Confederate Constitution RE Slavery
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Many have recently tried to disassociate the Confederacy with
slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
I suspect that most of the readers have never really read what
the Confederacy was all about, so I researched the Confederate
Constitution and excerpted its statements that directly deal with
slaves and slavery. What follows should be an education for
those that wish to keep that foreign Confederate flag flying:
The Congress of Delegates from the seceding Southern States
convened at
Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861. They quickly
adopted a
provisional Constitution, and in less than a month,
devised and approved
a permanent Constitution, which was adopted March 11,
1861.
Found by: Open Directory Project, Netscape Netcenter
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html
Constitution of the Confederate States of AmericaConstitution of
the Confederate
States
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in
its sovereign
and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal
government,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the
blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity--invoking the favor and
guidance of
Almighty God--do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
Confederate
States of America.
(Doug's notes: The following excerpts have been excerpted
directly from the Confederate Constitution as they apply to
slavery. After reading this "Constitution" excerpts it is
impossible to believe that anyone that was supporting or fighting
for the Confederacy was not also directly supporting slavery. It
is also impossible to disassociate the Confederacy and the
Confederate Flag with the evils of slavery as many friends of the
Confederacy are now trying to do.)
ARTICLE I.
Section I.
All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a
Congress of the
Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
of
Representatives.
Section II.
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the several
States, which may be included within this Confederacy,
according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of
free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves. ,"
Section IX.
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign
country other
than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United
States of America,
is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws
as shall
effectually prevent the same.
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
slaves from any
State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this
Confederacy.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when
in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require
it.
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or
impairing the right
of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
ARTICLE IV.
Section II.
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have
the right of
transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with
their slaves and
other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall
not be thereby
impaired.
A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other
crime against the
laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found
in another
State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State
from which he
fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
jurisdiction of the
crime.
No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State
or Territory of
the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or
lawfully carried
into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be
discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered
up on claim of
the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service
or labor may be
due.
Section III.
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress
shall have
power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants
of all
territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without
the limits of the
several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such
manner as it
may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the
Confederacy.
In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now
exists in the
Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by
Congress and by the
Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several
Confederate States
and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory
any slaves
lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of
the Confederate
States.
End of Excerpts:
The above provisions of the Confederate Constitution are the
specific reasons why I oppose the Confederate Flag flying over
any American state house or other official building. The
Confederacy represented the preservation of a terrible
evil...slavery. That evil has no place in America, and it is
time to bury the past mistakes of the Confederacy right along
with the Confederate flag.
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
Captain Compassion
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Just for the sake of historical accuracy I would that the Stars and
Stripes flew over slavery a whole lot longer than the Stars and Bars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of
minorities." (Ayn Rand)
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Joe S.
E TN, but S MS is still home. When I was growing up in MS in the late
40's-early50's, "the War" meant not the recently-ended WWII, but the "War
Between the States." I had great-grandparents and other ancestors who
fought for the Confederacy.
It pains me considerably to see an old pickup truck rolling along with a big
Confederate flag flowing behind it. My opinion is that the asshole in the
truck has no idea what the Confederate flag stood for. Just up the road
from me here in NE TN lives a huge, semi-literate redneck slob who has his
house decorated with Confederate flags. I can't drive by without wanting to
tear them down -- he's too goddam dumb to fly a Confederate flag.
In my view, Confederate flags should be flown at historic sites such as
Civil War battlefields, Confederate cemeteries, and the of Confederate
leaders -- and that's it. Doing this would put the flag where it belongs --
in history.
There is no modern need for the Confederate flag.
--
- - -
Regards,
Joe S.
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u7iigud...@corp.supernews.com...
willia...@earthlink.net
=>
=> Many have recently tried to disassociate the Confederacy with
=> slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
=> Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
=>
=> I suspect that most of the readers have never really read what
=> the Confederacy was all about, so I researched the Confederate
=> Constitution and excerpted its statements that directly deal with
=> slaves and slavery. What follows should be an education for
=> those that wish to keep that foreign Confederate flag flying:
=>
The 3/5 clause (Negroes shall be counted as 3/5 of a person) comes directly out of the US
constitution (read it.) So did the ban on importing new slaves. The US Constitution ended the
international slave trade in 1809 (read it.) The issue remaining was the status of slaves
already in the USA and many feel civil war and 1,600,000 casualties could have been avoided had
the United States allowed slavery to peacefully "die out" by limiting the practice to those
already enslaved.
Your opposition to the Confederate flag is inconsistent with your lack of similar opposition to
the Massachusetts or Minnesota state flags (depicting Indian surrender) or to the Iowa or
Hawaii flags based on the Union Jack and French flags, both countries that allowed slavery.
Of the 12.6 million people kidnapped from their homes in Africa and brought to America, over
half were imported by Brazil and most of the rest enslaved in the Caribbean. Only 3% were
brought into the United States. So, yes, slavery was evil but there are a lot more people,
countries and flags to bitch about.
=> The Congress of Delegates from the seceding Southern States
=> convened at
=> Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861. They quickly
=> adopted a
=> provisional Constitution, and in less than a month,
=> devised and approved
=> a permanent Constitution, which was adopted March 11,
=> 1861.
=> Found by: Open Directory Project, Netscape Netcenter
=> http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html
=>
=>
=> Constitution of the Confederate States of AmericaConstitution of
=> the Confederate
=> States
=> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in
=> its sovereign
=> and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal
=> government,
=> establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the
=> blessings of
=> liberty to ourselves and our posterity--invoking the favor and
=> guidance of
=> Almighty God--do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
=> Confederate
=> States of America.
=>
=>
=> (Doug's notes: The following excerpts have been excerpted
=> directly from the Confederate Constitution as they apply to
=> slavery. After reading this "Constitution" excerpts it is
=> impossible to believe that anyone that was supporting or fighting
=> for the Confederacy was not also directly supporting slavery. It
=> is also impossible to disassociate the Confederacy and the
=> Confederate Flag with the evils of slavery as many friends of the
=> Confederacy are now trying to do.)
=>
=> ARTICLE I.
=>
=> Section I.
=> All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a
=> Congress of the
=> Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
=> of
=> Representatives.
=> Section II.
=>
=> "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
=> the several
=> States, which may be included within this Confederacy,
=> according to their
=> respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
=> whole number of
=> free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
=> years, and
=> excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves. ,"
=>
=> Section IX.
=> The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign
=> country other
=> than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United
=> States of America,
=> is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws
=> as shall
=> effectually prevent the same.
=>
=> Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
=> slaves from any
=> State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this
=> Confederacy.
=> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
=> suspended, unless when
=> in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require
=> it.
=>
=> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or
=> impairing the right
=> of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
=>
=> ARTICLE IV.
=>
=> Section II.
=> The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
=> privileges and
=> immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have
=> the right of
=> transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with
=> their slaves and
=> other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall
=> not be thereby
=> impaired.
=>
=> A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other
=> crime against the
=> laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found
=> in another
=> State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State
=> from which he
=> fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
=> jurisdiction of the
=> crime.
=>
=> No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State
=> or Territory of
=> the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or
=> lawfully carried
=> into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
=> therein, be
=> discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered
=> up on claim of
=> the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service
=> or labor may be
=> due.
=>
=> Section III.
=>
=> The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress
=> shall have
=> power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants
=> of all
=> territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without
=> the limits of the
=> several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such
=> manner as it
=> may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the
=> Confederacy.
=>
=> In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now
=> exists in the
=> Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by
=> Congress and by the
=> Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several
=> Confederate States
=> and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory
=> any slaves
=> lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of
=> the Confederate
=> States.
=>
=>
=> End of Excerpts:
=>
=>
=> The above provisions of the Confederate Constitution are the
=> specific reasons why I oppose the Confederate Flag flying over
=> any American state house or other official building. The
=> Confederacy represented the preservation of a terrible
=> evil...slavery. That evil has no place in America, and it is
=> time to bury the past mistakes of the Confederacy right along
=> with the Confederate flag.
=>
=> Doug Grant (Tm)
-- Bill
Joe S.
ignorance of the lessons of history when he wrote in message
news:3c795c4d...@news.verizon.net...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:21:59 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Just for the sake of historical accuracy I would that the Stars and
> Stripes flew over slavery a whole lot longer than the Stars and Bars.
>
And just for the sake of historical accuracy we should point out that it was
the Stars and Stripes that recognized the evil and fought to end slavery.
But then, you right wingnuts have never been long on smarts.
I can hardly wait for your next stupid comment.
Turn Hearts
> slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
> Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
You seem to have overlooked that Congress in 1861 realized
there was something bigger than slavery. Most southerners
did not even own slaves. What caused them to join in the
Southern fight for independence? Here is what the Union
Congress at that time stated was the reason that southern
leaders "have brought many good men to a willingness to take
up arms against the government." Believe it or not!
The following is from the congressional record:
H.R. Journal--FRIDAY, July 5, 1861
<snip>
With rebellion thus sugar-coated, they have been drugging the public mind of their section
for more than thirty years; and until at length they have brought many good men to a
willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men
have enacted the farcical pretence of taking their State out of the Union, who could have
been brought to no such thing the day before.
This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that
there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State--to each State of our
Federal Union. Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them,
in the Union, by the Constitution--no one of them ever having been a State out of the
Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British
colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition
of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never
designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into the
Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in and by the Declaration of
Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent
States;" but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one
another, or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their
mutual action, before,
<snip>
H.R. Journal--FRIDAY, July 5, 1861.
Check it out! There was no mention of SLAVERY!
Slavery was a cause for many to secede but what truly
united all Southerners including those who did not own slaves
according the US Congressional record was the concept
of states rights as evidenced in the statements above.
Turn Hearts
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u7iigud...@corp.supernews.com...
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Many have recently tried to disassociate the Confederacy with
>slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
>Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
>
> I suspect that most of the readers have never really read what
>the Confederacy was all about, so I researched the Confederate
>Constitution and excerpted its statements that directly deal with
>slaves and slavery. What follows should be an education for
>those that wish to keep that foreign Confederate flag flying:
Perhaps you are unaware that the Constitution constricted slavery to a
greater extent than the US Constitution did at the time? The
statements were virtually a restatement of the applicable law of the
US including Supreme Court decisions up to that date. Incidentally,
the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves being held in
States belong to the northern Union. You seek some moral high ground,
but as the post war history clearly showed, there was none. Perhaps
you should delve into the planning for relief, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction of the slaves in the South - it is a very embarrassing
history for northern politicians. How did the African country of
Liberia come about? Did Lincoln at any time or at any place advocate
the integration of all races? Did this happen spontaneously across the
North? Did he advocate intermarriage? Did he advocate quotas?
Affirmative Action? General reduction in educational standards?
You would probably be shocked at some of the caveats these
emancipators placed on emancipation. It came down to you are free, now
regardless of where you live or what the state of your education you
must fend for yourself, starting tomorrow.
Things were pretty testy for a long time, even into my lifetime in
places like Little Rock, Montgomery, Boston, Chicago,... Washington,
DC manifests the problem in a nutshell - the city not the capitol.
With the perspective of history and time, I see no solid evidence that
slavery or the good of the black race was at the core of the War, 150
years ago.
#vonroach
Compassion) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:21:59 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
><dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Just for the sake of historical accuracy I would that the Stars and
>Stripes flew over slavery a whole lot longer than the Stars and Bars.
>
And Capt'n, the flags of numerous enlightened European countries flew
over slavery longer than the Stars and Stripes.
Captain Compassion
Exactly. Lots of blame to go around.
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>Thank you for posting this. I was born in far south Mississippi, grew up in
>E TN, but S MS is still home. When I was growing up in MS in the late
>40's-early50's, "the War" meant not the recently-ended WWII, but the "War
>Between the States." I had great-grandparents and other ancestors who
>fought for the Confederacy.
>
>It pains me considerably to see an old pickup truck rolling along with a big
>Confederate flag flowing behind it. My opinion is that the asshole in the
>truck has no idea what the Confederate flag stood for. Just up the road
>from me here in NE TN lives a huge, semi-literate redneck slob who has his
>house decorated with Confederate flags. I can't drive by without wanting to
>tear them down -- he's too goddam dumb to fly a Confederate flag.
>
>In my view, Confederate flags should be flown at historic sites such as
>Civil War battlefields, Confederate cemeteries, and the of Confederate
>leaders -- and that's it. Doing this would put the flag where it belongs --
>in history.
>
>There is no modern need for the Confederate flag.
>
Where's your tolerance. Would you outlaw it? Make it a crime to own
one? If you can burn an American Flag you can own a Confederate one.
Raff
"Joe S." <j...@schlatter.org> wrote in message
news:a5bvd...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> revealed his abysmal
> ignorance of the lessons of history when he wrote in message
> news:3c795c4d...@news.verizon.net...
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:21:59 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> > <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Just for the sake of historical accuracy I would that the Stars and
> > Stripes flew over slavery a whole lot longer than the Stars and Bars.
