Posted on 08/29/2011 12:27:09 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
You must be really weird to believe the crap you believe and in NYC, too.
I neglected to comment on your States Rights claim as a cause for the Wah. There were no states rights which were endangered by the fedgov before the Wah. They only states “right” which was in any way endangered was the “right” to use the whip and the lash which is in no way a rights. The “right” to enslave was the only right the Slavers were concerned about.
The federal army was 16,000 SIXTEEN THOUSAND for those of you in Rio Linda.
It is utter fraud to claim that a federal “tyranny” in any way threatened the Slaverocracy. Or that the Slavers fought for any reason other than to promote slavery.
Post 341: crappola
Post 342: crappola
And those are representative of your entire posting history on FR. You have nothing to offer to the debate except hand-wringing emotionalism, revisionism and lies, IOW, the libtard point of view.
No federal “tyranny” existed in 1860. I have shown it had a TINY army. There is no argument about it.
Nor was there any threat to states rights. Slavers could care less about any right except the right to use the whip and lash.
Emotional? LoL I have refuted every hysterical LIE you have put up. It isn’t even fun anymore. Now it is like kicking kittens.
You post that phrase so much that I'm starting to believe that you have a fetish for such tools.
(BTW, if the whip and lash had been applied to you as a kid maybe you wouldn't have turned into the lying sob that you are.)
I have refuted every
You haven't produced a single fact or linked to a single credible reference. Your rebuttals are nothing but cry-baby blurbs and whiny ejaculations steeped in revisionism and lies.
Now it is like kicking kittens.
You're a legend in your own mind.....
The entire Slaver Defense collapses when it is pointed out that there was NO tyranny in 1860. There was no actual tyranny nor an incipient tyranny.
The US (except for the South) was the freest nation on earth (unless you were on the business end of the Slaver Whips).
You're not very good at this, are you? (It's not even fun anymore. It's like, kicking yankees and their lapdog scalawags......)
Once again, you're posting personally held believes that have no foundation in fact. In fact, Buchanan's State of the Union Address, 12/3/1860, goes into great detail of 'incipient tyranny'. (I'd post a link but have decided to let you do your own digging, which, of course, is not your strong suit.)
Furthermore, the entire South was aware of the impending tyranny following the election of disHonest Abe. Why do you think they seceded?
unless you were on the business end of the Slaver Whips
You mean the ones wielded by the yankee slave traders?
"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”
The size of the federal army is no “personal belief”. It was tiny.
The fact that state governments had more power over and involvement in the lives of citizens than the miniscule federal government is no “personal belief”.
The fact that white men (even in the Land of the Whip and Lash) had more freedom in the US than anywhere in the world is no “personal belief”. It is indisputable.
What do I care about Buchanan, another in the almost unbroken chain of pro-slavery presidents? It was through this series of pro-slavery presidents that much of the control of the federal government was implemented.
The Slave Power was idiotic and insane and its idiocy and insanity led it to conclude it could destroy the greatest nation in the history of the world. Much like the insanity and evil of the Nazis led them to think they could conquer the world.
Whip-wielding Yankee slavers, oh, perish forbid, everyone knows they used charm to lure the slaves to the ships. Where have I ever defended slavers of any region? Where do I claim that the North was not nearly as racist as the South? Why should an abomination be canceled by another abomination in any case?
There was NO Tyranny from the TINY federal government of 1860. Thus, the foundation of your apologia for the Slavers dissolves and the whole stupid argument is washed away.
You've done nothing but ‘cite’ your personal belief.
Also, your continued use of the term ‘the land of the whip and lash’ to describe the South in an attempt by you and your PC revisionist yankee mythologist to ‘whitewash’ the norths involvement in slavery, in other words, just a giant red herring. You may as well just join your left wing yankee buddies and shout ‘racist’ every time you reply. (I see you've already played the ‘nazi’ card, you libtard POS.)
Last, my argument is well founded in historical fact. I can cite reference after reference but all you do is reply with hysterical hand-wringing while clinging to your precious yankee mythology. Your whole stupid argument is no more that libtard emotionalism.
So the actual size of the federal army is my “personal belief”? Not facts but my personal belief? What a loon you are.
The fact that the Land of the Whip and Lash existed does not IN ANY WAY exculpate the racism in the North or the role of some Yankees DECADES BEFORE the war. Nor have I ever claimed that it does. NYC was filled with traitors in 1860 and throughout the war so there were huge numbers of racists there for sure. During the Draft Riots they happily burned, hung, mutilated and killed every Black they could get their hands on, even little kids. Troops which had just defeated Lee at Gettysburg had to be brought in to resist the rioters. Plenty of Northern traitors needed killing.
The Slavers were not even as smart as the Nazis.
Why don’t you show me where the federal army was bigger than what I have established as FACT?
