Posted on 04/02/2011 7:53:41 AM PDT by JoeProBono
If you think you’re being clever, you’re the only one on this thread who thinks so.
The south used that principle of coercion to accept government that people didn’t want, forcing bad government on black slaves, and denying that Northern states could ban slavery within their boundary. The principle of the US government is rule of law, whether you want it or not. True, most criminals and traitors will protest that they do not want law that condemns them, but there are legal remedies to bad law, such as petition, pardon, appeal, and election. The southern rebellion was made to overthrow law, for the sake of the institution of human slavery
So, you don’t know where he got the specie to pay his taxes either...
I went to Gettysburg College and spent quite a bit of my four years on the battlefield. One curious thing I noticed about the landscape is that visually, the elevation (and distance) of the Union lines do not appear quite as obvious from the area that is now Confederate Ave. One can readily envision how one might be tempted to think a massed infantry charge might shatter the union lines. Conversely, once you're over on the union side, the height advantage becomes much more apparent.
In times of crisis, though, governments do take measures that would be unthinkable in times of peace.
Look at all the changes that came in ten years ago after the WTC attacks.
I'd agree with the rest of what you say.
You've got it all twisted up. Rule of law you say. It was your hero, that butchering son of a bitch Lincoln and your union thuggery, which was chugged full of Marxist 48ers that fully and completely ruined this Constitutional Republic.
It was the South that wished for the law to carry the day. When the South finally had enough of your New England mentality, and those broken agreements that go with it, they said Adios.
That war was about much more than slavery. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
By the way, they had every right to secede.
Daniel Webster 1851:
"If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Here is James Madison and what he said during the Virginia Ratification Convention:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
Here is Mr. Nicholas from that same event:
Mr. NICHOLAS contended that the language of the proposed ratification would secure every thing which gentlemen desired, as it declared that all powers vested in the {626} Constitution were derived from the people, and might be resumed by them whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remained at their will. No danger whatever could arise; for, says he, these expressions will become a part of the contract. The Constitution cannot be binding on Virginia, but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent, to be, (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, — I ask whether, in this case, these conditions, on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve. In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.
The rebellion was about slavery for the south. Putting down the rebellion was about the UNION for the north, which is not letting the minority end the Union that had been established by all the states in 1789. Secession could, to my mind be accomplished legally, either by amendment (3/4s of states) or by federal suit. Not by unilateral action of a state, as was ruled in Texas V. White
You do realize that in order to support your theory you must provide supporting evidence, right? You also realize how you're coming accross absent this documentation, right? Your theory is a bust at this point. So, I'm sure you'll be happy to produce documentation for General Lee's lifetime credits and debits (in other words, income and expenditures) from ALL sources. Yes, I know a tad about bookkeeping and accounting and I do mean ALL sources. And, no, tin foil hat theory isn't sufficient documentation.
Oh, since you still haven't provided your theory for US Major Robert Anderson's slave profits, you can include that if you'd like. Yes, the same documentation requested above is reqired.
The income of the plantations are documented. So are the births deaths and manumissions of the slaves. The females not named in the will are missing.
So I see you agree that a miracle would be needed clear Lee’s reputation. In his defense, he lived in the past, and things were done differently then. He had a raft of bad events, and did the best what he could.
No doubt secession could be legal. Just the way the rebels did it wasn’t.
You confused mstar w/me. You failed to include the plantation documentation. You also failed to include ALL of General Lee's lifetime credits and debits. Please do so. Again, I know a little about bookkeeping and accounting and your theory is a bust. You haven't even come close to supporting it. Please provide the requested information.
When the liquor wears off tomorrow, you might want to read the 1882 United States Supreme Court Case of United States v. Lee. The US government seized Lee's Arlington estate for the alleged non-payment of taxes. After the war, Lee's family sued the tax commissioners, alleging that the seizure was unlawful. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lee family, which later sold the estate to the federal government for $150,000.
I don’t think it a smear. It was in accordance with the mores of the times, and further, it was often necessary for slaves to be sold to pay debts. Richmond had a robust red light district in the antebellum period. One Lumpkin was a procurer associated with the mixed race brothels, and the mayor of Richmond acted as his executor, indicating that his business was not completely unacceptable.
Means, Motive, Opportunity. Where did Lee get the specie to offer to pay his taxes? How did he manage to free the Custis slaves in 1862, AND provide for them to be supported outside Virginia, as was required by law?
Slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. It was the very convention that framed the Constitution the clashing theories and bristling arguments of 1787 presaged the glistening bayonets of 1861.
Secession is an act by the people, acting as their respective State. It is the act of Sovereigns - above - the subservient branches of government. Before Lincoln and his band of murderous pillagers raided Southern communities, there were attempts to make secession illegal... they failed.
Here is Texas Senator Louis Wigfall talking about Northern legal maneuvers on secession:
I desire to pour oil on the waters, to produce harmony, piece and quite here.It is early in the morning, and I hope I shall not say anything that may be construed as offensive. I rise merely that we have an understanding of the question. It is not slavery in the territories, it is not expansion, which is the difficulty. If the resolution which the Senator from Wisconsin introduced here, denying the right of secession, had been adopted by two thirds of each branch of the department of the Government, and had it been ratified by three fourths of the States, I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as the State in which I live and to which I owe my allegiance is concerned, if she had no other cause for a disruption of the Union taking place, she would undoubtedly have gone out.
Here is one vote, that was voted down 28 nays to 18 yeas:
“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Until you provide documentation, that's all it is. Lifetime earnings and expenditures, please. I'm still waiting.
It was in accordance with the mores of the times, and further, it was often necessary for slaves to be sold to pay debts.
This would fall in the earnings column. Provide the receipt, please.
It is certainly not a smear that Lee was a slave owner himself. His will was found in Rockbridge county, filed far from his home to hide it. In it he gave Nancy and her 4 boys their freedom. He had never updated it after the war.
Some of the southern partisans used to hold forth that Lee had never owned slaves.
4 boys, no girls. What happened to the girls?
You reveal your ignorance of forensic accounting by requiring a ludicrous standard. We laugh at you.
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.