> >
>
> And just for the sake of historical accuracy we should point out that it
was
> the Stars and Stripes that recognized the evil and fought to end slavery.
The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
See below:
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
message news:3c795c4d...@news.verizon.net...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:21:59 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Just for the sake of historical accuracy I would that the Stars
and
> Stripes flew over slavery a whole lot longer than the Stars and
Bars.
>
You are no doubt correct, but the Stars and Stripes never fought
a war to try and preserve slavery. Moreover, I believe it was an
American president that freed the American slaves. In addition
the United States stood for and stands for a lot more than
slavery, the Confederacy did not.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Confederate flag belongs in our history and not flying over one
of our state houses.
In respect to those that wish to fly the Confederate flag
privately, that is their choice. Making a damn fool out of
yourself is allowed in this country - thanks to all those brave
and loyal union soldiers. That is true just as long as you do
not force others to make the same fools out of themselves. After
reading the Confederate constitution below, we all should give
special thanks to the Army of the Potomac for destroying the
Confederacy.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Joe S." <j...@schlatter.org> wrote in message
news:a5bng...@enews3.newsguy.com...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
<willia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ojri7us3btl93hv97...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the well-known history lesson. We all know that the
United States banned the international slave trade.
The issue remaining was the status of slaves
> already in the USA and many feel civil war and 1,600,000
casualties could have been avoided had
> the United States allowed slavery to peacefully "die out" by
limiting the practice to those
> already enslaved.
Actually, there are *several* issues remaining that are clearly
depicted in the Confederate Constititiuon. Such as in section IX
the Confederate Constitution states:
"Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not
belonging to, this
Confederacy."
That clearly means the Confederate states can limit the trade of
slaves only between the Confederate states and not allow any
influx of slaves from elsewhere. This passage was meant to
insure the high value of the slave property within the
Confederacy.
The Confederate Constitition continues with:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or
impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be
passed."
Now how can slavery "die out" as you claimed when slaves continue
to bear children, at the tune of ten to twelve children per
marriage? And of course all of those children automatically
become the slave property of their Confederate slave holders?
Your claims that slavery would "die out" is about as disinginous
as your claims that the Cofederacy did not rebel and start the
civil war.
The Confederate Constitution continues with:
Section II.
" The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States;
and shall have
the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this
Confederacy, with
their slaves and other property; and the right of property in
said slaves shall
not be thereby impaired."
Once again we see where the Confederacy was guaranteeing that its
citizens could travel within the Confederacy, and none of the
states belonging to the Confederacy could outlaw slavery. If
this passage does not convince you that slavery was never
intended to "die out" within the Confederate states then I can
think of no other. They even passed a law *forbidding" slavery
to die out!
The Confederate Constitituon continues with:
"No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State
or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof,
escaping or
lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law
or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be
delivered
up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom
such service
or labor may be due."
Under this provision of the Confederate Constitution, a slave
could not even escape to another country or state without fear of
being captured and brought back to the Confederacy.
The Confederate Constitution continues with:
Section III.
> =>
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress
shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the
inhabitants
of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying
without
the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such
times, and in such
manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted
into the
Confederacy.
In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it
now
exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and
protected by
Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants
of the several
Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take
to such Territory
any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or
Territories of
the Confederate States."
In this passage we see what would have happened if the
Confederacy would have won the war, or enticed some of the
western states, like Missouri or Kansas or Nevada to join the
Confederacy. Slavery would never have "died out" like you claim,
it would have been spread throughout the land. The Confederacy
was all about the spread of slavery and very little else.
> Your opposition to the Confederate flag is inconsistent with
your lack of similar opposition to the Massachusetts or Minnesota
state flags (depicting Indian surrender) or to the Iowa or
> Hawaii flags based on the Union Jack and French flags, both
countries that allowed slavery.
My opposition to a foreign Confederate flag flying over a United
States state house of government is quite different from your
self-serving analogies. England and France had both outlawed
slavery before the United States did, and a flag depicting a
treaty (not a surrender) between warring factions is hardly a
symbol of slavery. Your analogies are ridiculous.
>
> Of the 12.6 million people kidnapped from their homes in Africa
and brought to America, over
> half were imported by Brazil and most of the rest enslaved in
the Caribbean. Only 3% were
> brought into the United States. So, yes, slavery was evil but
there are a lot more people,
> countries and flags to bitch about.
I condemn all slavery, but none of the countries you mentioned
are presently involved in flying their foreign flags over
government houses in the United States. Trying to divert the
blame for slavery to other countries is not going to hide the
culpability of slavery belonging directly to the Confederacy.
This is an American issue, not a Brazilian nor Caribbean issue.
I could care less what flags they fly in Brazil. But I do care
if a foreign flag that symbolizes slavery and oppression of
American Citizens is allowed to fly over a United States
government state house.
The Confederate flag belongs in our history of mistakes. It does
not belong flying over a United States government state capitol.
We need to put the Confederacy and all it stood for behind us,
and start thinking and acting as united Americans. Give it up,
the south lost the war and it deserved to lose as its
constitution clearly depicts.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
It is about slavery. The most salient difference between the
United States Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are
the passages that deal with the rights of Confederates to pursue
the ownership of slaves.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Turn Hearts" <turnh...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:u7j45rr...@corp.supernews.com...
TDodge
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:53:08 -0500, "Joe S." <j...@schlatter.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >In my view, Confederate flags should be flown at historic sites such as
> >Civil War battlefields, Confederate cemeteries, and the of Confederate
> >leaders -- and that's it. Doing this would put the flag where it
belongs --
> >in history.
> >
> >There is no modern need for the Confederate flag.
> >
> Where's your tolerance. Would you outlaw it? Make it a crime to own
> one? If you can burn an American Flag you can own a Confederate one.
>
look like a lack of tolerance to me.
The Stars and Bars (a battle flag, BTW, not the national flag of the CSA)
should not fly in any official capacity in the USA. It is the flag of a
nation
that attacked the US. Remember Ft Sumter?
--
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a
terrible resolve "
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
"We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail"
George W Bush
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"#vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3c7f8f2d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:21:59 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Many have recently tried to disassociate the Confederacy with
> >slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
> >Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
> >
> > I suspect that most of the readers have never really read
what
> >the Confederacy was all about, so I researched the Confederate
> >Constitution and excerpted its statements that directly deal
with
> >slaves and slavery. What follows should be an education for
> >those that wish to keep that foreign Confederate flag flying:
>
> Perhaps you are unaware that the Constitution constricted
slavery to a
> greater extent than the US Constitution did at the time? The
> statements were virtually a restatement of the applicable law
of the
> US including Supreme Court decisions up to that date.
