Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
No? You're still here. If that's true, then why are you still here?
Funny how to some, history is in a position to ‘admit’ something.
Irrelevant. The Northern Interests authored and moved the Civil War, their goetterdaemmerung for the American Experiment, so they could do a separate "experiment" called "getting seriously, filthy rich and owning a country."
I'm talking about, right after the ninth State ratified.
Which of course is unimportant to you, since States were always unimportant, according to you ..... and Adolf.
They were part of the United States before the Constitutional Convention met, they were part of the United States prior to ratifying, and they were part of the United States after they ratified. Their status didn't change at any point.
That is just so incredibly not so, that there isn't anything left to say -- you're off in your own little world of Declarationist mysteries now, of Union preexisting the Cambrian Revolution or whatever.
At that point, the conversation stops. There is no more truth to discuss.
Even to the casual observer it is you doing the flaunting, malevolent or otherwise. I just can’t see why you would denigrate the old south.
The laughing, of course. You guys are a peerless source of amusement.
And you know nothing, PERIOD.
Why are you so obsessed with slavery, something that has been over for so long?
Why are you so obsessed with pretending it never happened?
You admitted you came to FR because JR was lenient and would let you go off on Southerners.
So are you saying that before I joined FR I emailed Jim Robinson and said, "I want to come to your site and annoy Southerners. Are you cool with that?" And that he said, "Sure, come on over and piss off whoever you want." Is that really the scenario you want everyone to believe?
Is that your life? Sad, really sad.
Hardly my life. Just a hobby.
The Northern press, obedient to the Master's voice, had created a 30-year echo chamber campaign on the subject of slavery, which was the club with which Quincy Adams's Federalists and the Whigs were going to club the South into line politically. The campaign ran for over 30 years, much like racism today -- "racism, racism, racism, and would you like some racism with that?"
It was a cause for the Northern press as much as it was a fact of life in the South and much of the rest of the world.
But it was still a campaign tool, not the real cause of the Civil War.
No moreso than that the word "Filioque" was the real cause of the rupture between the Greek and Latin Churches in 1054 AD.
ROFLMAO!
(And yea, I don't doubt that is what he believes ;-)
Here you go. Eat it. Chew it. Swallow it. Agree with it. Pretend it isn’t in front of you:
The civil war was about slavery. Sorry. The Confederacy was based on it and so was the Southern economy. You cannot rewrite history no matter how much you want to. This effort started at the end of the war and I was shocked to find it still going on today. So for this pathetic revisionism, that rears its ugly head here occasionally, I will enshrine the following from the message to the Confederate Congress April 29th 1861 from Jefferson Davis:
“As soon as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves... Senators and Representatives were sent to the common councils of the nation, whose chief title to this distinction consisted in the display of a spirit of ultra-fanaticism and whose business was... to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister states, by violent denunciation of their institutions; the transaction of public affairs was impeded by repeated efforts to usurp pairing the security of property in slaves, and reducing those States which held slaves to a condition of inferiority. Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, which the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States. In the meantime the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000 at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race, their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South;... and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.”
This next quote comes from a speech in Savannah on March 21st 1861 by Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy.
“The (Confederate) Constitution has put at rest forever the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions- African slavery as it exists among us- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away...Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it- when the “Storm came and the wind blew, it fell.” Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth......It is the first government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect in the construction of buildings lays the foundation with the proper material- the granite- then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them.”
Oddly enough, whenever these two speeches are reproduced and posted the discussion stops dead in its tracks. A separate and equally discredited proposition put forward is that the South fought for “State’s Rights” and not slavery. Well, I will not post it here, but anyone can Google it. Just enter: “Confederate Constitution text” and read the results. The Confederacy reproduced the U.S. Constitution almost exactly except for a minor change in how the president was elected, and the major changes of giving Constitutional protections for slavery. That’s right; they reproduced exactly the hated federal system right down to the suspension of habeas Corpus in times of rebellion. So that argument is completely discredited from the start. Yet it is still made as people try and change history for emotional reasons. But history is history and it doesn’t change.
