Posted on 04/12/2022 2:53:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Your statement here is very much like Liberals calling people "racist" or "homophobes" when they disagree with their policies.
My family did not come to the United States until after 1900. None of us were here in the 1860s, and we played no role in the war on one side or the other. My family also did not settle in any of the Southern states, and so we have no social legacy of needing to support the Southern states.
My position is entirely based on an objective reading of history that had been hidden from me for most of my life and instead I was taught the bullsh*t that everybody has drilled into them through the existing "education" system.
It was only a few years ago that I discovered all that stuff I had been told about the war was bullsh*t, and I now realize it was instead just propaganda used to justify the evil things that were done to the Southerners.
So you expected me to be a Southerner and be mad about "losing the war."
I am mad that the Southerners lost because this ushered in a great evil into our nation in the form of a corrupt and excessively powerful Federal bureaucracy and an over-reaching government in general.
We now have a government that intrudes into everyone's lives and looks nothing at all like the government the founders and framers gave to us in 1776 and 1787 respectively.
Our existing government has come to resemble fascism, and it is unsettling.
So who lost the war? Everyone in the United States lost the war. We lost much of our freedoms as a result of that war.
The view that the facts which I have presented to you are "cherry picked" is your view of them. To me they appear as the most salient information on the conflict you can find.
Secession is not rebellion? That would have been news to all the southerners that were proudly crowing about rebellion from even before SC left.
Our laws are not based on the opinions of yahoos yelling in a crowd.
The Declaration of Independence articulates a right given by God, for people to have independence if they want it.
Secession from England was "rebellion" because British law recognized no right to independence.
The US system of governance was *FOUNDED* on the idea that people have a right to independence if they want it.
Therefore, it is not "rebellion" when people avail themselves of the very right their founding document asserts.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase had it exactly right.
And I will also point out, that Buchanan didn't launch a war against the south for seceding, and neither did Lincoln when he first gained power.
It was only after he sent his fleet of warships to provoke them that he then thereafter claimed they were in "rebellion."
Why weren't they in "rebellion" back in March of 1861?
Lincoln knew that crap wouldn't fly in the USA of the time unless he could create some sort of trigger, which he did.
It may have been something else, or he may still be fine and has just quit visiting Free Republic.
If memory serves me correctly, he said he graduated from Oberlin College back in either the 1950s or 1960s, which is why I recall he was considerably older than myself.
I hope he is fine but I fear he is not.
Yes. They just could have kept that economic system based on the use of slave labor simply be remaining in the USA and continuing to send 60% of all that slavery money to New York and Washington DC where the corrupt arrogant bastards could buy themselves some more gold gilding for their mansion staircases.
All they had to do was accept the Corwin permanent slavery Amendment offered by Lincoln and his collection of pawns in the Congress.
It was a deliberate reinforcement of guns, men and munitions with Warships ordered to attack if resisted by the confederates.
That it was a "supply" mission was just a lie.
Lincoln sent those warships with very public announcements, and he quietly and behind the scenes paralyzed them from taking action by secretly detaching their command ship while ordering all the other ships to wait for it's arrival.
When they arrived, the Confederates were convinced it was only a matter of hours before they would be attacked by those ships.
Lincoln's clever plan worked perfectly. He got the war that *HE* and only *HE* wanted.
He saved all the fortunes of his rat bastard puppet masters in the North east.
"As I read and contemplated the subject, behold! that very discontentment which Master Hugh had predicted would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable anguish. As I writhed under it, I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out. In moments of agony, I envied my fellow slaves for their stupidity. "
I fully understand why you don't want to see the history as it really was. It is less painful to remain in ignorance.
That's not what Taney ruled.
This went beyond that. It affirmed a right of transit for slaveowners and their slave property.
An affirmation which was not a matter before the court at the time and which was made in dicta.
Standing was crystalized in the 20s but it was based on earlier rulings
Which rulings?
Saying Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen is the same thing as saying he lacks standing.
We can add standing to the ever expanding list of words you don't know the meaning of. Or, in this case, the legal definition of.
This was binding. It was a Supreme Court ruling. Lower courts are bound by it.
Stare Decisis is dependent on biding precedent which is ratio decidendi and not obiter dictum. Those Taney comments made in dicta would have been challenged and would likely been struck down. Including his striking down of the Missouri Compromise.
