyard?
rdu...@pdq.net
Maybe I am out of turn here because I am very much a descendant of
ex-confederate soldiers on both sides of mt familly of origen. I am old
enough to recall conversations about the war among the children of the
generation who fought it.
My impression, looking back, was that there was a tremendous need
to justify what had been a horrifically bad decision. Almost any
argument was useable no matter how obviously bogus. This would not be
interesting by itself except these people were otherwise fully modern
in their attitudes, successful in business, gotten college degrees, and
had travelled all over the world.
Looking the thing in the eye and admitting "Our family misread
history, and so we lost nearly everything fighting against the good
guys". is, apparently, not within the capabilties of human nature for
most people, even when well intentioned.
ray o'hara
that number is low. and if daddy owned slaves the rest of the family shared
in that ownership.
plenty of rich people turned out for the south. wade hampton. bedford
forrest, henry wise. the list goes on.
and that doesn't mean the poor were not vested in the slave culture.
by their own words the south seceded to protect slavery. the poor southerner
was led over the precipice by the rich. in the south you did as you were
told.
> Many Northern states also had slaves.
>
so, and your point is?
no state in the north seceeded. slavery was not the basis of any northern
state's econmy or social structure.
> Even William Penn of PA was a slave owner.
>
i think he was long dead by the time of the civil war.
> The secession of Southern states was for basically the same reason we
> wanted to leave England earlier.
>
really? the south wasn't represented in the government? that didn't vote in
national elections?
> The South was fighting because their land was invaded by the northern
> Army.
>
the south started the shooting. the north subscribed to the rule that the
best defence is a good offence.
and it was the united states army not the "northern" army. there were plenty
of soutern regiments serving in it too.
> Maybe the Yanks were told they were fighting to free the slaves, but
> gee why didnt they start in their own backyard?
>
the yanks were fighting to preserve the union. the south was fighting for
slavery.
like many southerners you make the mistake of taking southern motives and
working backwards.
the war started when and where the south chose. take it up with a soputh
carolinian as to why they chose then and there.
T.M. Sommers
> "Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1155681111....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Was it worth it?
>>What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
>>
>>Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
>>
>>How do you really feel now?
>
> they were fighting to preserve the union and the constitution. freeing the
> slaves was an upshot of that.
> yes it was worth it , to them and to me.
>
> if you don't feel the united states and the constitution was worth the
> sacrifice then i doubt i can convince you otherwise.
Try. Try explaining why killing 600,000 soldiers and maiming
hundreds of thousands of other soldiers (not to mention civilian
deaths and injuries) was a reasonable price to pay for forcing
the Southern states to stay in a country they didn't want to be a
part of anymore.
It's easy for you to say today that the price was worth it,
because you don't have to pay the price. But at the time, lots
of people thought it was not worth the price. Both sides had
difficulty recruiting after the initial rush, and both had to
resort to coercion (the draft) or bribery (bounties (the North
only, I think)) to fill the ranks.
> now let me ask you. a question
> the south was fighting to preserve slavery and class priviledge . hundreds
> of thousands died, many lost all they owned.
> was slavery worth that to you?
You didn't ask me, but I'll answer. The preservation of slavery
was not worth fighting for. It was not worth seceding for,
either, but they still had a right to secede if they wanted to.
Now let me ask you a question: How many of your family members
died in the war?
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
scott s.
news:1155699575....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Less than 5% of the Southerners had slaves. And the rich people had
> slaves not the ones doing the fighting.
>
the dirty work. What would be more interesting is a survey by
county showing slave ownership, enlistments, and disertion.
> Many Northern states also had slaves.
OK, but by 1861 it was down to Deleware, Maryland, DC, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Indian territory.
>
> The South was fighting because their land was invaded by the northern
> Army.
Why is it then that the areas most invaded such as Tenn were the
most union in sentiment, while the states least invaded -- Georgia
and South Carolina the least union in sentiment. One of the earliest
"invasions" was McClellan's army into western Virginia -- yet they
decided to rejoin the union. why is that? Yet, when the southern
army invaded Kentucky, it pushed it more towards the union?
>
> Maybe the Yanks were told they were fighting to free the slaves, but
> gee why didnt they start in their own backyard?
>
I think they were fighting against combinations too powerful to control
through the ordinary civil process, and who refused to return peaceably
to their abodes.
scott s.
rdu...@pdq.net
T.M. Sommers wrote:
> ray o'hara wrote:
> > "Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1155681111....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Was it worth it?
> >>What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
> >>
> >>Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
> >>
> >>How do you really feel now?
> >
> > they were fighting to preserve the union and the constitution. freeing the
> > slaves was an upshot of that.
> > yes it was worth it , to them and to me.
> >
> > if you don't feel the united states and the constitution was worth the
> > sacrifice then i doubt i can convince you otherwise.
>
> Try. Try explaining why killing 600,000 soldiers and maiming
> hundreds of thousands of other soldiers (not to mention civilian
> deaths and injuries) was a reasonable price to pay for forcing
> the Southern states to stay in a country they didn't want to be a
> part of anymore.
All law enforcement comes down to forcing some people to stop doing
something they would prefer to go on doing.
The dissident southerners could have emigrated. They could have
done almost anything except try to make off with US territory.
Gary Charbonneau
> > now let me ask you. a question
> > the south was fighting to preserve slavery and class priviledge . hundreds
> > of thousands died, many lost all they owned.
> > was slavery worth that to you?
>
> You didn't ask me, but I'll answer. The preservation of slavery
> was not worth fighting for. It was not worth seceding for,
> either, but they still had a right to secede if they wanted to.
They had no constitutional right to it. Your attempts to argue that
they did have been, let us say, rather unsuccessful.
Perhaps you mean to argue that they had a moral right to it, regardless
of what the Constitution said -- the way a slave had a moral right to
run away from bondage, regardless of what some state law might have
said, or even of what the Constitution might have said?
> Now let me ask you a question: How many of your family members
> died in the war?
I'm not sure why personal ancestry is relevant here, but I'm willing to
play along at least to the extent of putting another question on the
table: How many of your family members were held as slaves before the
war?
S Witmer
T.M. Sommers wrote:
> ray o'hara wrote:
> > "Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1155681111....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Was it worth it?
> >>What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
> >>
> >>Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
> >>
> >>How do you really feel now?
> >
> > they were fighting to preserve the union and the constitution. freeing the
> > slaves was an upshot of that.
> > yes it was worth it , to them and to me.
> >
> > if you don't feel the united states and the constitution was worth the
> > sacrifice then i doubt i can convince you otherwise.
>
> Try. Try explaining why killing 600,000 soldiers and maiming
> hundreds of thousands of other soldiers (not to mention civilian
> deaths and injuries) was a reasonable price to pay for forcing
> the Southern states to stay in a country they didn't want to be a
> part of anymore.
Because if a democracy can so easily be shattered by unilateral action
of the losers in the democratic process, you have no real democratic
process and the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.
>
> It's easy for you to say today that the price was worth it,
> because you don't have to pay the price.
My family paid its dues. My G-G-G-Grandfather left behind a wife and
seven children to die in battle on the banks of the Mississippi River.
A G-G-G Uncle served in the same unit and spent three years away from
home.
But at the time, lots
> of people thought it was not worth the price. Both sides had
> difficulty recruiting after the initial rush, and both had to
> resort to coercion (the draft) or bribery (bounties (the North
> only, I think)) to fill the ranks.
Although the draft was instituted in the north, it was rarely used.
Look at the number of men who re-upped after their enlistments were up,
even after they seen and experienced firsthand the horrors of places
like Fredericksburg, Shiloh and Antietam. The south on the other hand
simply extended enlistments to "for the war".
Gary Charbonneau
> Less than 5% of the Southerners had slaves. And the rich people had
> slaves not the ones doing the fighting.
How one calculates the percentage would depend on whether one counts
the slaves themselves as Southerners, would it not?
It's already been pointed out that your number is very misleading. The
percentage of white Southerners belonging to families with one or more
slaveholding members is much higher. Specifically, for 1860:
Lower South: 37%
Upper South: 24%
Border States: 16%
Percentages of white Southern families whose members owned five or
more slaves:
Lower South: 21%
Upper South: 12%
Border States: 7%
I suspect that the families whose members held slaves had a greater
percentage of sons enlisting voluntarily for service in the Confederate
army than those who did not, though technically you might be correct --
if most of the slaves were owned by heads of households (not unlikely),
and the heads of households were past military age (again, not
unlikely), a good many of those who owned slaves in their own name may
have escaped the fighting.
Natty
"The South started the shooting"
The South had already seceded, and the North unlawfully stayed at Fort
Sumter when it should have been abandoned by law.
S Witmer
ray o'hara
> "The South started the shooting"
>
> The South had already seceded, and the North unlawfully stayed at Fort
> Sumter when it should have been abandoned by law.
