Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You sure are a mouthy little something for being such a newbie, aren’t you? Or are you a banned retread?
Dionne seems to be doing a little spinning of his own. Yaz made his major league debut almost to the day of the shelling of Fort Sumter -- April 11, 1961. He was a good but largely unnoticed player until 1963 when he won the AL batting championship. Here's what his Wikipedia bio has to say:
While his first two years were viewed as solid but unspectacular, he emerged as a rising star in 1963, winning the American League batting championship with a batting average of .321, and also leading the league in doubles and walks, finishing sixth in the Most Valuable Player voting.
I doubt Dionne and his buddy ever heard of Yastrzemski before 1963 -- let alone place him alongside legends like Bill Russell and Johnny Unitas.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com
No, but the Declaration of Independence did not focus on tea.
However, the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union mentions slavery as the primary reason for the state’s action.
No, but then no reasonable person would attempt to make such a clumsy comparison.
Oops, should have said "almost to the day of the 100th anniversary of...."
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com
Yes
Yes
“I’ve only set foot in the south twice”
Come on down. With the exceptions of the liberals down here its a great place!
“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.”
28 nays to 18 yeas
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=052/llsj052.db&recNum=378&itemLink=D?hlaw:3:./temp/~ammem_iHF8::%230520379&linkText=1
It wasn’t just blacks that couldn’t vote, you had to be male and a land owner....although I don’t know about the blacks that held slaves themselves...
Are you saying that blacks did not own slaves themselves?
Very Interesting
There were also black slaveowners in the Civil War.
I don't know, of course, but that makes sense to me.
That is not fact merely because you say it is. Lincoln, Jackson, Buchanan, Clay, Webster, and Robert E. Lee himself are just a few of the men who all knew that secession was illegal.
28 nays to 18 yeas
So it appears that 61% knew their Constitution well enough to know that such an act was unnecessary.
The ironic thing is that had the slaves been granted 5/5 representation, the extra representatives accorded the slave-holding states would have been highly unlikely to vote their interests. And had they been granted 0/5 representation, they'd have been only property. Ethically the thing was a lot more complicated than it looks.
It doesn't matter because your claim is incorrect anyway. The first case of servitude for life, i.e. slavery, was recorded in 1640.
"Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath . . . brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away . . . the court doth . . . order [that] the first serve out their times with their master according to their indentures, . . . and that [the] third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere." A Virginia Court Decision (1640) from Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (January 1898), vol. 5, no. 3, p. 236.
ping for later
He was an Angolan indentured servant. His name was Antonio/Anthony Johnson of Northhampton County, Virginia.
He served his term of indenture, became a freeman and bought a large acreage of land with money he had saved during his indenture. Not only was he the first recognized owner of a “slave” in the sense of lifetime ownership or chattel slavery, John Casor being the name of that first slave, but he bought and owned his own wife.
Anthony Johnson was far from the only colored freeman on record in Virginia who owned slaves after the advent of chattel slavery, the first legal instance of which is attributed to him. Prior to that, indentured servants from Africa were fairly rare, regarded as exotic and were sought after in Virginia, as there was an element of status involved.
It’s far more complicated and not nearly so black and white an issue as modern polemicists would have us believe.
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.