Vonroach, stop it now! You know that is not true. All you need
to do is look at Lincoln's platform to know how the United States
dealt with the issue of slavery at that time. Moreover, the US
Constitution did not guarantee the rights of slave owners, nor
did it constitutionally guarantee the rights of slave owners to
continue to own slaves and breed slaves. Those issues are
exclusively found in the Confederate Constitution. Abolition was
an issue of the day, and President Lincoln ran on an Abolitionist
platform. That is why the south threatened to succeed if Lincoln
was elected.
Incidentally,
> the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves being
held in
> States belong to the northern Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was only the first step in
aboloshing slavery. However, it was a hellva first step.
Contrary to what was written in the Confederate Constitution,
which guaranteed the rights of all Confederates to continue to
own and breed slaves as property, and to provide slave ownership
rights to all new terrorities the Confederacy won during war, or
that voluntarily joined the Confederacy, the Emancipation
Proclaimation was a burning emember on the deed parchment of all
southern held slaves.
Below is a general statement found in assocation with the
Emancipation Proclamation:
"From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure
their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their
insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for
freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened
the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along
the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation
Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of
human freedom."
You seek some moral high ground,
> but as the post war history clearly showed, there was none.
The Confederate Constitution speaks for itself in respect to
morality. I realize that hindsight is always perfect, but in
this case the moral issue is very clear. The Confederacy clearly
believed that African Americans were sub-humans and worthy only
of servitude. The Union, and especially President Lincoln's
administration, and the majority of the northern states
(excluding certain religious entity slave ownership) believed
that African-Americans deserved the rights of citizenship.
Consequently, I believe that flying a Confederate Flag over a
United States Government house is an affront to all Americans,
and in fact a "threat" to all African-Americans.
Perhaps
> you should delve into the planning for relief, rehabilitation,
and
> reconstruction of the slaves in the South - it is a very
embarrassing
> history for northern politicians. How did the African country
of
> Liberia come about?
Liberia was founded in 1821 long before the Confederacy or the
civil war. Moreover, reconstruction was not embarrassing for the
North overall. There are isolated cases of corruption, but
overall it was working well up to the formation of the KKK by the
die hard Confederates. Now even you vonroach cannot convince us
that the KKK and their emblem, the Confederate Flag, were not
representatives of racism at the worst moral level. Once again
we have another reason why the Confederate flag should not be
flying over a United States Government building.
Did Lincoln at any time or at any place advocate
> the integration of all races? Did this happen spontaneously
across the
> North? Did he advocate intermarriage? Did he advocate quotas?
> Affirmative Action? General reduction in educational standards?
> You would probably be shocked at some of the caveats these
> emancipators placed on emancipation. It came down to you are
free, now
> regardless of where you live or what the state of your
education you
> must fend for yourself, starting tomorrow.
Governments cannot proclaim changes in social thinking overnight
vonroach. Generations of segregation and prejudice takes time to
overcome. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the
Confederate flag should be flying over an United States
Government state house. The Confederate flag is a foreign flag,
and a symbol of racism and slavery, and it should not be allowed
anywhere near the American flag.
>
> Things were pretty testy for a long time, even into my lifetime
in
> places like Little Rock, Montgomery, Boston, Chicago,...
Washington,
> DC manifests the problem in a nutshell - the city not the
capitol.
>
Racism is not over nor is slavery. It still exists in many
guises and it may never be completely eliminated.
> With the perspective of history and time, I see no solid
evidence that
> slavery or the good of the black race was at the core of the
War, 150
> years ago.
The Confederate Constitution itself proves your conclusion wrong.
The Confederacy equates with the attempt to preserve the
ownership of African-American slaves in America. And the
Confederate flag equates with the Confederacy. That flag should
not be flying over any United States Government building.
Doug Grant (Tm)
ken...@shangrila.net
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" wrote:
> Many have recently tried to disassociate the Confederacy with
> slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
> Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
>
> I suspect that most of the readers have never really read what
> the Confederacy was all about, so I researched the Confederate
> Constitution and excerpted its statements that directly deal with
> slaves and slavery. What follows should be an education for
> those that wish to keep that foreign Confederate flag flying:
>
Along these same lines, many of the Confederate States, perhaps all,
wrote what you might call their own little declarations of
independence, which explained their thinking. Let me just paraphrase
one line from Mississippi's document: "This is about slavery." Can
anything be clearer than that?
Keynes
What was the cause that made the south unite and fire the first
shot in the civil war? What great handicap was placed on the
south that made them hate the union? Which of their 'state's rights'
was threatened even indirectly? They had the power and the will
to fight for slavery in the congress, but they chose war.
No, the war was about preserving slavery, period. Many poor whites joined up
when the south was finally invaded, as any of us would in a similar case.
(A slave holding cherokee raised an army of indians for the south.)
But the war was really not necessary in the first place for the south.
Why did they start the fracas? It was pretty stupid since the outcome
was certain, given the greater manpower and industrialization of the north.
The south may have expected help from the brits (which they never got).
Technically, all the rebels should have been hung as traitors, but fortunately
we were wiser than to follow the letter of the law.
Many rebels fought bravely and very well, but their cause was slavery,
not freedom. Honor their courage but not their morals. When I see
somebody flying the stars and bars, I know exactly what they stand for.
'Southern heritage' is about the good old days of the plantations,
the happy life of the whites paid for by the oppression of blacks.
Of course the north did not distiguish themselves during reconstruction.
It was a fiasco that should have been corrected by the abolitionists.
But at that time, and until very recently, there has been a majority
of those prejudiced against blacks even in the north. We are still
paying the price for slavery even today. The sins of the fathers are
paid for by their posterity even until the last cent.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@sny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Bmqe8.141183$QG.30...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
not flying over a United States Government building. If people
want to possess relics from the past that is their personal
business and they should be able to collect any relics they wish.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C7A8A2D...@bellatlantic.net...
In fact there are several individual state documents that are
similar. The one from Texas goes so far as to explain that
without slavery the entire state would fail, people would lose
their farms, and all would go bankrupt. Ken is right, the
Confederacy was about slavery and very little else.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Captain Compassion
What Unired States Government building flies the Confederate flage?
#vonroach
>Let me just paraphrase
>one line from Mississippi's document: "This is about slavery." Can
>anything be clearer than that?
An alleged `paraphrase' of a phrase meaningless in itself. Yes,
kennyboy, you exhibit the ignorance that is the hallmark of education
these days. Little heads full of stirred mush.