>
secession is illegal. there was no valid law that required the united states
to surrender its property or territory.
the south revolted.
Natty
So the US should still be the 'property of England' based on your
argument.
j...@ams.org
Yes, it was worth it.
It was much more than freeing the slaves. That was a moral
issue of importance, but establishing that an elective government
could impose its will on a violently rebellious political movement
was almost as important.
JFE
Dave Smith
Only if England had won the war.
Dave
rdu...@pdq.net
We should keep in mind always the difference between actions that
seem morally justified and actions that conform to established law.
The authors and signers of the Delaration of Independence wanted to
make their actions seem as moral and justified as possible. However,
the target of such words was not the British government or the legal
establishment of any country. They knew that were engaged in a war of
rebellion, that no nation ever just let rebels take what they wanted,
and that a big fight was ahead of them.
Contrast that with the arguments thrown around to support the
"legality" of southern secession. They are basically hollow because
nations are never "legally" required to allow their territory to be
sliced off. Arguments making appeal to moral rights are a different
matter. The supporters of the US Constitution often stated that "the
people" retained a moral right to undo it if it led to tyranny - but by
convention if possible or rebellion if necessary. Factions trying to
walk off with territory while the system was otherwise functioning and
legitimate is something entirely, un-bearably different.
Dave Smith
Natty wrote:
> ray o'hara wrote:
snips
>
> "The South started the shooting"
>
> The South had already seceded, and the North unlawfully stayed at Fort
> Sumter when it should have been abandoned by law.
By whose law? Certainly not that of the United States.
Dave
ray o'hara
<j...@ams.org> wrote in message
news:1155915838.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
actually i'd say more important.
ray o'hara
the fiounding fathers knew they were committing treason and they won thier
war.
you act like the siouth just making treasonous declarations was sufficient
to gain victory.
just because one justifiable revoulution succeeded doesn't mean an
unjustifiable one should be allowed to go uncontested.
Gary Charbonneau
>
> "The South started the shooting"
>
> The South had already seceded, and the North unlawfully stayed at Fort
> Sumter when it should have been abandoned by law.
As Dave Smith says: "By whose law? Certainly not that of the United
States." The Constitution did not say that United States forts had to
be abandoned as a result of a state's secession. No federal statute
said that United States forts had to be abandoned as a result of a
state's secession.
The sites of federal forts were ceded by states pursuant to Article II,
Section 8 of the Constitution, which give Congress the power "To
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." South Carolina had
ceded the site of Fort Sumter to the United States for the purpose of
erecting a fort, and from that moment had no more legal authority over
that site than the state of Maryland has over the District of Columbia.
The legislation under which South Carolina had made this cession did
not state that the cession would be reversed if South Carolina seceded
(and had such a condition have been placed on the cession, Congress
would certainly have refused it on the grounds of the
unconstitutionality of unilateral secession).. By an act of the South
Carolina legislature, Dec. 31st, 1836, ""Resolved, That this state do
cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South
Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of
adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal
issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall
and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there
being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and
structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay
any tax to this state." By that act, South Carolina voluntarily
relinquished "all right, title and claim ... to the site of Fort
Sumter" unless and until Congress ceded the site back to South
Carolina, without any reservation providing for the reversion of the
site to South Carolina should the state secede. That Fort Sumter was
not only the property of but, with the very limited exception specified
in the act of cession, the sovereign territory of the United States was
a matter not only of U.S.law, but Souith Carolina law as well.
Having boldly proclaimed that Fort Sumter "should have been abandoned
by law," it's now up to you to answer Dave's question, "By whose law?
scribe7716
Natty wrote:
> > secession is illegal. there was no valid law that required the united states
> > to surrender its property or territory.
> >
> > the south revolted.
>
> So the US should still be the 'property of England' based on your
> argument.
Difference, of course, is that the colonies won while the rebelling
slave states lost. Big difference that.
Natty
I guess you forgot about the same exact situation that this country was
born of...
Remember the US rebellion against England...
rdu...@pdq.net
Do you blame the Brits for resisting the revolution? How did G.
Washington deal with the rebellions he was occasionally confronted with?
=================================================================
== Moderator's comment: Let's get back on topic, please.
ray o'hara
>
>
> I guess you forgot about the same exact situation that this country was
> born of...
>
> Remember the US rebellion against England...
no it is you and the other lost causer who forget.
the founding fathers never claimed they were acting legally or were not in
rebellion they were upfront that they were..
modern lost causers point to the revoultion as justification but then refuse
to admit they were commiting treason.
so if you claim the south was only doing what the founding fathers did then
you are admitting the south was commiting treason.
Rich Rostrom
>Was it worth it?
>What the Yanks said they were fighting for... freeing the slaves.
Well, actually, what the Yankees said
they were fighting for was to preserve
the Union.
>Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
_They_ thought so. All but about 5% of the
Union army were volunteers.
"We are springing to the call of our brothers gone before,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom,
And we'll fill the vacant ranks with a million Free men more,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom."
"We are coming, father Abr'am, six hundred thousand more,
>From Mississippi's winding stream and from New England's shore;
We leave our ploughs and workshops, our wives and children dear,
With hearts too full for utterance, with but a silent tear.
We dare not look behind us, but steadfastly before.---
We are coming, father Abr'am, six hundred thousand more!"
Major Sullivan Ballou thought so.
So did Colonel James A Mulligan, and Colonel Robert
Gould Shaw, and General Joshua Chamberlain, and Colonel
John T. Wilder - just to name a few of the professional
men, scholars, and businessmen who put their lives on
the line for the Union.
>How do you really feel now?
If I had been alive then I would have volunteered
like a shot.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
S Witmer
What the colonies did in the Revolution was just that, a revolution -
an attempt to overthrow the existing power structure in opposition to
existing laws. In other words, it was treason and rebellion against
the British Crown. Had they lost, it's quite possible that many of the
leaders of the revolution would have been hanged or at the very least
lived out their lives in irons.
The colonists had no illusions about this - as Ben Franklin said, "We
must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hand separately."
There is no provision in British law that allows British colonists to
shoot British soldiers or sink British ships.
The difference being that the southerners in 1860 claimed that what
they were doing was legal, when in fact it was not and was just as much
a rebellion as the revolution - just in a much worse cause, and in the
end unsuccessful.
j...@ams.org
Natty wrote:76 a
> I guess you forgot about the same exact situation that this country was
> born of...
>
> Remember the US rebellion against England...
I don't think I forgot anything, and I see few similarities between
what
happened in 1776 and 1861.
JFE
Robert Kolker
Quite true. In 1776 the rebelling part went on to win its independence.
In 1861 the rebelling party was brough to wreck and ruin and did not
succeed. Might is Right.
Bob Kolker
Alfred Montestruc
> > > Was it worth it?
> > > What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Untrue. Slave owners fought and were killed in that war in numbers
greatly disproportionate to their fraction of the population. One
fellow did a study based on letters home of soldiers and of those who
were slave owners a far larger fraction were KIA.
> Many Northern states also had slaves.
Depends on when you are talking about and what you mean by "northern".
>
> Even William Penn of PA was a slave owner.
>
> The secession of Southern states was for basically the same reason we
> wanted to leave England earlier.
>
> The South was fighting because their land was invaded by the northern
> Army.
>
scribe7716
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Quite true. In 1776 the rebelling part went on to win its independence.
> In 1861 the rebelling party was brough to wreck and ruin and did not
> succeed. Might is Right.
Actually in the instance of the WotR Lincoln was more on target when he
said during his Cooper Union speech, "Let us have faith that right
makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty
as we understand it."
S Witmer
Natty wrote:
> Was it worth it?
> What the Yanks said they were fighting for...freeing the slaves.
>
> Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of Yankee casualties?
>
> How do you really feel now?
Why not consider how they felt?
Sgt. Hiram Calvin Cook, Company D, Second Iowa Infantry:
"My sympathies are not with the shedding of blood. Though I hate the
idea of secession with a perfect hatred, yet I believe I would far
sooner pardon than slay a rebel. The medicine we are giving is very
powerful; but you must remember, and so must all who sympathize with
those who mourn, that the patient is a member of our family and is very
sick. It is our duty to do the best we can to get rid of the disease.
The greatest physicians in the country have prescribed powder and ball
as a sure cure, and we are bound to use powder and balls till there is
a cure effected."
Pvt. James H. Ewing, Company E, Third Iowa Infantry:
"I hope that you have become reconciled long ere this with the
sacrifice you have been forced to make, in yielding up to your
country's service the companion of your bosom. The act was noble in
him who has gone to battle for the right. It is yours to be left
alone and solitary: but it is his to feel and realize that interest
which he has in the great nation now apparently sinking before us.
