Posted on 11/21/2001 11:54:19 AM PST by shuckmaster
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:33:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
your source is wrong- slaves were taxable property and there are no tax records in VA of anyone surnamed Lee owning slaves in Arlington County-NONE. slaves were taxed in the owner's home county/city(BTW, cities in VA are not part of the county in which they are located, thus you have to check both sets of records!) of residence; had REL OR his mother owned slaves, there would be accessment records, as the taxman ALWAYS wins in the end.
for dixie,sw
you say you don't care who owned/didn't own slaves seemingly because you don't KNOW, haven't done the research, and thus are uninformed about the truth. further, you seem to be stuck on reading the articles of secession of the several states, which are believed by serious scholars to be of LITTLE IMPORTANCE OR RELEVANCE to the causes of the war with the hateful damnyankees.
face it, the WBTS was just about ONE major cause: the LUST for southron FREEDOM, nothing more nothing less. the LUST for FREEDOM is STILL valid. for dixie,sw
why would a little thing like BURGLARY bother them?
for dixie,sw
When are you going to get this liberty off the ground? LOL What percentage of the Southern population is going to join you in this effort?
What does it matter? The actions of the group is what matters. The Northern group fought to preserve the union, the Southern group fought to dissolve America and preserve slavery. Individuals will vary from one to the other.
further, you seem to be stuck on reading the articles of secession of the several states, which are believed by serious scholars to be of LITTLE IMPORTANCE OR RELEVANCE to the causes of the war with the hateful damnyankees.
Biased scholars who can't handle the truth. If a fact from history goes against your agenda, you assign that fact to little importance. Man that's handy. I don't like the fact that our government massacred Indians so from now on I'll just say that that fact will be of little importance. Wow, that makes everything so much easier and makes me feel a lot better about our history. [/sarcasm] Men who's opinions are worthless can't handle truth and the truth is that the South seceded to preserve slavery as stated in most if not all of their Declaration of Secession. A Declaration is a declaration, not some unimportant whim.
face it, the WBTS was just about ONE major cause: the LUST for southron FREEDOM, nothing more nothing less. the LUST for FREEDOM is STILL valid.
As stated in most if not all in the Declarations of Secession, secession was due to the lust for filty lucre from slavery.
You guys think that the ownership, murder, rape, and whippings of slaves is OK.
i would remind you that ireland's patriots took 400 YEARS to achieve LIBERTY.
for dixie,sw
for dixie,sw
America-haters always lose and you'll lose.....again.
Are you so afraid of truth that you can't accept the fact that South Carolina's Declaration plainly says that the preservation of slavery was the main reason for secession?
No, I do not. Nor does any defender of Confederate heritage I know. The most I can and will say about slave ownership is that it was constitutional in 1860. Murder and rape were not. What I do say is that not every anti-slavery action is correct, nor are they all constitutional. And THAT, my friend, is the point. The southern States generally, and Virginia in particular, said to the abolitionists, you can be anti-slavery all you want, but when you let your anti-slavery passions convince you that you no longer need to comply with the provisions of the US constitution, then we will disagree (e.g. so-called personal liberty laws, refusal to extradite fugitives from justice, financial and moral support to those inciting servile insurrection, etc.). When your party takes control of the Federal government, and indicates that anti-slavery fervor will lead it to ignore and subvert all the provisions of the Constitution that abolitionists (and their neo-merchantilist allies) do not like, then we will part company. So they left.
They did not try to "destroy America" as you say. Abraham Lincoln was free to establish any "free-labor" neo-merchantilist paradise he wanted to. The South wanted only "to be left alone" (to quote Jefferson Davis).
Respectfully, D J White
Sorry to point out another error, my friend, but what South Carolina declared was they were seceding for two principles: "the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted." The South Carolina Convention further declared, "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost."
Respectfully,
D J White
Indeed. Since you brought it up. Here is the declaration of the understanding under which Virginia ratified the Constitution in June, 1788: ""We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceeding of the federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power, not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will; that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States." It will be noted that this declaration was from a group of men embodying the sovereignty of the people of Virginia. If their understanding on the ability of the people to resume their delegated powers was in error, then the ratification of the Constitution which included that understanding must have been refused by the resulting Federal government. I would be most happy if you could point me to an historical document in which Congress (or any Federal agency of the founding period) declared that Virginia's ratification was unacceptable as offered, that Virginia had to ratify without any such reservation.
