Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
OK, I did. I see the 'levy war' part. South Carolina certainly did that. I see the 'establish commerce' part and the 'contract alliances' part but I don't see the 'steal whatever property we want' part. What clause covers that?
That's OK. It made about as much sense before the correction as it did after.
No, that problem is called "you lying or at least misstating what a source says, then being confronted with the truth."
one of my "all-time favorites" of that sort of DISHONESTY was the former member-in-goodstanding of the coven, who stated that here was NO BOOK titled YACHTS AGAINST SUBS, but DID post excerpts from TWO reviews of THE BOOK. (it's REALLY hard for a book reviewer to review something that never was written, don't you think??)
I don't supppose you can present any of this, either, can you? I didn't think so. "Yachts Against Subs" doesn't exist as a book. End of story. You just look desperate or delusional claiming that it does.
i further note that you didn't bother to say whether YOU are ignorant enough to believe that "The OR" is "a racist diatribe" and/or "rebel propaganda"
Again, show me what someone actually said and I'll comment on it. I won't comment on what you tell me some other poster said, given your track record with the truth.
Now, answer the question that I notice you avoided in that whole diatribe: When Anderson, Doubleday, and Foster, all US Army officers at Sumter, reported that the garrison was running out of supplies and were at half rations, picking bits of rice out of broken glass, were they lying?
This clause: "We bombard the cr*p out of every Yankee until they leave"
So Sumter was worth starting a war over? And your only real complaint is that you lost? Welll try harder next time.
No..but you seem to enjoy baiting me, and making wisecracks, so I threw one "back at ya".....
The fact that remains is that I believe that the act of secession itself ended any and all ownership or claim to any property within the Confederacy, and you disagree, so why don't we move on to something else.......
Disagreements are what cause a lot of wars, you know? < /s >
frankly, i don't think it's the former, but i could be wrong.
free dixie,sw
Answer the questions: Were Anderson, Foster, and Doubleday lying?
And can you prove the existence of the book "Yachts Against Subs"?
These are both yes or no questions. Your usual sputtering and insults won't answer them.
stand watie. Answer the man's question, or just admit that you are nuts (and then spend some quality time with your therapist.)
There was far more widespread sentiment to not allow it.
As to the Slave Power writers of the Confederate Constitution forbidding the import of slaves, that makes perfect sense. When you already own a valuable resource, you do not want to undermine that value by importing more of that resource. Same philosophy at work here as protective tariffs on British iron.
Are you serious?
----------------------------------------------
| States. | Value of the Slaves at $400 per head. | Val. of Real and Per. Estate, less the val. of slaves at $400 p. head. |
| Alabama | $137,137,600 | $81,066,732 |
| Arkansas | 18,840,000 | 21,001,025 |
| Delaware | 916,000 | 17,939,863 |
| Florida | 15,724,000 | 7,474,734 |
| Georgia | 152,672,800 | 182,752,914 |
| Kentucky | 84,392,400 | 217,236,056 |
| Louisiana | 97,923,600 | 136,075,164 |
| Maryland | 36,147,200 | 183,070,164 |
| Mississippi | 123,951,200 | 105,000,000 |
| Missouri | 34,968,800 | 102,278,907 |
| North Carolina | 115,419,200 | 111,381,272 |
| South Carolina | 153,993,600 | 134,264,094 |
| Tennessee | 95,783,600 | 111,671,104 |
| Texas | 23,264,400 | 32,097,940 |
| Virginia | 189,011,200 | 202,634,638 |
| $1,280,145,600 | $1,655,945,137 | |
|
---------------------------------------------------------
CUSTOM-HOUSE RECEIPTS.--1854. |
||
| Free States, | $60,010,489 | |
| Slave States, | 5,136,969 | |
| Balance in favor of the Free States, | $54,873,520 |
Source: http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/helper/helper.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
By 1860, even Jeff Davis estimated the value of the Confederacy's "special property" at about $2 Trillion! Total Customes Revenue for the entire United States was less than $70 Million!