Yes, that interest is stronger than the tie that binds husband to wife
and children, children to parents, and brothers to tender, loving
sisters; because if our country is lost, our hope of liberty is gone;
and my prayer is, *If all is lost, that my blood may water the last
expiring roots of our great national tree.* I ask not to outlive it,
the roots whereof our forefathers planted in their blood..."
Sgt. Edwin Wesley Barnum, Company E, Fourth Iowa Infantry:
"Captain Wood's cavalry have been out on a scout near Springfield, and
captured sixteen secesh right from Price's army. Two of these men were
New Yorkers, brought up in an enlightened community, now way down here
in Missouri taking part against their country. They are keen shrewd
fellows, and never went in blind, but had some motive; probably thought
that they could make more money that way than any other. I have not
much sympathy for such. In fact, I feel more as though such men should
be shot rather than those who have been brought up to to feel that we
are continually working against their interests. Many a one has gone
into the Southern army without knowing what he was going to fight for
-- many even believing that they were fighting for the Constitution,
thinking *we* had broken it, and that *they* were fighting to make *us*
live up to it."
Major Robert Lusby, Tenth Iowa Infantry:
[writing March 31, 1861, before the war began] "My opinion is that we
are on the eve of a civil war. I can see no help for it, except for a
complete abandonment of our principles, and I cannot believe that Mr.
Lincoln can prove a traitor to his friends so far as to give up
everything..."
[writing April 20, 1861] "...I am perfectly satisified with the course
Mr. Lincoln is taking, and if he will only continue in a vigorous and
determined course, I care not what the result may be; I am prepared for
any emergency to maintain the Constitution and laws."
[writing May 31, 181, after enlisting] "In the same mail with yours I
received letters from my friends in camp at Keokuk, and also from my
friends in the South. One from my sister informed me that one of my
brothers was in the Southern army, at Richmond. Don't this beat the
world! Poor Lem, I fear he will pay dearly for his folly! He was very
violent on the subject when a boy at home. My other brothers, like
myself, from our cradles despised the injustice of the 'institution',
though we were never Abolitionists."
Joan Logan Brooks
northwestern Pennsylvania, and, being in their twenties, were prime age for
soldiers. However, they never fought in the Civil War (on either side).
The family could not have afforded the fee to hire a substitute for one, let
alone for two. The family was Methodist. I guess the boys hid out in the
woods when the recruiters came around.
On the Southern side, I had at least 15 lineal and collateral ancestors
(from Virginia and North Carolina) who fought. My great-great-grandfather
in a letter home clearly states that he is fighting for independence from
the North. (Only one of those 15 ancestors owned slaves, and he was
bankrupted by the War.)
If a Northern man did not support the War, it is hard to understand now what
his rationale was. I have frequently wondered about my great-grandfather's
motive for sitting out the War.
HillCity
Mike Stone
"Joan Logan Brooks" <anv...@ntelos.net> wrote in
message
news:972e2$44f1e8ba$cef8d59e$20...@NAXS.COM...
>
> If a Northern man did not support the War, it is
hard to understand now what
> his rationale was. I have frequently wondered
about my great-grandfather's
> motive for sitting out the War.
>
Perhaps he didn't feel he had anything personally
at stake - that the creation of an international
border on the Potomac or the Mason-Dixon line
would not harm him any more than the already
existing one at Niagara Falls.
That was a minority view at the time, but a
perfectly defensible one. Iirc only about half the
northern men eligible for military service
actually _did_ serve. The proportion in the south
was a lot lower, but this reflected lack of
opportunity to avoid serving (the CS brought in
conscription well before the US) rather than
greater enthusiasm for the war. Even in the "years
of madness" there were still some sane men
around - but as usual in such circs, they weren't
very popular.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"It is so stupid of modern civilisation to have
given up believing in the devil, when he is its
only explanation"
Ronald Knox
rdu...@pdq.net
The analogy is imperfect, but consider the fact that the current
war in Iraq is (or was) widely supported among the population but most
have not even considerd joining up to actually fight it.
In the ACW, much less training, etc, was required but the issue
was still the same.
>
> HillCity
Natty
Well I'm glad you yankee supporters are so proud of your
accomplishment of freeing the slaves. Since that what you say the war
was about.
Lets here about some of the great contributions to mankind by freed
slaves.....
Alfred Montestruc
Here is a good start.
http://www.gale.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/carver_g.htm
Here is another, though these slaves were not freed before they made
contributions.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1076.htm
FYI the screw propeller invented by the slave Benjamin Montgomery is a
very major invention. Screw propellers were on nearly all steam ships
built a generation after the invention in 1858, and nearly all ships
built today use screw propellers.
S Witmer
George Washington Carver, born in 1864 and whose father may have been a
slave (George and his mother were kidnapped into slavery shortly after
he was born).
>From http://www.lib.iastate.edu/spcl/gwc/bio.html
"Carver's interests in music and art remained strong, but it was his
excellence in botany and horticulture that prompted professors Joseph
Budd and Louis Pammel to encourage him to stay on as a graduate student
after he completed his bachelor's degree in 1894. Because of his
proficiency in plant breeding, Carver was appointed to the faculty,
becoming Iowa State's first African American faculty member.
Over the next two years, as assistant botanist for the College
Experiment Station, Carver quickly developed scientific skills in plant
pathology and mycology, the branch of botany that deals with fungi. He
published several articles on his work and gained national respect. In
1896, he completed his master's degree and was invited by Booker T.
Washington to join the faculty of Alabama's Tuskegee Institute.
At Tuskegee, he gained an international reputation in research,
teaching and outreach. Carver taught his students that nature is the
greatest teacher and that by understanding the forces in nature, one
can understand the dynamics of agriculture. He instilled in them the
attitude of gentleness and taught that education should be "made
common" --used for betterment of the people in the community.
Carver's work resulted in the creation of 325 products from peanuts,
more than 100 products from sweet potatoes and hundreds more from a
dozen other plants native to the South. These products contributed to
rural economic improvement by offering alternative crops to cotton that
were beneficial for the farmers and for the land. During this time,
Carver also carried the Iowa State extension concept to the South and
created "movable schools," bringing practical agricultural knowledge to
farmers, thereby promoting health, sound nutrition and
self-sufficiency. Dennis Keeney, director of the Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, writes in the Leopold
Letter newsletter about Carver's contributions:
Carver worked on improving soils, growing crops with low inputs, and
using species that fixed nitrogen (hence, the work on the cowpea and
the peanut). Carver wrote in The Need of Scientific Agriculture in
the South: "The virgin fertility of our soils and the vast amount of
unskilled labor have been more of a curse than a blessing to
agriculture. This exhaustive system for cultivation, the destruction
of forest, the rapid and almost constant decomposition of organic
matter, have made our agricultural problem one requiring more brains
than of the North, East or West."
Carver died in 1943. He received many honors in his lifetime and after,
including a 1938 feature film, Life of George Washington Carver; the
George Washington Carver Museum, dedicated at Tuskegee Institute in
1941; the Roosevelt Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Southern
Agriculture in 1942; a national monument in Diamond Grove, Mo.;
commemorative postage stamps in 1947 and 1998; and a fifty-cent coin in
1951. He was elected to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans in 1977
and inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1990. In 1994,
Iowa State awarded him the degree, Doctor of Humane Letters. "
Does that fit the bill for you, Natty?
Alfred Montestruc
My bad, Mr. Montgomery invented a type of propeller for use in shallow
water, not the basic idea of a screw propeller which was invented some
years before by John Ericksson.
Nevertheless a significant accomplishment.
Alfred Montestruc
S Witmer wrote:
------------snip
>
> George Washington Carver, born in 1864 and whose father may have been a
> slave (George and his mother were kidnapped into slavery shortly after
> he was born).
No, Carver was born a slave and his mother was a slave as well. She
and he were stolen -- to use the most correct form given their status
as property-- from their master's plantation near the end of the civil
war by slave raiders. I suspect that this was in part induced by the
disorders associated with the collapse of the CSA late in the war.
http://www.gale.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/carver_g.htm
>
> >From http://www.lib.iastate.edu/spcl/gwc/bio.html
Your own source does not state Carver to have been born free, or that
his mother was free and then enslaved, and does state they were
kidnapped by slave raiders.
Note that his master ransomed him back at the price of a race horse(my
source), then raised and educated him to the point of Carver being
literate (according to your source), which is far beyond what most
slaves or ex-slaves could expect.
-----------snip
S Witmer
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> S Witmer wrote:
> ------------snip
> >
> > George Washington Carver, born in 1864 and whose father may have been a
> > slave (George and his mother were kidnapped into slavery shortly after
> > he was born).
>
> No, Carver was born a slave and his mother was a slave as well. She
> and he were stolen -- to use the most correct form given their status
> as property-- from their master's plantation near the end of the civil
> war by slave raiders. I suspect that this was in part induced by the
> disorders associated with the collapse of the CSA late in the war.
