Posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk
There were two "loyal" slave states at the end of the war which were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation and had not taken steps to abolish slavery, but the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 officially ended slavery there too. Whether slaveholders in Kentucky and Delaware were actually able to get their slaves to do any work for them in the interval between April and December 1865 is another question, since it was obvious that the institution was on its way out.
Send me a personal message and I can send you more, but here are some leads for starters...
Start with "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams - good overview. Then go to website www.crownrights.com (he sells inexpensive reprints of out-of-print historical books) and read "The American Union" by Spence, and "A Republic of Republics" by Sage, and "Americas Caesar" by Duran. For lighter reading, read 'The South was Right' by Kennedy (they get a little hot-headed, but there are many references to other books contained within and what they say is well-documented).
Let me know how it goes.
P.S. Sorry if I won't shut up just because you tell me to.
There was no export tax. Duties or taxes on exports are unconstitutional.
By the way, there were two NORTHERN Slave States before, during and after the Civil War/War between the States
By the way, there were four NORTHERN slave states. Five when West Virginia was admitted.
Well bring 'em on, I'd love to read them. Especially the one where the south was willing to give up slavery.
Where did you read this at? Originally in the Constitution, Import and Export taxs were the main taxes for the U.S.
You talent for distorting history is equaled by your talent for distorting even what you site as a reference.
First of all, the purchase of west African land and later naming it 'Liberia' was an idea of NORTHERNERS! I have a book at home which even gives the name of the man who was head of the organization which sponsored this approach and will post more about it tonight.
Secondly, you state that 'Lee paid passage', when the article you site yourself acutally says that 'Lee OFFERED to pay passage'. It also goes on to say that the family in question were fairly highly educated and wanted to go. I don't think, that as you gently infer, that Lee FORCED anyone to go to Liberia.
Also, speaking of FORCE...Lincoln's plan, on the other hand, was for a mandatory (i.e. forced) re-patriation of all blacks back to Africa whether they wanted to or not. So don't spew this BULL CRAP about Lee around here! You also failed to mention (as you often do) that all Lee's slaves were free prior to the start of the war, and maybe Grant didn't own any slaves that he personally bought, but he sure didn't object to inheriting the slaves that his Missouri wife brought with her into their marriage, and according to the law at that time, the wife's property became the husbands. I didn't see him forcing her to sell them. So technically, he owned slaves thru the war.
Third, What exactly do you call 'junk history books'? I don't think that any of the famous works that are no longer in print are junk. 'Junk' as you call it, is more fitting description of what if published today.
I suppose in your mind, the Official Records of the Civil War would qualify as 'junk' because K. Stampp didn't write them right?
You talent for distorting history is equaled by your talent for distorting even what you site as a reference.
First of all, the purchase of west African land and later naming it 'Liberia' was an idea of NORTHERNERS! I have a book at home which even gives the name of the man who was head of the organization which sponsored this approach and will post more about it tonight.
Secondly, you state that 'Lee paid passage', when the article you site yourself acutally says that 'Lee OFFERED to pay passage'. It also goes on to say that the family in question were fairly highly educated and wanted to go. I don't think, that as you gently infer, that Lee FORCED anyone to go to Liberia.
Also, speaking of FORCE...Lincoln's plan, on the other hand, was for a mandatory (i.e. forced) re-patriation of all blacks back to Africa whether they wanted to or not. So don't spew this BULL CRAP about Lee around here! You also failed to mention (as you often do) that all Lee's slaves were free prior to the start of the war, and maybe Grant didn't own any slaves that he personally bought, but he sure didn't object to inheriting the slaves that his Missouri wife brought with her into their marriage, and according to the law at that time, the wife's property became the husbands. I didn't see him forcing her to sell them. So technically, he owned slaves thru the war.
Third, What exactly do you call 'junk history books'? I don't think that any of the famous works that are no longer in print are junk. 'Junk' as you call it, is more fitting description of what if published today.
I suppose in your mind, the Official Records of the Civil War would qualify as 'junk' because K. Stampp didn't write them right?
The truth is, if you can stand it, is that Texas vs White was more about Southern states having rights under the Constitution DESPITE the fact that they had seceded. Chief Justice S. P. Chase used a conflict over bonds to mount his own personal vendetta to "illegitimize" the "right" of states to secede. Writing for the 5-3 majority, (interesting that it was split, considering that it was a stacked reconstruction era court) he basically said that the majority believed that states do not have the right to secede because the UNION WAS OLDER THAN THE STATES. Obviously a ridiculous ruling that could have only been made by a pro-federal government court during reconstruction. I think even you have enough sense to admit that the Union could not possibly predate the states. Anyone with a brain has to realize that, were there any will or impetus to challenge such a ridiculous stance, -- then or now - the conclusion would be much different.
The fact is, the issue is open. The post-conflict Supreme Court blocked attempts to try Davis for treason, saying Secession was justified. The decision remains the unchallenged final say.
While it is trendy for the modern day history revisionists like yourself to call the 19th century Confederates seditious and treasonous, a cursory look at prominent Union leaders' statements clearly contradicts that claim. Was it treasonous for a state to secede from the Union? Not so, according to the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. When confronted with whether or not to charge captured Confederate officers with treason, he offered, "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
Furthermore, the South did not rip the Constitution apart. It was primarily Southern made and formed. It was Southerners who made sure this country was to be made up of free and independent republics, not a centralized, tyrannical power! The South did not commit a traitorous act, when in 1860 South Carolina seceded from the union. It did what it knew it had a right to do under the law...SC, as you well know, was not the first state to attempt secession. Several New England States held secession conventions over the War of 1812 and nearly left the union then, and would have except the war with England ended before they could agree on their plan for "CONFEDERATION". If New England yankees had a right to secede in 1812, then the Southern States certainly did in 1860/61.
Jeff Davis was not tried for treason because the united States government would have lost the case...in court, the constitutional rights of the Southern States' right of secession would have been upheld. Also, Jeff Davis was not a citizen of the United States...no one was until the 14th amendment was passed after the "War". Davis was a citizen of Mississippi, the federal government had no jurisdiction over him.
The northern states would have been shown to be the tyrants they were and Lincoln the jackass that he was. Have you ever asked the question, "Why didn't they try Davis, Lee, Johnston, et al..." I can assure you, it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew they had no legal leg to stand on.
I could go on with more of your history lesson, but I'm tired of being so right. You know, I think you said that you consider the Civil War a hobby. Man, if I was you, I'd get another hobby, one that you know something about.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Amazon probably has it.
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.