2. YES, the book exists. the University of Corpus Christi has/had one (if you can believe the "nameless shunned one", NOW BANNED from FR for being a "general all-around creep, the library NOW does not HAVE the book.)
the facts are on MY side & the HATE & IGNORANCE is YOURS to keep.
lol AT you.
free dixie,sw
2. YES, the book exists. the University of Corpus Christi has/had one (if you can believe the "nameless shunned one", NOW BANNED from FR for being a "general all-around creep, the library NOW does not HAVE the book.)
the facts are on MY side & the HATE & IGNORANCE is YOURS to keep.
lol AT you.
free dixie,sw
2. YES, the book exists. the University of Corpus Christi has/had one (if you can believe the "nameless shunned one", NOW BANNED from FR for being a "general all-around creep, the library NOW does not HAVE the book.)
the facts are on MY side & the HATE & IGNORANCE is YOURS to keep.
lol AT you.
free dixie,sw
No, the CSA constitution protected slave trading with their neighbor, the United States.
while simultaneously illegalizing tariffs for pork.
Well, sorta. What it actually says is that any internal improvements can't be paid for out of the treasury. Instead, they have to be levied directly on the beneficiaries (" in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.")
It's clear that this was their major issue (the tariffs).
If the presence of a clause in their constitution is evidence of an issue's importance, what are we to make of the six different clauses in that document dealing with slavery? (Article 1, Section 9, Clauses 1, 2, & 4; Article 4, Section 2, Clauses 1 & 3, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3--" 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')
So expensive that it involved insurance on the luxury level and that the mortality rate of the sailors bringing transporting slaves on ships was higher than that of their cargo because the slaves were worth something.
What on earth are you talking about? The international slave trade was dead by 1850, apart from a few smugglers, who I don't think bothered with insurance. The fact is that about a quarter to a third of southern families owned slaves. And didn't you just get down saying that the slaves weren't an important part of the economy, at least compared to tariffs?
but why would states, even northern ones(!) decades before come close to secession over tariffs?
That's easy. They didn't. The Hartford Convention (which I assume you're thinking of), wasn't about tariffs, it was about the trade embargo that Madison had imposed against Britain. And while a few hotheads tossed around the idea of secession, it doesn't appear in the final report of the convention. But that didn't stop the Democrats from seizing on the issue and working it for all it was worth. In the words of historian Samuel Eliot Morison: "Democratic politicians, seeking a foil to their own mismanagement of the war and to discredit the still formidable Federalist party, caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof."
Also, why would northerners be overwhelmingly against a civil war with their southern brothers and sisters?
I might be going out on a limb here, but maybe it was because they thought war is a bad thing.
Why would there be four slave states in the North? Come on!
Again, I might be going out on a limb here, but maybe they thought secession was a bad idea.
There was widespred sentiment in the North to allow the Southern states to secede! This is a fact.
There was some sentiment to let them go their own way, but once they opened fire on Sumter, that vague sentiment rapidly evaporated and half a million men volunteered for duty.
Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory they inhabit
Ah, Lincoln's Mexican War speech. Have you actually read the whole thing? Despite that Lost Causer favorite out-of-context quote, Lincoln's not talking about unilateral secession. He's talking about using force to take what you can. Here's the context:
If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two, was. The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. As to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 18O3, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther.The south, unfortunately, couldn't carry her revolution anywhere.
In other words, you got nothing. You can't credibly say that everyone was lying, but you can't back off your unsupported statement.
2. YES, the book exists. the University of Corpus Christi has/had one
It's not listed in their catalog. Nor in that of the Library of Congress
Care for a do-over?
Good grief. Lincoln stated, 'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.' Sound familiar? It's from the Declaration of Independence: 'That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
Lincoln goes on to state '[t]his is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.' The right of revolution that you refer to has existed since the dawn of time. Lincoln refers to the "revolutionary" idea of self government by the people, stated in the DoI, not of the divine/hereditary rule of kings which the DoI rejected.
Have you read the speech, or are you just trying to twist Lincoln's words to fit your agenda? Let me paraphrase him: The boundaries of Texas were whatever she controlled as a result of her revolution, and that's fine--we think revolutions are a good thing overall. Any group has the natural right to rise up and take what they can, if they have the power. They also have the natural right to put down a minority who might oppose them, as we did the tories. Revolutions overturn everything and make new rules.
Now, if you can show me where he's talking about anything resembling the divine right of kings, or the Declaration of Independence, or any of that stuff that you claim is in that speech, show me the words. All he says is a government that "suits them better," including one that tramples over a minority.
Do you realize that Lincoln's speech also gives slaves the right to rise up slaughter their masters? It also gives the north the right to crush the south, "putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.