#vonroach
The Lincoln strategy was to make it appear that way and throw in
saving the Union as an after thought. The real background of war is
usually apparent in the economy of the times and baser emotions such
as jealousy and greed.
>> Regards,
>> Joe S.
>>
>>
>
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In fact there are several individual state documents that are
>similar. The one from Texas goes so far as to explain that
>without slavery the entire state would fail, people would lose
>their farms, and all would go bankrupt. Ken is right, the
>Confederacy was about slavery and very little else.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Wave the chains. Actually, the economic concerns of the times are
moderately well stated in this little paragraph. One item omitted is
that the `free' farmers wanted the right to sell their produce to the
highest bidder, be that a European or a Yankee merchant. Slavery was
not wide spread in Texas - it was found on a few big plantations close
to the upper Gulf coast. Most of farming was on small family farms.
Slavery was not a feature in the giant ranching areas of the lower
coast and west Texas. Much of central and north Texas was settled by
European immigrants, quite religious in behavior, whose children still
occupy the regions today.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>TDodge is right. Historical relics have a place. That place is
>not flying over a United States Government building. If people
>want to possess relics from the past that is their personal
>business and they should be able to collect any relics they wish.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Where do you find the `Confederate flag' (likely you refer to the
battleflag of the Army of Northern Virginia) flying over a US or State
government building. Some flags may incorporate a feature resembling
this flag, but no claim is made that it has any significance other
than a State flag which they design as they see fit. If you object to
this then you must object to the Union Jack which includes the Cross
of St. Michael, the Cross of St Andrew and others in the design -
you'd be left with a plain red flag - which might appeal to some
Marxists.
#vonroach
Compassion) wrote:
>What Unired States Government building flies the Confederate flage?
None.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Moreover, the US
>Constitution did not guarantee the rights of slave owners, nor
>did it constitutionally guarantee the rights of slave owners to
>continue to own slaves and breed slaves.
It did not deny that right and decisions of the Supreme Court
supported their rights. Also laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act
backed these rights. Any right not guaranteed in the US Constitution
is left to the States and the people to resolve. Slavery could have
been dealt with by the Legislature. The Administration apparently
chose the path of war (no doubt thinking it would be a short one that
would generate support for the Administration. How sadly they
misjudged, we now can begin to see. Incidentally, there would have
been no US Constitution without more or less overlooking slavery. No
one knows, but after experience in Bloody Kansas, many think it
doubtful that slavery could not have been solved by peaceful means.
There were freed slaves in all regions of the South even before the
War.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You are no doubt correct, but the Stars and Stripes never fought
>a war to try and preserve slavery. Moreover, I believe it was an
>American president that freed the American slaves. In addition
>the United States stood for and stands for a lot more than
>slavery, the Confederacy did not.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Except for 1812, our northern and southern borders, the period between
the Revolution and Civil War was one of exploration and settlement.
The Stars and Stripes fought a war in Mexico to protect Texas (there
were some plantations with slaves along the upper Gulf coast at the
time. Gen. Andy Jackson fought a well-known battle below New Orleans
which protected the plantations and slave owners of New Orleans and
Louisiana from British invasion. The US armed forces under the Stars
and Stripes repulsed an invasion by British forces who burned
Washington DC - this victory protected the citizens of Maryland and
Virginia, some of whom owned slaves. We should not forget the victory
over the rebellion of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, Virginia in
Brown's attempt to instigate a slave uprising. How quickly we forget.
Incidentally Lincoln was a minor member of the armed forces in the
Mexican War and had already seen his first slaves in New Orleans.
The Proclamation of the `American President' freed only those slaves
in areas rebelling against the Union. Slaves were freed in many areas
by local actions. Were any slaves freed by this Proclamation in Maine,
New England, New York, Ohio, Illinois,...? I believe the freedom had
been mandated in western territories by the Missouri Compromise, and a
doctrine of local determination.
I won't attempt to answer the biased propaganda of your last sentence.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You are welcome Joe, and your input is exactly right. The
>Confederate flag belongs in our history and not flying over one
>of our state houses.
Therefore it does not fly over any State capitol. The flag of that
State and the flag of the US fly there.
>In respect to those that wish to fly the Confederate flag
>privately, that is their choice. Making a damn fool out of
>yourself is allowed in this country - thanks to all those brave
>and loyal union soldiers. That is true just as long as you do
>not force others to make the same fools out of themselves. After
>reading the Confederate constitution below, we all should give
>special thanks to the Army of the Potomac for destroying the
>Confederacy.
Amusing comment. The Army of the Potomac was defeated almost
everywhere until they found a leader in the Army of the West.
McClellan the leader of the Army of the Potomac ran against Lincoln
for President. Grant and Sherman won victories at Shiloh, Vicksburg,
and united the West. Then Sherman marched from Chattanooga through
Atlanta to Savannah and destroyed the South. Meanwhile the bumblers
attempting to lead the Army of the Potomac were replaced by Grant, who
lead the `Grand Army of the Republic' into Virginia and ended the war
(much to the relief of Lincoln and his often defeated Army of the
Potomac). Many of the sad exploits of the Army of the Potomac such as
at Fredricksberg are still taught in war colleges as examples of
brilliant strategy by the army of Northern Virginia overcoming
overwhelming odds. Yes the Army of the Potomac held on by their
fingernails until real leaders from the West arrived. It is reported
that they drilled very smartly, when undisturbed by cannon fire.
>Doug Grant (Tm)
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The Confederate Constitution (posted below) speaks for itself.
>It is about slavery. The most salient difference between the
>United States Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are
>the passages that deal with the rights of Confederates to pursue
>the ownership of slaves.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Untrue. Did the Supreme Court of the US established under the US
Constitution not rule in favor of the Fugitive Slave Act. Did they
overturn the Missouri Compromise. Did the Union not accept the
petition of Kansas to join under the doctrine of local decision?
Emerald
Virginia.
"#vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3c83d11b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I condemn all slavery, but none of the countries you mentioned
>are presently involved in flying their foreign flags over
>government houses in the United States. Trying to divert the
>blame for slavery to other countries is not going to hide the
>culpability of slavery belonging directly to the Confederacy.
>
> This is an American issue, not a Brazilian nor Caribbean issue.
>I could care less what flags they fly in Brazil. But I do care
>if a foreign flag that symbolizes slavery and oppression of
>American Citizens is allowed to fly over a United States
>government state house.
Sudan does not have an embassy or a consulate in the US?