>
> http://www.gale.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/carver_g.htm
>
I won't disagree. The sources I'd read weren't very clear on the
details of his earliest life, apart for the kidnapping/theft.
> >
> > >From http://www.lib.iastate.edu/spcl/gwc/bio.html
>
> Your own source does not state Carver to have been born free, or that
> his mother was free and then enslaved, and does state they were
> kidnapped by slave raiders.
>
> Note that his master ransomed him back at the price of a race horse(my
> source), then raised and educated him to the point of Carver being
> literate (according to your source), which is far beyond what most
> slaves or ex-slaves could expect.
Most certainly.
I've got another one for Natty - Dr. Charles R. Drew made advancements
in the storage of blood plasma and developed the concepts of the blood
bank and bloodmobile. Of course, Dr. Drew wasn't born a slave (born in
1904), but I presume Natty's question extends to their descendents as
well.
Huddle...@comcast.net
been no contributions.
I would add Henry Flipper, Frederick Douglass and Robert Smalls as
three who, born slaves, made major contributions after they were free
-- note I did not say "freed" -- the latter two freed themselves.
Bob
S Witmer wrote:
SNIP
Alfred Montestruc
Huddle...@comcast.net wrote:
> And there is the key: had they bene or remained slaves, there wold have
> been no contributions.
That does not follow as some of the some of the references I posted
point out.
As in that several slave owners wanted to patent inventions by slaves
and were honest enough to not try and claim credit for the invention
themselves. I hold a US patent, and have been through the process more
than once, people claiming credit for things others invented is common,
as are arguements over who is the inventor even when money is not at
issue. In the case I recall, the person doing the arguing would have
owned the patent as the employer of the inventor who had signed a
release to that effect, he was just not the inventor, but that was not
good enough and he lost perhaps millions fighting to have his name on
the patent as inventor.
Anyway--
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1076.htm
The US Patent office refused to issue a patent to an invention of a
slave as he (Ned) was a non-citizen, which does not jib with modern
law, as you do not have to be a US citizen now to get a US Patent.
Nevertheless, this happened more than once, in one case to the slave of
Jefferson Davis's brother (That slave was named Benjamin Montgomery)
who invented a type of screw propellor for use in shallow water. He
and many other slaves made significant intellectual contribuitions as
slaves, but the US Patent office refused to issue a patent to the
invention of a slave.
You might make an argument that slavery reduces the amount of
intellectual contribution by slaves, and even slave societies, but it
does not go to zero, and I think given the rapid production of ideas by
the Greeks and Romans in classic times that were slave societies, you
may have your work cut out for you.
I seem to recall that several literary gems from the classical world
were by slaves, Aesop's fables IIRC.
----snip
S Witmer
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> Huddle...@comcast.net wrote:
> > And there is the key: had they bene or remained slaves, there wold have
> > been no contributions.
>
>
> That does not follow as some of the some of the references I posted
> point out.
But I think you would agree the contributions would have been greatly
limited and reduced in number.
The Greeks and Romans did not sharply limit learning by slaves, and in
fact educated slaves were highly prized for their skills as physicians,
playwrights, and teachers.
>
> I seem to recall that several literary gems from the classical world
> were by slaves, Aesop's fables IIRC.
>
> ----snip
See above regarding educated slaves in the classical world. Comparing
Greco-Roman slavery to slavery in the American south in the 19th
century is comparing apples and oranges.
Alfred Montestruc
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > Huddle...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > And there is the key: had they bene or remained slaves, there wold have
> > > been no contributions.
> >
> >
> > That does not follow as some of the some of the references I posted
> > point out.
>
> But I think you would agree the contributions would have been greatly
> limited and reduced in number.
Sure, as does the modern legal practice regarding patents that tends to
give employers way too much power to refuse to employ anyone who does
not sign away 100% of his patent rights. Which makes it very difficult
for an engineer and other professionals to get work unless he signs
away 100% of his patent rights in exchange for a salery that the
employer can take away at whim by firing him, and which restricts what
work the engineer can do in his field after employment.
I expect however that the slave system was worse about it.
IIRC they did restrict education to the vast majority of slaves, mass
literacy was a long way off due to the lack of the printing press and
cheap paper, so the effect was not as large.
>and in
> fact educated slaves were highly prized for their skills as physicians,
> playwrights, and teachers.
Educated slaves in a number of fields were also prized in the south, as
in the classical world the education was restricted to small numbers of
slaves, and you are probably aware of laws past to not allow slaves to
be taught to read in some states, which some slave owners too exception
to ("who the hell do they think they are telling me what I can and
cannot do with my property" kind of thing).
As in classical times education for slaves tended to come later in life
and was given to slaves who had proven loyalty and intelligence in the
service of their master.
> > I seem to recall that several literary gems from the classical world
> > were by slaves, Aesop's fables IIRC.
> >
> > ----snip
>
> See above regarding educated slaves in the classical world. Comparing
> Greco-Roman slavery to slavery in the American south in the 19th
> century is comparing apples and oranges.
I strongly disagree.
scribe7716
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > > > And there is the key: had they bene or remained slaves, there wold have
> > > > been no contributions.
> > >
> > >
> > > That does not follow as some of the some of the references I posted
> > > point out.
> >
> > But I think you would agree the contributions would have been greatly
> > limited and reduced in number.
>
>
> Sure, as does the modern legal practice regarding patents that tends to
> give employers way too much power to refuse to employ anyone who does
> not sign away 100% of his patent rights. Which makes it very difficult
> for an engineer and other professionals to get work unless he signs
> away 100% of his patent rights in exchange for a salery that the
> employer can take away at whim by firing him, and which restricts what
> work the engineer can do in his field after employment.
>
> I expect however that the slave system was worse about it.
Since the vast majority of antebellum south slaves had no opportunity
to become engineers or other professionals, since the vast majority of
those slaves had no opportunity for even minimal education or training
the lost potential cannot even be guessed at, the slave south's slave
system was far worse about it.
S Witmer
A number of educated slaves in the Greco-Roman world were not born into
slavery. They were captured as prisoners of warfare or were enslaved
for infractions of law. Freedmen also had much greater social mobility
and could achieve citizenship and positions of relatively high status
and power - in stark contrast to American slavery which was race based
and where freedmen could not achieve citizenship at all.
>
>
> > > I seem to recall that several literary gems from the classical world
> > > were by slaves, Aesop's fables IIRC.
> > >
> > > ----snip
> >
> > See above regarding educated slaves in the classical world. Comparing
> > Greco-Roman slavery to slavery in the American south in the 19th
> > century is comparing apples and oranges.
>
> I strongly disagree.
You're free to hold your opinion, but I think the evidence to the
contrary is strong. A Roman slave was property just as a slave in the
south in 1850, but the Roman slave could, for example, testify in court.
Alfred Montestruc
scribe7716 wrote:
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
>
> > > > > And there is the key: had they bene or remained slaves, there wold have
> > > > > been no contributions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That does not follow as some of the some of the references I posted
> > > > point out.
> > >
> > > But I think you would agree the contributions would have been greatly
> > > limited and reduced in number.
> >
> >
> > Sure, as does the modern legal practice regarding patents that tends to
> > give employers way too much power to refuse to employ anyone who does
> > not sign away 100% of his patent rights. Which makes it very difficult
> > for an engineer and other professionals to get work unless he signs
> > away 100% of his patent rights in exchange for a salery that the
> > employer can take away at whim by firing him, and which restricts what
> > work the engineer can do in his field after employment.
> >
> > I expect however that the slave system was worse about it.
>
> Since the vast majority of antebellum south slaves had no opportunity
> to become engineers or other professionals,
That is true of everyone. If you do not have the ability to do the
math, and have the numerous other talents needed, you have no chance of
being any good given the competition.
> since the vast majority of
> those slaves had no opportunity for even minimal education or training
> the lost potential cannot even be guessed at,
I wouldn't say that. Of course we can guess at it, not with any degree
of confidence though.
>, the slave south's slave
> system was far worse about it.
Probably, but we can do nothing about that one now.
scribe7716
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > Since the vast majority of antebellum south slaves had no opportunity
> > to become engineers or other professionals,
>
> That is true of everyone. If you do not have the ability to do the
> math, and have the numerous other talents needed, you have no chance of
> being any good given the competition.
But a slave who had the inherent ability to learn the math, et al was
denied the opportunity to develop that ability, was denied the
opportunity to even enter the competition.
> > since the vast majority of
> > those slaves had no opportunity for even minimal education or training
> > the lost potential cannot even be guessed at,
>
> I wouldn't say that. Of course we can guess at it, not with any degree
> of confidence though.