Yes, your active fantasy life and paranoid delusions are well known.
So it was still a live possibility, at least in Davis's and Lee's eyes, until that date.
Then they were as delusional as you are.
Actually what you said was, and I quote, "(t)here was an awkward period in which nine States met in Congress under the Consitution" and that is plain false. Congress never met until after 11 states had ratified.
Which of course is unimportant to you, since States were always unimportant, according to you ..... and Adolf.
I'm mildly surprised it took you this long to haul out the Nazi references. You're slipping.
That is just so incredibly not so, that there isn't anything left to say -- you're off in your own little world of Declarationist mysteries now, of Union preexisting the Cambrian Revolution or whatever.
If that is so incredibly not so then what were they? And please provide something other than your own opinion to support your claim.
Because it's inconvenient.
The Northern Interests authored and moved the Civil War, their goetterdaemmerung for the American Experiment, so they could do a separate "experiment" called "getting seriously, filthy rich and owning a country."
Yes, the ever popular "We wuz so stoopid we done fell into Linkum's trap" defense. I'm mildly surprised it took you this long to haul that out, too.
Wow, you’ve got it bad....that’s not even a rough approximation of the truth.
Nah, we just laugh at you.
Back then, it was "okay" and indeed part of a person's individual property rights, which a Libertarian would be bound to defend. Disestablishing slavery, then, would require a new social compact freely entered into.
That wasn't what happened.
Property rights in other people were ancient and had a Biblical sanction unrebuked by the God of Abraham: Abraham himself sired Ishmael on Hagar, the bondwoman of Sarah Abraham's wife (and the siring was Sarah's idea). Hagar was a woman of Egypt, serving out her life in bondage in the land of Israel.
One of the oldest documents in sub-Roman France, written in what is now called the "Lingua Rustica Romana", is part of the documentation of the emergence of Old French. The document is a bill of sale for a slave and reads:
"Constat nus ut aliquom fimenom nomine Nautlindho vindemus tibi pro pecia de ma[n]so probrio jures meo."
The man is selling a woman named Nautlind (a German name) for cash and specifically cites his "personal property rights" as the source of the sale.
Giving up a right of high antiquity for the reconsidered public welfare interest in a sounder basis for a compacted society would not have been an unreasonable thing to do, if rights had not been ruptured by acts of war that did violence on, and did away with, the old Republic, substituting a barely-concealed Empire in its stead.
I wouldn't put it past him; he really is an odd individual. He sends me FReepmails with titles like "Hey Blank Shooter." That's his way of insulting me because my wife and I are adoptive parents.
LOL, you've got that "ubermommy" thing real bad, haven't you, boyo? Well, you aren't big enough and your pythons aren't thick enough to deliver your dream of beating someone manually into submission (or just killing them outright).
Which is how John Quincy Adams and Abe Lincoln, your heroes, decided to deal with the South.
The civil war was about slavery. Sorry. The Confederacy was based on it and so was the Southern economy.
Non-sequitur. The Confederacy was based on agriculture, and big-spread cash-crop agriculture used slaves, sure enough.
But that doesn't mean that the Civil War was about slavery. It was about the South's refusal to take orders on the Tariff, on Free-Soilerism (which meant that Northern emigrants west did not, but Southerners did, have to surrender some of their rights in order to cross the Mississippi River), and on any number of other issues of interest to Northerners.
The North and the South were two different societies, and ther experiment in cohabitation had broken down. And so the North beat the South into unconsciousness with a shovel for trying to move out.
Which does not require that the South have slavery or any other sort of institution, to qualify as an object of political subjugation in the eyes of people so minded.
Get it? Non sequitur.
Take a course on reason and logic, then get back to me.
Madison's Federalist 39 and 43, incorporated by reference. I'm not going to post them again; I've done that so many times now that you should know both those s.o.b.'s by heart by now.
He was vague about it if 43 and I still don't know what part of 39 you're referring to.
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.