DoodleDawg’s statement in question in post 140 is not wrong. Repeat: DoodleDawg’s statement in question in post 140 is not wrong.
That sounds as improbable as it is welcome and Miss Dawg deserve kudos for getting it right.
Let's look closer at Miss Dawg’s tepid first excursion into fact-based commentary: “Then we can say that one (U.S. Constitution) protected slave imports for 20 years and the other (C.S. Constitution) protected it in perpetuity.”
Elsewhere Miss Dawg made the claim - probably in jest - that the U.S. Constitution made no reference to slavery.
Can you point us to where the work slavery is in the U.S. Constitution?
Correct! That's what you described. That's what such a ruling WOULD have been had it been as you described. But of course, that wasn't the ruling.
An affirmation which was not a matter before the court at the time and which was made in dicta.
Just because a matter is not directly before the court that does not mean the court cannot rule on it. It has done so several times. Read Marbury vs Madison. Read Texas v White. Those rulings are still binding.
Which rulings?
Lots of them. Look them up. I'm not going to do your work for you. Really. No matter how many times you try to get me to do your work for you. So we can go back and forth 50 times about this and I'm not going to budge one inch OR, you can look them up for yourself.
We can add standing to the ever expanding list of words you don't know the meaning of. Or, in this case, the legal definition of.
Actually no. We would be adding it to the list of legal terms and doctrines you clearly do not understand.
Stare Decisis is dependent on biding precedent which is ratio decidendi and not obiter dictum. Those Taney comments made in dicta would have been challenged and would likely been struck down. Including his striking down of the Missouri Compromise.
Your lack of a legal education is blindingly obvious to anybody who has one and who passed a bar - like me. You don't know what you're talking about.
“Can you point us to where the work slavery is in the U.S. Constitution?” (sic)
I think I know what you mean.
But I don’t know why you are doing this.
Blink your eyes if you are being held and forced to write these things.
Slavery, racial conflicts, class conflicts and declining cotton prices would make the Confederacy a very unstable place to live. It's not unheard of that its leaders might start a war as a way to achieve internal unity, as indeed they did in 1861.
The idea that the 1/4th the population CSA would try to "conquer lands in the USA is ridiculous.
That is precisely what they tried to do in Kentucky, which had tried to remain neutral. The Confederate government wanted to unite all the slaveowners in the country under its rule. Of necessity that did mean invading US territory.
Taxing poop is the same thing as taxing feed. It's the same material, it just depends on which end of the horse you want to tax.
That is itself poop. Say I raise sheep. I sell you the wool and the mutton. I get money for it. You have a lot of enterprises and make a lot of things. You have money to buy things from abroad. You pay taxes on it. I can sell my wool and mutton abroad, too. I can also buy things from abroad as well and pay taxes on those things. But if there are more of you and you make more things, you will be able to buy more from abroad and you will pay more taxes. Cotton planters were quite rich, but their weren't enough of them to import as much as the larger population of the free states did. If you were a poor White Southerner or a slave you probably didn't buy very much from abroad at all. We have been over this countless times and you haven't learned and probably never will.
To go back to your earlier post, you have no idea who my ancestors were and what they did or didn't do, but it's obvious that some people here talk a lot about tariffs because they didn't want to admit that their relatives fought a war to benefit the slaveowners.
But anything not relating directly to the matter before the court are made in dicta and are not binding. Only rulings that directly address the matter before the court are Ratio decidendi and are binding on courts at all levels.
Lots of them. Look them up
In other words you just made them up. Not surprising.
Actually no. We would be adding it to the list of legal terms and doctrines you clearly do not understand.
What part of standing did Taney rule Scott case did not meet? And if Scott did not meet the standing requirements then why did he issue a ruling to begin with instead of just dismissing the case out of hand?
The only bar you passed serves alcohol.
This originated between FLT_bird and me in Reply 38. Perhaps you should take the time to read the whole discussion?
[jeffersondem quoting DoodleDawg] “Where does it (United States Constitution) specifically mention slavery?”
1865: Amdt 13: Section 1. "Neither slavery...."
My father was born in 1913. I mistakenly said my “Grandpa”. I meant my “GREAT” Grandpa.
I mistakenly said my “Grandpa”. I meant to say my “GREAT” grandpa.
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.