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
South Carolina, and Mississippi has the Confederate flag as an
emblem on their state flag.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Vonroach, you cannot hide the obvious regardless of how much
diatribe you post against the posters. Admit it, the Confederacy
was all about slavery and very little else.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
platform, and the various state declarations from the Confederate
states when they threatened to succeed to know the Confederacy,
and the resulting war of the Rebellion, were ALL about slavery
and very little else.
When you juxtapose the United States Constriction and the
Confederate Constitution, the only glaring difference is the
Confederate Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right
to own, trade and breed slaves. Moreover, that all citizens
belonging to any new territories the Confederacy might obtain
through war or other means also would be constitutionally
guaranteed the right to own, trade and breed African American
slaves.
The Confederate states had no reason to succeed or to adopt a
constitution that gave them no advantages over the United States
constitution except for one glaring reason....slavery.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Actually, Texas, by the end of the war housed more slaves than
any other slave state.
They may have been concentrated in large plantations, but
nevertheless, Texas was responsible for the bondage of more
slaves than any other Confederate state.
Texas was especially afraid of abolition, and it circulated
several documents advocating succession if President Lincoln was
elected. (I can post some of those documents if anyone is
interested.)
Moreover, the United States did not restrict free trade to
Europe. The south sold much of its goods to European traders.
The only issue, and the burning issue of difference between the
North and the South was that President Lincoln was elected on a
platform of abolition. The southern states believed that the
abolition of slavery would bankrupt their agriculture based
economy. Hence the Confederacy, and the war of the Rebellion.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Captain Compassion
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Neither the Mississippi State government nor the South Carolina State
government are the United States government.
Raff
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u7m71m5...@corp.supernews.com...
You need to study your history.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
Raff
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u7m7hdc...@corp.supernews.com...
Maybe you should read the Confederate Constitution, it is almost word for
word the same Constitution we have. It also prohibited slave trading from
outside of the south. Seems they were working on getting rid of slavery on
their own anyway.
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> >
>
>
Raff
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u7m806m...@corp.supernews.com...
Nice revision of history. Try looking at the real history.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
>
>
ken...@shangrila.net
#vonroach wrote:
All right. Let me give you a copy of the Mississippi Declaration of
Secession:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its
connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is
but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced
our course."
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--
the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the
product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions
of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate
verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none
but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products
have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at
commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the
institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was
no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a
dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out
our ruin."
The above are the first two paragraphs. There's more, of course, but
nothing to change in any way the impression given by the first sentence
of the second paragraph: "OUR POSITION IS THOROUGHLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE
INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY..." This is an exact quote, not a paraphrase, and
it is in context. Does your weak little brain have difficulty
decyphering it?
ken...@shangrila.net
#vonroach wrote:
True there would have been initially no USA if the founders had insisted
on trying to resolve the slavery question. It was a little time bomb
they elected to pass along to their descendants. Possibly we would have
started out as two countries, but I can't see the northern country
putting up with slavery for long. That probably would have lead to war
and conquest much sooner than actually happened.
Slavery might have died out naturally in the slaveholding states with the
advent of mechanization and the realization that a tractor doesn't sit
eating its head off in the garage. On the other hand, it might just have
morphed into something equally abhorrent. Look at what actually
happened. Even with the great number of kicked asses in the South, they
managed to install Jim Crow and keep it firmly in place until the middle
1960s. There's still a part of the population that jes' cain't stan'
uppity nigras. A meme like that doesn't die out without a healthy shove.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Vonroach, you cannot hide the obvious regardless of how much
>diatribe you post against the posters. Admit it, the Confederacy
>was all about slavery and very little else.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
No, I will not admit to a lie.
#vonroach
>The above are the first two paragraphs. There's more, of course, but
>nothing to change in any way the impression given by the first sentence
>of the second paragraph: "OUR POSITION IS THOROUGHLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE
>INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY..." This is an exact quote, not a paraphrase, and
>it is in context. Does your weak little brain have difficulty
>decyphering it?
No one disputes the presence of plantations and slavery in
Mississippi. These paragraphs also describe the geographic and
economic differences which were behind the war. Slavery and a
plantation economy were present in the State under the US Constitution
and the US flag from the time of the Revolution onward. What plan was
ever devised to support the economy of Mississippi after the abolition
of slavery by the abolitionists? There is evidence from your
paragraphs that the motives of the plantation economy was focused on
being productive. Their prosperity made them an object of envy.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, Texas, by the end of the war housed more slaves than
>any other slave state.
>They may have been concentrated in large plantations, but
>nevertheless, Texas was responsible for the bondage of more
>slaves than any other Confederate state.
Misconception piles on misconception. I think you will find that
there is a holiday in Texas called Junteenth. (June 19th)
It marks the delivery of the emancipation proclamation at the docks of
Galveston, Texas which freed the slaves in Texas which had been a
Confederate State but was occupied by Union forces after the battle of
Vicksburg consolidated the Union hold on the Mississippi. Thus at the
end of the war there were exactly zero slaves in Texas. Union forces
occupied the upper Texas coast in the plantation area in a move to
solidify the blockade of the South and stop the activity of blockade
runners who had been delivering contraband to Gulf coast ports.
You seem to have a very shaky knowledge of the Civil War in general in
addition to the factors that led to war.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>One only needs to read the Confederate Constitution, the Lincoln
>platform, and the various state declarations from the Confederate
>states when they threatened to succeed to know the Confederacy,
>and the resulting war of the Rebellion, were ALL about slavery
>and very little else.
Misconception continues to pile on misconception. Political platforms
are drafted to appeal to what seem to be the popular opinion in order
to get votes. Lincoln's ideas about slavery are fully stated in his
losing debates with Douglas and declare nothing beyond emancipation.
It was by no means `all about slavery'. It was about economics, with
allegiance to a State and a region included. The majority of the North
was as lukewarm towards emancipation as the South was towards slavery.
Thus the failure of the politicians to lead and find a road to peace
eventuated in relatives, none of whom owned slaves, trying to kill
each other in a cornfield in Maryland.
>When you juxtapose the United States Constriction and the
>Confederate Constitution, the only glaring difference is the
>Confederate Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right
>to own, trade and breed slaves.
This was no difference. The US Constitution and the Supreme Court had
upheld slavery. How do you interpret the 9th and 10th Amendments to
the US Constitution which leaves to the States and to the citizens the
right to decide any issue not explicitly dealt with by the
Constitution? Why were the emancipators not occupied with negotiations
and peaceful means to end the practice? Probably because politicians
saw in this issue a means to accomplish other less obvious economic
goals that had emerged.