How do we guess how many potential engineers, architects, writers,
poets, artists spent their lives chopping cotton?
> >, the slave south's slave
> > system was far worse about it.
>
>
> Probably, but we can do nothing about that one now.
We can cease and desist from denying it.
Alfred Montestruc
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
>
> > > Since the vast majority of antebellum south slaves had no opportunity
> > > to become engineers or other professionals,
> >
> > That is true of everyone. If you do not have the ability to do the
> > math, and have the numerous other talents needed, you have no chance of
> > being any good given the competition.
>
> But a slave who had the inherent ability to learn the math, et al was
> denied the opportunity to develop that ability, was denied the
> opportunity to even enter the competition.
Not necessaraly. As I have shown in other posts some slaves made at
least in theory patentable inventions. Now in a probabalistic sense,
that will be true that less people would get to work in such fields in
that situation. However a strong desire to work at a given field along
with significant talent at it tends to shine through great
difficulties.
I am a high school dropout, that turned around and got a GED diploma
then later got both BS & MS in engineering, and have worked in that
field for close to 20 years now. While people I knew who got degrees
around the time I did and had better GPAs gave up. The late 1980's in
the US gulf coast was a bad time for engineering grads. The oil
industry was in a bad slump and the Reagan military buldup was winding
down. Yet here I am still plugging away at it. Not taking no for an
answer has a lot to be said for it.
Yes my stubborn streak extends to other areas, also to not giving up on
getting the client/employer what he wants.
> > > since the vast majority of
> > > those slaves had no opportunity for even minimal education or training
> > > the lost potential cannot even be guessed at,
> >
> > I wouldn't say that. Of course we can guess at it, not with any degree
> > of confidence though.
>
> How do we guess how many potential engineers, architects, writers,
> poets, artists spent their lives chopping cotton?
Well 100% in one sense as all people who can think at all and can speak
some language can do engineering, architecture, storytelling (if
literate they can write), make up poems, and art of some sort. Now
having any talent at a given field is another matter.
Sure some good talented people spent a lifetime doing work that was
much less than they were capable of, and it is a tragedy, as it was for
forced laborers in the USSR or Nazi Germany, or even serfs in Europe.
>
> > >, the slave south's slave
> > > system was far worse about it.
> >
> >
> > Probably, but we can do nothing about that one now.
>
> We can cease and desist from denying it.
I never have denied it was evil or bad. I have refused to agree it was
the worst situation ever, or even close as I can point at many far
worse, and I cannot agree that the optimum solution was a bloodbath.
Shooting it out usually means at least one side screwed the pooch, more
often both.
ray o'hara
"Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157700420.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I never have denied it was evil or bad. I have refused to agree it was
> the worst situation ever, or even close as I can point at many far
> worse, and I cannot agree that the optimum solution was a bloodbath.
> Shooting it out usually means at least one side screwed the pooch, more
> often both.
>
you admit it was evil, you admit a war was wrong, yet all your posts are in
defense of those who propagated the evil and who chose bloodbath as the
solution. can you not see the irony and inconsistancy in your position?
Alfred Montestruc
ray o'hara wrote:
> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157700420.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I never have denied it was evil or bad. I have refused to agree it was
> > the worst situation ever, or even close as I can point at many far
> > worse, and I cannot agree that the optimum solution was a bloodbath.
> > Shooting it out usually means at least one side screwed the pooch, more
> > often both.
> >
>
>
>
> you admit it was evil, you admit a war was wrong, yet all your posts are in
> defense of those who propagated the evil
I think not. Propagation has a specific meaning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propagate&x=51&y=25
"To cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread:
missionaries who propagate the faith. "
Slavery had existed in the south since the 1640s IIRC, proagation of
new slaves from Africa was stopped by the laws the south agreed to.
Slavery was simply continuing, and the north was not trying to stop the
propagation of slavery to new people, it was trying to stop the spread
of the land area that slavery was legal on. That is not the same thing
as trying to stop the propagation of slavery, and they were not (before
the war) trying to end slavery.
As to the war, my position is that the US government deliberatly
provoked the war. I agree that firing on Fort Sumter was stupid, but
leaving troops sitting in that fort without being willing to meet
deligations from South Carolina or the CSA is a deliberate provacation.
Lincoln was trying deliberatly to get them to shoot at that fort, and
they --stupidly -- fell for it.
>and who chose bloodbath as the
> solution.
Nobody died at fort Sumter. Hostilities could have ended whenever the
US Government withdrew from southern soil. The choice of bloodshed was
that, most specifically, of Lincoln
Secession was VERY popular in the south by that time. Anyone who was
in state government, or was a federal officer in the south (like a US
Marshal), at that time who tried to stop it would have at best gotten
treated like Sam Houston (Governor of Texas at the time who resisted,
and was removed from office and placed under house arrest), and
possibly tarred and feathered literally, or worse. No one in the south
could back down from secession. What Lincoln was trying to force (them
to stay in the union without a fight) was simply not possible.
> can you not see the irony and inconsistancy in your position?
I can see the irony and inconsistancy of yours.
Boycotts of southern cotton and other slave produced crops would have
worked and if the southerners ended slavery themselves, and had no
bitterness over the lost war, the backlash on blacks would have been
almost non-existant set next to what happend in our history.
rdu...@pdq.net
One could make the argument that the young American state was lucky
in the manner in which an interlinked set of fundamental problems were
resolved by the "bloodbath" of the ACW. First, slavery as a legal
institution did not just slowly fade away but was definitively
destroyed and repudiated. Second, the point was made, for everyone to
see, that secession would not be tolerated.
Both of these quite serious challenges to American experiment got,
what we might call today, closure.
Look at the rest of the world and one sees a host of messed up
places laboring with chronic instability because of in-adequate
national unity because of unsettled issues. Northern Ireland, the
Balkans, the whole Middle East, etc, etc.
Forgive my steel heart, but the slavery problem and the issue of
regional secession (not to mention the Indian thing) got rock-solid
solved in this country before the year 1900.
Alfred Montestruc
And some were. So what?
> Freedmen also had much greater social mobility
> and could achieve citizenship
IIRC in some of the republics, not all. I think (but am not sure) that
this was not legal in the Roman Republic, though I am aware that later
freedmen could become Roman citizens, that was in the Imperial period
which was much later and where Roman citizenship was less valuable, and
the law was what Ceaser said it was, and it was not legislated by
elected representatives.
> and positions of relatively high status
> and power
Which has almost no bearing on about 99.9% of slaves or freedmen. What
is your point? I believe that slavery would have ended eventually
anyway, but that as in our history, the vast majority of former slaves
stayed working in the industry they had been working in and for little
difference in compenstation for a generation or more. Actually the
compensation in terms of food clothing and medical care was worse just
after the war than before as the south was much poorer, and slave
owners as a rule fed their slaves well as a malnurished slave is less
valuable and cannot work as hard.
I am not going to worry about the most competent 0.1% of slaves that
could take care of themselves, and were those most likely to
sucessfully escape.
>- in stark contrast to American slavery which was race based
> and where freedmen could not achieve citizenship at all.
That is not true. Some black freedmen were citizens, not of southern
states AFAIK, but they were free to move to other states were they
could become citizens.
> > > > I seem to recall that several literary gems from the classical world
> > > > were by slaves, Aesop's fables IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > ----snip
> > >
> > > See above regarding educated slaves in the classical world. Comparing
> > > Greco-Roman slavery to slavery in the American south in the 19th
> > > century is comparing apples and oranges.
> >
> > I strongly disagree.
>
> You're free to hold your opinion, but I think the evidence to the
> contrary is strong. A Roman slave was property just as a slave in the
> south in 1850, but the Roman slave could, for example, testify in court.
So could a slave in Texas and most southern states. His or her
testemony could not be used against a white person though it could be
used for or against a black or indian. I think that only applied to
criminal law and the slave testimoney was fully admissble in civil
cases.
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=28858950651974
-----------quote
Morris finds that by the mid-nineteenth century, rules of evidence
pertaining to slaves had evolved from a policy of absolute exclusion in
all criminal cases to one favoring selective admissibility of slave
testimony (though never against whites). Likewise, by the time of the
Civil War some southern states occasionally afforded slave defendants
such legal securities as jury trials and the right of appeal.
---------------end quote
ray o'hara
the south started a war before any boycotts were contemplated.
and proagating slavery was the souths cause. the norths was preserving the
union. the north was not threating to end slavery or even trying except for
some abolitionists who were a fringe. the north would have let slavery go on
until it died on itys own. it was the destruction of the union they would
not allow.
and blacks would have been mistreated by the south no matter how slavery
ended because the motive would still have been the same, to keep them "in
their place" that was the reason for the KKK not the war.
slavery ws ended the way it was,well after the war started, as a war
measure. it was obvious that it was slavery that was motivating the south to
try to destroy the union, by ending slavery that threat was removed.
slavery was the south's motive, union was the north's.
secession was unconstituional. if the constitution is not upheld in the face
of every threat it becomes a useless piece of paper.