Why don’t you show me all the anti-Slavery presidents prior to Lincoln?
Why don’t you show me the anti-Southern laws passed by the federal government?
Or show me that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was NOT pro-slavery for 59 out of the 73 years of the US’s existence.
Of course, the reason is YOU CAN’T. Every fact I have stated is accurate and unimpeachable.
Your argument is nothing but delusions and lies. And your authorities nobody but humbugs, frauds and crackpots. But that is to be expected.
And where would that be, skippy? Wouldn't that include the entire US prior to 1860?
NYC was filled with traitors in 1860 and throughout the war so there were huge numbers of racists there for sure.
Some things never change, do they............
Why don’t you show me where the federal army was bigger than what I have established as FACT?
You simply don't understand the rules of internet debate, do you? Let me help you out some:
When you make a statement of 'fact' it's on YOU to prove it. Period.
Why don’t you show me all the anti-Slavery presidents prior to Lincoln?
Lincoln wasn't all that anti-slavery: "Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."--Lincoln
Lincoln used slavery as a political tool. (See how it's done? I actually use quotes and references.)
Or show me that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was NOT pro-slavery for 59 out of the 73 years of the US’s existence. Of course, the reason is YOU CAN’T.
You do realize that the Constitution as written by the Founders protected slavery, don't you? When you speak of 'the slavers', you have to include the antebellum north and, of course, the Founders. Therefore, you would have to logically conclude that, in order to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States that these sworn officers would necessarily have to be pro-slavery, at least in a Constitutional context. How could they otherwise swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? Do you understand?
In a modern context if we were to replace slavery with abortion would you still make the same absurd arguments, i.e., all presidents and SC justices since Roe-v-Wade have been pro-abortion? Do you see how utterly absurd your statements are now?
Every fact I have stated is accurate and unimpeachable.
You haven't stated any facts. Your entire post consist of hysterical outbursts, hyperbole and challenging questions each of which has been addressed and shown to be quite impeachable.
Your argument is nothing but delusions and lies.
List just one and prove it or STFU.
And your authorities nobody but humbugs, frauds and crackpots.
Once again, prove your claim or STFU.
You've proven yourself to nothing more than a handwringing crybaby. You're debating style smacks of left wing emotionalism employed with schoolyard antics. You are a complete and total bore with the mentality of a prepubescent bully and a self image fully expressed in your telling screen name. I have used you for a hockey puck throughout this little thread of ours. You are the possessor of a lilliputian mentality, the useless stubbornness of a woman, the debating skills of a fourth grader all rolled in a narcissistic persona. In other words, you are FR's 0bama! Bye-bye you arrogantsOb.
Southern control of the federal government indeed made Northern authorities part of their slave catching apparatus. So the entire US was under the thumb of the slavers in many respects.
I already proved the size of the federal army. There is no more disputing that than the number of states in the Union in 1860. That army was tiny and on the frontiers in no way capable of supporting your imagined “tyranny”.
So you have stumbled over the fact that Lincoln was no threat to the Slaverocracy? Congratulations but I told you that long ago.
Your quotes prove nothing under dispute and certainly do not disprove anything I have maintained. You are welcome to further support any of my points. Thanks.
The Constitution “protected” slavery for twenty years. After 1808 Congress was empowered to abolish it had it wished to. There was no constitutional mandate that slavery be supported after that date. And the Founders were in accord with that most believing that it was an unfortunate anachronism which most be removed. They didn’t count on it getting a new life after Whitney.
I have repeatedly shown the falsity of the claim that there was some tyranny oppressing the Slaverocracy. That LIE is easily refuted and your entire justification of the RAT Rebellion collapses with that refutation. Your ignoring this does not make your arguments valid.
Nice to see that you fully demonstrate New York nastiness and all in support of the worst and most anti-American movement in the history of our nation. Keep up the good work. The applause of the stupid must be very heady.
The Constitution protected the IMPORTATION of slaves for twenty years. A very important distinction. The law ending the IMPORTATION of slaves did nothing to stop the buying and selling of slaves within the United States. The law was passed by both houses of Congress on March 2, 1807, and Jefferson, a slave owner, signed it into law on March 3, 1807. Once again, it typical yankee fashion, you've tried to twist and spin your argument using lies in an attempt to prove your point. That's the only method that you libtard yankees know, ain't it?
Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Slavery was still protected by the Constitution until the adoption of the 13th Amendment on December 18, 1865; 57 years after the law that you misrepresented was put into effect in 1808.
You can continue to try to spin, twist and lie but you'll get busted every time, sport.
In addition, even though the law of 1808 banned the IMPORTATION of slaves into the US, the yankees continued to ply their trade and reap the tremendous profits sailing the triangle:
"The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy." --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.
In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.
Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.
You must be soooooooo proud.
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.