#vonroach
They retain the right to design their own _STATE FLAG_ without
interference of other States. It is your prejudice that causes you to
call it a `Confederate flag'. State flags across the 50 States have
all manner of symbols on them. The United Kingdom's flag is a
conglomeration of various elements representing different members of
that union. The English raise no hue and cry against the Scots' Cross
of St. Andrew being on the flag. Your northern viewpoint is very
provincial.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Tsk Tsk Vonroach, you are picking nits. Texas had more slaves
than any other Confederate state. You are talking about after
the war was over in Texas, and the Union Army occupied the land
and *enforced* the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was
over for Texas Vonroach. What I said above about Texas is
perfectly accurate, and I and apparently several others know
exactly what the primary factor was that led to the war of the
rebellion....it was the preservation of slavery.
You are cute Vonroach, but no cigar.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Not true Vonroach. Lincoln's speeches were replete with
abolishing slavery, including the abolishment of the hated 1850
Return of Fugitive Slave act. Northerners hated that law and
Lincoln used that hatred to cultivate votes. The south
threatened to withdraw from the Union if Lincoln was elected
*exclusively* because of Lincoln's abolitionist platform. The
South claimed it could not survive without slaves.
> >When you juxtapose the United States Constriction and the
> >Confederate Constitution, the only glaring difference is the
> >Confederate Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the
right
> >to own, trade and breed slaves.
>
> This was no difference. The US Constitution and the Supreme
Court had
> upheld slavery. How do you interpret the 9th and 10th
Amendments to
> the US Constitution which leaves to the States and to the
citizens the
> right to decide any issue not explicitly dealt with by the
> Constitution? Why were the emancipators not occupied with
negotiations
> and peaceful means to end the practice? Probably because
politicians
> saw in this issue a means to accomplish other less obvious
economic
> goals that had emerged.
Please Vonroach! You know that is not true. The United States
constitution says nothing about a "guaranteed right to own, breed
and trade slaves" and you know it. Moreover, had the southern
states waited until the actual proposed abolitionist legislation
was presented, and not withdrew from the Union almost as soon as
President Lincoln was elected, then these issues might have been
worked out. The South wanted their own country. They found an
issue to convince their citizens to break away from the United
States, and die for it. That issue was the preservation of
slavery.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Vonroach, I do not have any provincial viewpoint. The viewpoint
that the Confederate flag represents slavery is not a northern or
provincial viewpoint...it is a national viewpoint. You need to
understand the issue: The Confederate flag is a symbol of
African-American slavery. When it is flown over a United States
Government house it is a de facto statement that State Government
still embraces what the Confederate Flag symbolizes. That means
African-Americans are being indirectly told their state
government will treat them differently, and provide them with a
lesser due process and protection of rights than their white
brethren.
The flying of that flag represents a violation of the
constitutional rights of all African-American residents of the
state flying the Confederate flag.
The UK's Union Jack does not affront anyone as it represents
elements of that union. The Confederacy does not represent the
south and never really did. The Confederacy was a terrible
mistake, and a rebellion. That flag hardly represents the loyal
southern states today.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Josh Dougherty
> Many have recently tried to disassociate the Confederacy with
> slavery. Their purpose is to convince Americans to keep the
> Confederate flag flying over an American state house.
It's time these people stop fighting (and revising by any means
necessary) the frickin Civil War already. The United States won. The
traitors lost.
Josh
ken...@shangrila.net
#vonroach wrote:
The document in question is not about admitting that there are indeed
plantations and slavery in the South. That was already a well-known fact. It
is about explaining why Mississippi is seceding, and it clearly explains that
they are doing it to preserve slavery. There is also the clear implication
later that they find the impediments to the expansion of slave territory
unacceptable.
R.J. Adams
own sovreignty but later had to take that away which was hard for some states
to accept.Pure & Simple Terms!
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
<ken...@shangrila.net> wrote in message
news:3C7CEEE0...@bellatlantic.net...
I recently posted the Georgia secession declaration, it specified
slavery as its primary purpose for withdrawing from the United
States also. Vonroach is whistling in the wind with this one.
It will be really hard for him to try and divert from the real
facts on this issue, but he is fun to watch try.
(Actually, in most cases I agree with Vonroach. But in this case
he is clearly a southerner defending "his southern pride, suh"
and all that. Obviously he is biased.)
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"R.J. Adams" <grani...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020227132216...@mb-bg.aol.com...
Actually, the "states" guaranteed the powers of the US Government
in the 1777 Confederation ratification of its powers. The US
Government had a right, provided by the states, to abolish
slavery and repeal the 1850 Return Fugitive Slave Act. This had
absolutely nothing to do with sate sovereign rights.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Josh Dougherty
> This was no difference. The US Constitution and the Supreme Court had
> upheld slavery. How do you interpret the 9th and 10th Amendments to
> the US Constitution which leaves to the States and to the citizens the
> right to decide any issue not explicitly dealt with by the
> Constitution?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
signed by all the later "Confederate" states AFAIK. It is not the
right of states to take away that which is unalienable.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:49:55 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >You are welcome Joe, and your input is exactly right. The
> >Confederate flag belongs in our history and not flying over one
> >of our state houses.
>
> Therefore it does not fly over any State capitol. The flag of that
> State and the flag of the US fly there.
>
> >In respect to those that wish to fly the Confederate flag
> >privately, that is their choice. Making a damn fool out of
> >yourself is allowed in this country - thanks to all those brave
> >and loyal union soldiers. That is true just as long as you do
> >not force others to make the same fools out of themselves. After
> >reading the Confederate constitution below, we all should give
> >special thanks to the Army of the Potomac for destroying the
> >Confederacy.
>
> Amusing comment. The Army of the Potomac was defeated almost
> everywhere until they found a leader in the Army of the West.
> McClellan the leader of the Army of the Potomac ran against Lincoln
> for President. Grant and Sherman won victories at Shiloh, Vicksburg,
> and united the West. Then Sherman marched from Chattanooga through
> Atlanta to Savannah and destroyed the South. Meanwhile the bumblers
> attempting to lead the Army of the Potomac were replaced by Grant, who
> lead the `Grand Army of the Republic' into Virginia and ended the war
> (much to the relief of Lincoln and his often defeated Army of the
> Potomac). Many of the sad exploits of the Army of the Potomac such as
> at Fredricksberg are still taught in war colleges as examples of
> brilliant strategy by the army of Northern Virginia overcoming
> overwhelming odds. Yes the Army of the Potomac held on by their
> fingernails until real leaders from the West arrived. It is reported
> that they drilled very smartly, when undisturbed by cannon fire.
Yeah, yeah, yeah....