Alfred Montestruc
Well we differ on who started the war but, if we amend that above you
said to "The war started , , ,
> before any boycotts were contemplated.
I would say :EXACTLY MY FLIPPING POINT!!
They did not try any peaceful means but poured money into the pockets
of murderers like John Brown, and wrote long diatribes sugguesting that
slaves murder their masters rather than try and find a peaceful way
out.
-----------snip
ray o'hara
yeah the firing on ft sumter is so ambiguous., it was the north's fault for
being a target.
> > before any boycotts were contemplated.
>
> I would say :EXACTLY MY FLIPPING POINT!!
>
because the north was not trying to end slavery. the north fought for union,
not to end slavery. so why should they have boycotted that which they
{reluctantly} accepted?
the north had no plans to outlaw slavery in the south.
can you point to any law proposed to that effect?
> They did not try any peaceful means but poured money into the pockets
> of murderers like John Brown, and wrote long diatribes sugguesting that
> slaves murder their masters rather than try and find a peaceful way
> out.
"they" do you mean the government? the majority of the people?
when brown was captured and hanged can you point to any demonstrations in
the north?
and did the south make any attempts to ake the secession case in congress:?
did they ever even argue the point?
no, they just acted unilaterally in violation of the constitution.
they pecipitatated the crisis, the preciptitated the war, it is amazing you
can blame the north. when the south took no actions beyond declarations to
justify their actions.
scribe7716
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> They did not try any peaceful means but poured money into the pockets
> of murderers like John Brown, and wrote long diatribes sugguesting that
> slaves murder their masters rather than try and find a peaceful way
> out.
"They" did? And just who were they? Certainly not Lincoln or any
member of the Lincoln administration. Certainly not other Republican
party leaders. Certainly not the vast majority of Free Soilers, not
even the vast majority of abolitionists.
The "they" you refer to were, at most, creation of the slave south's
pyrophagii... a creation used to drum up enthusiasm for rebellion.
Dave Smith
Natty wrote:
snips
>
> I guess you forgot about the same exact situation that this country was
> born of...
>
> Remember the US rebellion against England...
Most southern apologists go to great length to try to prove that the
colonists didn't engage in revolution against the Crown, but seceded
just like the Southerners did some 90 years later.
So if the colonists rebelled / revolted against the British Crown
(which is always legal, you just have to win to keep your head), what
did South Carolina do?
Engaged in revolution, says I.
Dave
Robert Kolker
>
> Most southern apologists go to great length to try to prove that the
> colonists didn't engage in revolution against the Crown, but seceded
> just like the Southerners did some 90 years later.
>
> So if the colonists rebelled / revolted against the British Crown
> (which is always legal, you just have to win to keep your head), what
> did South Carolina do?
I assume you mean --- always illegal---.
>
> Engaged in revolution, says I.
>
Correct. The only vindication of revolution or rebellion is victory.
Winning is not the main thing, it is the -only- thing. Secession works
only if you attain it and -keep- it.
Bob Kolker
Alfred Montestruc
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
>
> > They did not try any peaceful means but poured money into the pockets
> > of murderers like John Brown, and wrote long diatribes sugguesting that
> > slaves murder their masters rather than try and find a peaceful way
> > out.
>
> "They" did? And just who were they?
Republicans as a group.
> Certainly not Lincoln or any
> member of the Lincoln administration.
The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
Now maybe no one in the Lincoln administration personally gave money to
groups like Brown's, but I doubt it, and I don't think you believe that
wealthy abolitionists who did fund Brown and others of his ilk did not
also help fund Lincolns 1860 election bid.
> Certainly not other Republican
> party leaders. Certainly not the vast majority of Free Soilers, not
> even the vast majority of abolitionists.
Umm, wrong. They did advocate violence against southern slave owners,
read the Republican papers of that era, and many of them contributed
funds to people like Brown. The idea that they did not begs the
question where did all the money used to fund Brown and many other
abolitionist movements that moved large numbers of arms and armed
settlers to Kansas come from?
>
> The "they" you refer to were, at most, creation of the slave south's
> pyrophagii... a creation used to drum up enthusiasm for rebellion.
Then who funded Brown and his ilk?
No, sorry read the Republican papers response to John Brown's Harper's
Ferry Raid in the aftermath of it, all the sympathy given to that
murderer. Read the below site.
http://www.wvculture.org/history/jb11.html
FYI the first person murdered by Brown's men at Harper's Ferry was
Hayward Shepherd, a freed slave, who had earned his freedom and was now
working for the Railroad.
http://www.wvculture.org/History/jnobrown.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/john_brown.htm
http://www.trans-video.net/~rwillisa/Ferry_Raid.htm
I find it ironic that people think Brown a moral person, and forget
about Shepherd.
Rich Rostrom
>The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
>with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
The Corwin amendment.
The offer of compensated emancipation.
Lincoln stated publically that he would not
use Federal patronage to place anti-slavery
men in the South.
More to the point, the Confederates were armed
and fighting before Lincoln ever took office.
The Southerners rejected any settlement not
100% on their terms; and by the time Lincoln
was in office, the sever Deep South states
had rejected any settlement at all, instead
resorting to violent rebellion.
S Witmer
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
> >with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
>
> The Corwin amendment.
>
> The offer of compensated emancipation.
>
> Lincoln stated publically that he would not
> use Federal patronage to place anti-slavery
> men in the South.
To add another - the peace convention held in February 1861, to which
the seceded states did not bother to even send so much as an observer,
let alone actually bother to participate in.
<snip>
A question for Al - can you name an attempt by the south to resolve the
dispute? Other than delivering unilateral ultimatums, that is.
Alfred Montestruc
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
> >with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
>
> The Corwin amendment.
After the fact of secession. A bit late.
>
> The offer of compensated emancipation.
I did not see a serious offer, perhaps you can cite it. If the tax
burdon to pay for this falls in no small part on the slave owner, it is
a fraudualent offer.
In any case their are sub leathal means of dealing with this. Nobody
tried a boycott of slave produced goods.
Stephen Graham
> Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
>>> with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
>> The Corwin amendment.
>
> After the fact of secession. A bit late.
Just a few quick questions for you, Al:
a) when was Lincoln inaugurated?
b) when did South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas secede?
c) what does this imply about the Lincoln administration's response to
secession?
For others, let's just let Al respond to this, ok?
ray o'hara
>
> Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
> > >with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
> >
> > The Corwin amendment.
>
> After the fact of secession. A bit late.
>
>
> >
> > The offer of compensated emancipation.
>
> I did not see a serious offer, perhaps you can cite it. If the tax
> burdon to pay for this falls in no small part on the slave owner, it is
> a fraudualent offer.
>
> In any case their are sub leathal means of dealing with this. Nobody
> tried a boycott of slave produced goods.
nobody forwarded any bills to try to end slavery either.
the EP was a war measure. if the war hadn't been started slavery could have
lasted out the century.
Stephen Graham
Al, are you ignoring these questions?
Alfred Montestruc
Stephen Graham wrote:
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > Rich Rostrom wrote:
> >> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
> >>> with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
> >> The Corwin amendment.
> >
> > After the fact of secession. A bit late.
>
> Just a few quick questions for you, Al:
>
> a) when was Lincoln inaugurated?
4 March 1861
>
> b) when did South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
> Louisiana and Texas secede?
All were well before then.
SOUTH CAROLINA Dec. 20, 1860
MISSISSIPPI Jan. 9, 1861
FLORIDA Jan. 10, 1861
ALABAMA Jan. 11, 1861
GEORGIA Jan. 19, 1861
LOUISIANA Jan. 26, 1861
TEXAS Feb. 1, 1861
>
> c) what does this imply about the Lincoln administration's response to
> secession?
That they were monsters trying to make water run uphill. They could
not and did not get the old republic back, what they did was a military
conquest of the CSA and force the people of the south at gunpoint to
live under the yoke of the US Federal government.
Stephen Graham
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
>>> Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>>> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Lincoln administration tried peaceful means to resolve the dispute
>>>>> with the south? Cite one half-hearted attempt.
>>>> The Corwin amendment.
>>> After the fact of secession. A bit late.
>> Just a few quick questions for you, Al:
>>
>> a) when was Lincoln inaugurated?
>
> 4 March 1861
>
>> b) when did South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>> Louisiana and Texas secede?
>
> All were well before then.
>
> SOUTH CAROLINA Dec. 20, 1860
> MISSISSIPPI Jan. 9, 1861
> FLORIDA Jan. 10, 1861
> ALABAMA Jan. 11, 1861
> GEORGIA Jan. 19, 1861
> LOUISIANA Jan. 26, 1861
> TEXAS Feb. 1, 1861
OK. How was the Lincoln Administration supposed to do anything before
secession?