Respectfully
D J White
1. NONE of the signers were elected by anyone except themselves,
2.hardly anyone ever read what they wrote, then or now,
3.the declarations were not published any any major newspaper then,so few ever read the declarations,
4. the average southerner would have cared little about the opinions of a handfull of aristocrats OR what they had written( also in the whole country about 30% were literate enough to have been ABLE to have read the documents!),
5. MOST modern historians, NOT just pro-southron academics, discount the declarations as UN-IMPORTANT, UN-READ & NOT GERMANE to the causes of secession. had the few aristocrats in SC & in other states chosen to sign and publish "Mary Had a Little Lamb", it would have been exactly as important to the citizens as the secession declarations were at the time. the mass of southerners (at least 95%),(rich or poor, white, black, latino,red or asian)had NO slaves and just wanted to be FREE from what they believe was oppression by the hateful/hatefilled damnyankees!
SORRY, the declarations mean/meant ZILCH to southrons then OR historians now, with the obvious exception of the "south-haters" and the terminally dumb.
for dixie,sw
But you don't have enough against it to the point that it would've been OK to continue in return for a CSA victory.
Nor does any defender of Confederate heritage I know.
There's a few here that say they would've made good slavemasters.
The most I can and will say about slave ownership is that it was constitutional in 1860.
Exactly. It was legal. That's what you guys always fall back on, legality. That wasn't good enough for the Radical Republicans, thank God. We're not the freaking Sudan.
Murder and rape were not.
Slavery made murder and rape commonplace.
What I do say is that not every anti-slavery action is correct, nor are they all constitutional.
But they had to be done to rid this country of that immoral practice.
And THAT, my friend, is the point. The southern States generally, and Virginia in particular, said to the abolitionists, you can be anti-slavery all you want, but when you let your anti-slavery passions convince you that you no longer need to comply with the provisions of the US constitution, then we will disagree (e.g. so-called personal liberty laws, refusal to extradite fugitives from justice, financial and moral support to those inciting servile insurrection, etc.).
A constitution that allows slavery isn't a Constitution worth living under.
When your party takes control of the Federal government, and indicates that anti-slavery fervor will lead it to ignore and subvert all the provisions of the Constitution that abolitionists (and their neo-merchantilist allies) do not like, then we will part company. So they left.
For slavery as stated in most if not all the Declarations of Secession.
They did not try to "destroy America" as you say.
What do you call "dissolving the union"?
Abraham Lincoln was free to establish any "free-labor" neo-merchantilist paradise he wanted to. The South wanted only "to be left alone" (to quote Jefferson Davis).
They didn't want to be left alone, they kept attacking Kansas and then even attacked Fort Sumter. If you want to be left alone, don't attack your neighbors.
South Carolina's Declaration of Secession says the main reason for secession was to preserve slavery.
Another reason why secession was illegal.
2.hardly anyone ever read what they wrote, then or now,
I can see why no one in the South would want to read it.
3.the declarations were not published any any major newspaper then,so few ever read the declarations,
The Constitution is hardly ever published in newspapers and very few have actually read it.
4. the average southerner would have cared little about the opinions of a handfull of aristocrats OR what they had written( also in the whole country about 30% were literate enough to have been ABLE to have read the documents!),
Then why did they fight for their filthy lucre?
5. MOST modern historians, NOT just pro-southron academics, discount the declarations as UN-IMPORTANT, UN-READ & NOT GERMANE to the causes of secession.
A Declaration is a declaration, like the Declaration of Independence. I know it's important for you slavocrats to try to forget it.
...had the few aristocrats in SC & in other states chosen to sign and publish "Mary Had a Little Lamb", it would have been exactly as important to the citizens as the secession declarations were at the time.
A declaration is a declaration, not a poem.
...the mass of southerners (at least 95%),(rich or poor, white, black, latino,red or asian)had NO slaves and just wanted to be FREE from what they believe was oppression by the hateful/hatefilled damnyankees!
Too bad, you shouldn't have illegally seceded. The poor fought for the rich, what a shame.
SORRY, the declarations mean/meant ZILCH to southrons then OR historians now, with the obvious exception of the "south-haters" and the terminally dumb.
What makes a person terminally dumb is to ignore history that you find unpleasant.
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.