The Confederacy lost, deservedly and thankfully. Get over it and move on.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> The issue remaining was the status of slaves
> already in the USA and many feel civil war and 1,600,000 casualties could
> have been avoided had the United States allowed slavery to peacefully "die
> out" by limiting the practice to those already enslaved.
Yeah, and all their children, and all their children's children....and
so on and so on. I guess those casualties don't count. It would have
been quite a feat for slavery to just peacefully "die out" in a new
country who's constitution explicitly enshrined it as an untouchable
institution.
Josh
#vonroach
wrote:
Josh, your own ignorant bias and prejudice betrays you.
#vonroach
wrote:
>willia...@earthlink.net wrote in message news:<ojri7us3btl93hv97...@4ax.com>...
Josh, your perspective is provincial and prejudiced. Prohibition also
once had the full support of the US Constitution, yet it was cast
aside after only a few years. Public perceptions are very changeable.
A pity you can't ask LBJ sometime about marching bravely off to
Vietnam with WW2 rhetoric. Did you know that WW1 was a great war to
end all wars?
#vonroach
wrote:
>vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (#vonroach) wrote in message news:<3c8026ac...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Josh, I regret to tell you that you are quoting the Declaration of
Independence . The US Constitution was framed later by a
Constitutional Convention after the Revolution was won and the first
attempt at union (the old Confederacy) was seen to be unworkable. In
the Constitution, there are both explicit and implicit references to
slaves and slavery - otherwise it would have never been adopted. The
framers were not unmindful of the problem they were leaving for their
children to solve. They also wrote into the Constitution a means to
amend it without bloodshed. Their children were not wise enough to
realize what they were given. Incidentally, the States were also
explicitly mentioned in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
(the first 10 amendments). Lincoln was a talented politician who
remade the basic concept of the US in his Gettysburg Address from a
Union of Sovereign States into a Federal Government pre-eminent in the
US. Did you think this short address was noted only for his well
chosen words? He shifted the balance between the member States and the
Federal government without the consent of Congress, the Supreme Court,
the Constitution, or `the people'. Presidents occasionally do this in
times of crisis (FDR's first 100 days).
#vonroach
No, their power is not that broad even after the power grab by Lincoln
in the Gettysburg Address. The Congress would still have to repeal law
and the President would have to approve - and consent of Supreme Court
also needed if challenged. The Constitution would have to be amended.
A great conflict is still present between some actions of the federal
government and the Bill of Rights. `Campaign finance' will be
interesting as it plays out in the courts. Freedom of speech will not
go quietly.
States are still sovereign in many things. The recent election
challenge in Florida only reached the federal courts when the Supreme
Court of Florida attempted to exceed its authority and make election
law without the Governor or Legislature after the election was over
and State law had been followed.
#vonroach
wrote:
>vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (#vonroach) wrote in message news:<3c85d838...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
History is history, Josh. If you discount it, you cannot possibly
learn from it.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
More absurdity and misconceptions. The Union Jack is a direct hated
affront to a large minority in Northern Ireland. You still seemed to
have a muddle mind on the difference between State flags and the
various historical Confederate flags. If some group wants to take
`affront' at a flag and claim it supports prejudicial treatment, then
they better set out and prove that with direct substantial evidence
rather than whine hoping for some advantage. You talk nonsense and
forget that the sovereign States design their own flags and every
individual has a guarantee of freedom of speech if they choose to
display any flag.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Tsk Tsk Vonroach, you are picking nits. Texas had more slaves
>than any other Confederate state. You are talking about after
>the war was over in Texas, and the Union Army occupied the land
>and *enforced* the emancipation proclamation.
No I refer to the Emancipation Proclamation which was issued long
before the war was over. I would challenge yours numbers at any time
before or during the war, but they are irrelevant. Most Texans were
from States with Southern sympathies and felt an allegiance to the
South. Sam Houston was a notable exception, and one of the few.
Do you wish to claim that the Tennessee Volunteers who died at the
Alamo were only defending the right of a few plantation holders along
the upper coast to hold slaves? Geography breeds allegiances. Many
native Texans of Mexican decent fought with Sam Houston, their
documents indicate they thought they were defending their home . And
neighbors from many US States, especially in the south, pitched in to
help. There were some ideas which may be lumped under the heading of
`Manifest Destiny' and local determination that were topics of
discussion during this period.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>(Actually, in most cases I agree with Vonroach. But in this case
>he is clearly a southerner defending "his southern pride, suh"
>and all that. Obviously he is biased.)
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Wrong again, trying to present historical accuracy rather than
prejudice. I fault neither Grant or Sherman. They gave lessons on how
to wage war that we can still learn from. McClellan on the other hand
was a run of the mill army brass, that let opportunity after
opportunity slip through his fingers. If, God forbid, I had to serve,
I would have preferred to serve under Sherman. I think he understood
how to do a job with minimum casualities. I think MacArthur also
understood the correct use of overwhelming force to minimize
casualties. Lee never had the luxury of overwhelming force. He would
have been very difficult to defeat had he decided to fight a guerrilla
campaign rather than a strategy of battlefield maneuvers.
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Not true Vonroach. Lincoln's speeches were replete with
>abolishing slavery, including the abolishment of the hated 1850
>Return of Fugitive Slave act. Northerners hated that law and
>Lincoln used that hatred to cultivate votes. The south
>threatened to withdraw from the Union if Lincoln was elected
>*exclusively* because of Lincoln's abolitionist platform. The
>South claimed it could not survive without slaves.
How interesting what were is views on segregation vs. racial mingling,
and the political franchise of freed slaves. Was he in favor of
intermarriage?
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Please Vonroach! You know that is not true. The United States
>constitution says nothing about a "guaranteed right to own, breed
>and trade slaves" and you know it.
Then you don't believe in the literal reading of the US Constitution,
especially the 9th and 10 th Amendments or in Supreme Court rulings of
that time. The Constitution was drafted by very smart lawyers - every
comma is important, as is every word not spoken.
Scooter
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness."
>
'"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights. Each year someone quotes that
magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in
the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life
has a man who must die if he is to save his own children? If he chooses to
save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right?' If two men are
starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right
is 'unalienable?' And is it 'right?' As to liberty, the heroes who signed
the great document pledged themselves to _buy_ liberty with their lives.
Liberty is _never_ unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood
of patriots or it _always_ vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human
rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and
is _never_ free of cost.
"The third 'right?' -- the 'pursuit of happiness?' It is indeed unalienable
but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants
cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at
the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my
brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can
insure that I will catch it."'
-- Robert A. Heinlen
"Starship Troopers"