Alfred Montestruc
Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
anger them.
Then he did not have to adopt the nationalistic idea that the southern
states could not seceed.
ray o'hara
> > secession?
>
> Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
> first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
> southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
> anger them.
>
his job was to maintain the constitution and the countrt's integrty. not
soothe the feeling of tantrum throwing traitors.
the only thing that would have soothed them was total capitulation of the
united states.
> Then he did not have to adopt the nationalistic idea that the southern
> states could not seceed.
>
yes he did have too. that was his constitutional duty. and he did it. he
was not elected to submit to the demands of every law breaker.
Stephen Graham
> Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
> first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
> southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
> anger them.
Lincoln maintained a consistent stance between election and
inauguration. That it wasn't precisely what the secessionists wanted to
hear is more their fault than his.
> Then he did not have to adopt the nationalistic idea that the southern
> states could not seceed.
He didn't adopt it after the election. He'd been clear about it before
hand.
Alfred Montestruc
ray o'hara wrote:
> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158340616.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > secession?
> >
> > Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
> > first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
> > southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
> > anger them.
> >
>
> his job was to maintain the constitution and the countrt's integrty.
Which includes maintenence of peace where possible, with reasonable
economy of the people's money and lives.
My take is that he failed miserably on that and the two specific issues
you raise as well. The simplest way to maintain the intengrity of the
USA IMHO was for him to resign.
--snip
S Witmer
<boggle>
And this leaves the democratic election process...where, exactly? If
all one minority has to do to negate the results of a free and fair
election is threaten secession and/or violence, democracy is down the
toilet.
Huddle...@comcast.net
ray o'hara
appeasement never works? should FDR have let pearl harbor slide in the name
of peace and economy?
the war was thrust on lincoln. if he surrendered he'd have been run out of
office and forever damned like neville chamberlin and with good cause.
the entire fault for crises and for the war rests with the south. no
legislation was propsed to end slavery, lincoln gave every assurance he
would not attack it. yet the south chose to disregarde all that and violate
the constitution and start a war. davis started the war because he was sure
it would unify the south and because he was conteptuousof the north and sure
he would win.
Alfred Montestruc
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > ray o'hara wrote:
> > > "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1158340616.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > secession?
> > > >
> > > > Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
> > > > first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
> > > > southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
> > > > anger them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > his job was to maintain the constitution and the countrt's integrty.
> >
> > Which includes maintenence of peace where possible, with reasonable
> > economy of the people's money and lives.
> >
> > My take is that he failed miserably on that and the two specific issues
> > you raise as well. The simplest way to maintain the intengrity of the
> > USA IMHO was for him to resign.
>
>
> <boggle>
>
> And this leaves the democratic election process...where, exactly?
Fine and dandy.
Our process has significant flaws in it anyway. Mr. Lincoln did not
get a majority of the popular vote anyway (he only got a majority of
popular vote in 1864 when southern votes were not counted, and not by
all that much), and if the system required a runoff election in the
event of no one candidate getting a majority popular vote (as is done
in many states now), he could not have been elected, as his negative
percentages were just too high.
A better system would be for each voter to list the order of preference
of candidates from highest (I want this man in office) to lowest (don't
you dare let this idiot in office).
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm
see "Single Transferable Vote Or Choice Voting"
Then the candidate that gets the largest "low" vote total is
eliminated from consideration. The simple up-down vote only works well
with two candidates, and the two party system is geared toward taking
choice away from the voter.
In such a system Lincoln would have been eliminated as the majority of
voters in the USA would have seen him as the most dangerous candidate
and voted him least desirable.
> If
> all one minority has to do to negate the results of a free and fair
> election
Like the Republicans did in 1860? They were a minority do not forget
that. Democratic candidtate vote totals exceeded that of Mr. Lincoln
by a broad margin, and exceeded 50% of the vote total. Free and fair?
Hardly!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
Marcaurelius
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> Our process has significant flaws in it anyway. Mr. Lincoln did not
He still did get the most votes. And he did get to be one of our
two greatest
presidents.
S Witmer
And yet under the system in place, they were elected fairly under the
law. The Democrats knew this was a possibility going into the
election. If you don't like the rules, don't pretend to play the game
and then try to cry foul when you lose.
Democratic candidtate vote totals exceeded that of Mr. Lincoln
> by a broad margin, and exceeded 50% of the vote total. Free and fair?
> Hardly!!
Yes, free and fair, Al. Free and fair. Nobody forced the Democratic
Party to split except the Democrats themselves. The fact that you (and
they) don't like the outcome doesn't mean a hill of beans. And
regardless of whether you like the system that was in place in 1860,
the fact remains that IT WAS THE BLOODY LAW!!! If the Democrats didn't
like the electoral process, they had only to bloody well change the
bloody Constitution to do it. Instead, they sought extralegal means
and warfare. Too bad.
scribe7716
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> S Witmer wrote:
> > >
> > > My take is that he failed miserably on that and the two specific issues
> > > you raise as well. The simplest way to maintain the intengrity of the
> > > USA IMHO was for him to resign.
> >
> >
> > <boggle>
> >
> > And this leaves the democratic election process...where, exactly?
>
> Fine and dandy.
>
> Our process has significant flaws in it anyway.
But it is our process. Your complaint is not so much with Lincoln as
it is with the Constitution, and our American system of government.
That, by the way, was the same complaint that the seceders espoused...
the same reason that they would not abide with the results of a fair
and honest election because that election might threaten the supremacy
of slavery in the slave south.
Gary Charbonneau
> Our process has significant flaws in it anyway. Mr. Lincoln did not
> get a majority of the popular vote anyway (he only got a majority of
> popular vote in 1864 when southern votes were not counted, and not by
> all that much), and if the system required a runoff election in the
> event of no one candidate getting a majority popular vote (as is done
> in many states now), he could not have been elected, as his negative
> percentages were just too high.
By implication, you are arguing that a big flaw in our process --
perhaps the biggest -- is with the Electoral College system, in which
the president is actually selected, not by national popular vote, but
by state, with electors chosen from each state in a winner-take-all
fashion (though any elector is free to vote for whomever he or she
chooses, including someone "not on the ballot"). The only two states
that Lincoln carried in 1860 by a mere plurality were California and
Oregon. In all the other states he carried, he received an absolute
majority of the vote. New Jersey was a special case, as it did not
follow the winner-take-all rule and split its electoral votes between
Lincoln and Douglas. Deducting California's four electoral votes and
Oregon's three from Lincoln's total of 180 would not have changed the
outcome. There were several states NOT carried by Lincoln where the
winner of the entire state electoral vote did not receive a majority of
the popular vote: Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia. In those states, the voters clearly
preferred "anybody but Lincoln," but Lincoln did not get their
electoral votes, so it's irrelevant to your argument.
One could also criticize the electoral college system for giving too
much weight to voters in states with small populations. I don't agree
with much of your argument about what is wrong with our system, but I
do think that a good case could be made for scrapping the Electoral
College.
Gregory E. Garland
"S Witmer" <witme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158439157.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alfred Montestruc wrote:
>> Democratic candidtate vote totals exceeded that of Mr. Lincoln
>> by a broad margin, and exceeded 50% of the vote total. Free and fair?
>> Hardly!!
>
> Yes, free and fair, Al. Free and fair. Nobody forced the Democratic
> Party to split except the Democrats themselves.
In fact, nobody forced the Democratic party to split except the southern
representatives to the convention. One wonders what the one, single,
solitary issue could have been that led the southerners walking out.
Could it have been...? No! Not slavery again!
Marcaurelius
Gregory E. Garland wrote:
> In fact, nobody forced the Democratic party to split except the southern
> representatives to the convention. One wonders what the one, single,
The Noble Principle of "Stehht's Rawhts."
Alfred Montestruc
Agree. It was the law, and it was not illegal or treason or
unconstitutional for a state to seceed from the union, where following
its own laws, at that time either.
----snip
Wes Taylor
<monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>ray o'hara wrote:
>> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158340616.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > > secession?
>> >
>> > Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
>> > first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
>> > southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
>> > anger them.
>> >
>>
>> his job was to maintain the constitution and the countrt's integrty.
>
>Which includes maintenence of peace where possible, with reasonable
>economy of the people's money and lives.
No, his job was to uphold the law FIRST. As the so called seceding
states were in a state of insurection his job REQUIRED that, if
diplomacy failed (as it did) he use force to restore the peace by
putting down the rebellion.
>My take is that he failed miserably on that and the two specific issues
>you raise as well. The simplest way to maintain the intengrity of the
>USA IMHO was for him to resign.
>
>--snip
Your take is based on an idee fix that secession was legal, despite
the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not.
Your refusal to see what is clear to much of the rest of us is not
germane to the discussion. The Supremacy clause clearly and
unambiguously voids any unilateral secession.
Wes Taylor
Alfred Montestruc
Wes Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:05:10 CST, "Alfred Montestruc"
> <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >ray o'hara wrote:
> >> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1158340616.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > > secession?
> >> >
> >> > Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
> >> > first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
> >> > southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
> >> > anger them.
> >> >
> >>
> >> his job was to maintain the constitution and the countrt's integrty.
> >
> >Which includes maintenence of peace where possible, with reasonable
> >economy of the people's money and lives.
>
> No, his job was to uphold the law FIRST. As the so called seceding
> states were in a state of insurection his job REQUIRED that, if
> diplomacy failed (as it did) he use force to restore the peace by
> putting down the rebellion.
If you presume that secession is illegal.>
> >My take is that he failed miserably on that and the two specific issues
> >you raise as well. The simplest way to maintain the intengrity of the
> >USA IMHO was for him to resign.
> >
> >--snip
>
> Your take is based on an idee fix that secession was legal, despite
> the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not.
Neither you nor anyone has demonstrated any such thing.
S Witmer
Sufficiently to satisfy those not predisposed by ideology to believe
otherwise in spite of logic and evidence. Heck, there are still people
that believe the moon landing was fake, too also believe that the earth
is flat despite satellite imagery and other science to the contrary.
Surely it has not escaped your notice that your views on secession are
very much in the minority in your views regarding secession (and a some
of those that share in that view have ulterior motives satisfied by
sharing such beliefs) , and that perhaps there just *might* be a valid
logical reason for that?
Marcaurelius
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> Agree. It was the law, and it was not illegal or treason or
> unconstitutional for a state to seceed from the union, where following
> its own laws, at that time either.
So in your eyes--- the law doesn't mean anything unless it follows
one's
material interest-- like owning Negroes.
The US held a presidential election- provided for by the US
constitution.
Southerners participated in that lawful election.
As they had for the previous 15 presidents.
But they didn't like the "lawful" consequences.
So they overrode with their own MADE UP LAW.
Because their OWN MADE UP LAW supported what they wanted--
Negro slavery.
In effect, the rebellion was exactly that: Rebellion. And
Against the Law.
ray o'hara
> >
> > Your take is based on an idee fix that secession was legal, despite
> > the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not.
>
> Neither you nor anyone has demonstrated any such thing.
>
it has been shown clearly. you just choose to ignore what the constitution
says.
you just fixate on the lack of the word secession. but the wording is clear.
it says federal law is supreme in all cases. that includes secession. you
point to other sections, but neither of tem mention secession either, nor do
they include any cases where federal law wouldn't be supreme.
ray o'hara
> > Yes, free and fair, Al. Free and fair. Nobody forced the Democratic
> > Party to split except the Democrats themselves. The fact that you (and
> > they) don't like the outcome doesn't mean a hill of beans. And
> > regardless of whether you like the system that was in place in 1860,
> > the fact remains that IT WAS THE BLOODY LAW!!!
>
> Agree. It was the law, and it was not illegal or treason or
> unconstitutional for a state to seceed from the union, where following
> its own laws, at that time either.
>
the constitution forbid such laws as the south was passing.
E. Carl Speros
making (or keeping) us strong for the formidable dangers asaulting us in
the 20th century. I'm pretty equal opportunity & among my favorites were
Gray Ghost Mosby, Old Pete Longstreet & Gen Gordon all of the
confederacy, but successful secession & states rights would have
weakened us to where we couldn't have opposed our potent foes in WW1,
WW2, the cold war & the great depression. With no federal reserve the
depression would have been much worse & no FDR would have saved the
dust bowl south. We wouldn't have had a NATIONAL army or roads, currency
would have been printed by individual states, not being legal tender
nationally, the highways would have been built & mantained by individual
states & very possibly one would have had a difficult time travelling
accross state lines legally. We would have been tremendously weakened
by all these & the possibility of warring states is not beyond the realm
of probability. I believe that eventually the slaves would have been
freed. We may be money hungry, but sooner or later the gov'ts or
Churches of the north & south would have decried man's inhumanity to man
& released the slaves. Just my opinion, being a student of history. Carl
Wes Taylor
<monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wes Taylor wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:05:10 CST, "Alfred Montestruc"
>> <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >ray o'hara wrote:
>> >> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1158340616.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > > secession?
>> >> >
>> >> > Things Lincoln could haved said to the press between election and the
>> >> > first wave of secessions to sooth not irritate the fears of
>> >> > southerners. What little he did say was more likely to irritate and
>> >> > anger them.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> his job was to maintain the constitution and the countrt's integrty.
>> >
>> >Which includes maintenence of peace where possible, with reasonable
>> >economy of the people's money and lives.
>>
>> No, his job was to uphold the law FIRST. As the so called seceding
>> states were in a state of insurection his job REQUIRED that, if
>> diplomacy failed (as it did) he use force to restore the peace by
>> putting down the rebellion.
>
>
>If you presume that secession is illegal.>
No presumption is needed. The constitution is clear,as the US Supreme
Court has noted, that secession was illegal.
>> >My take is that he failed miserably on that and the two specific issues
>> >you raise as well. The simplest way to maintain the intengrity of the
>> >USA IMHO was for him to resign.
>> >
>> >--snip
>>
>> Your take is based on an idee fix that secession was legal, despite
>> the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not.
>
>Neither you nor anyone has demonstrated any such thing.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Wes Taylor
Alfred Montestruc
ray o'hara wrote:
> "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158518169....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Your take is based on an idee fix that secession was legal, despite
> > > the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not.
> >
> > Neither you nor anyone has demonstrated any such thing.
> >
>
>
> it has been shown clearly.
Horse hockey. You loudly *assert* that the supremacy clause makes
secession unconstitutional. You then refuse to deal with all the
arguements I have raised as to why that is not. That is not "proof".
> you just choose to ignore what the constitution
> says.
Look in the mirror and see who is doing that sir.
> you just fixate on the lack of the word secession. but the wording is clear.
> it says federal law is supreme in all cases.
Of course, with the obvious caviat that one must be in the union for it
to apply, and then their is the 9th and 10 amendments to deal with.
> that includes secession. you
> point to other sections, but neither of tem mention secession either, nor do
> they include any cases where federal law wouldn't be supreme.
But they do EXPLICITLY state that what powers are not given to the
feds, nor forbidden to the states are reserved for the states and
people.
The federal government is not clearly and explicitly given power to
prevent a state from secession, states are not explicitly forbidden to
seceed, ergo by the 10th amendment they can.
ray o'hara
>
> ray o'hara wrote:
> > "Alfred Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1158518169....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Your take is based on an idee fix that secession was legal, despite
> > > > the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not.
> > >
> > > Neither you nor anyone has demonstrated any such thing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > it has been shown clearly.
>
>
> Horse hockey. You loudly *assert* that the supremacy clause makes
> secession unconstitutional. You then refuse to deal with all the
> arguements I have raised as to why that is not. That is not "proof".
>
> > you just choose to ignore what the constitution
> > says.
>
> Look in the mirror and see who is doing that sir.
>
>
>
>
> > you just fixate on the lack of the word secession. but the wording is
clear.
> > it says federal law is supreme in all cases.
>
> Of course, with the obvious caviat that one must be in the union for it
> to apply, and then their is the 9th and 10 amendments to deal with.
>
>
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.
we have. neither of these gives any right to secession.
common law{english common law is what they mean} and english common law does
not encompass secession.
as the cases of scotland and wales have clearly shown. scotland has tried to
become independent with no success on several occasions.
and article 10 says only that anything not mentioned is the states business.
article 6 mentions that the constitution is and shall remain the supreme law
of the land and all public officials owe allegiance to the united states. so
that takes care of that argument.
i know you will fixate again on "it says nothing about secession" but when
it declares :
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and
the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
it includes secession.
>
>
> > that includes secession. you
> > point to other sections, but neither of tem mention secession either,
nor do
> > they include any cases where federal law wouldn't be supreme.
>
> But they do EXPLICITLY state that what powers are not given to the
> feds, nor forbidden to the states are reserved for the states and
> people.
>
and article EXPLICITLY states that it is the supreme law anything the states
do notwithstanding.
> The federal government is not clearly and explicitly given power to
> prevent a state from secession, states are not explicitly forbidden to
> seceed, ergo by the 10th amendment they can.
>
the supremacy clause states
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
. an ordinance of secession is a state law. it is contrary to the
constitution's supremacy. therefore it is unconstitutional.
Marcaurelius
S Witmer wrote: [ to Alfred ]
> Surely it has not escaped your notice that your views on secession are
> logical reason for that?
Feith based constitutional law.