Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[Ramo]

That sounds like the nonsense my teachers used in elementary school. It only takes ONE side to start at war and its not minor legal semantics.

Yes it is. Who owned the federal forts after secession determines who started the war. And that involves minor legal sematnics.

Still an intentionaly loaded term when conscription allready covers it quite well.

Conscription is a type of slavery. There's nothing loaded about what I wrote.

Forced labor is not the same as slavery and intentional use of loaded and deceptive words is not conducive to a reasoned discussion.

Nor are paranoid ramblings.

Perhaps when you learn better as you see that people really do have both self-interest and common interests and some are just rapacious.

Riiight.

Those weren't nations

The people of Catalonia would disagree.

or governments.

What do you consider a government? And why is it relevant if you don't consider thre to be governments in these examples?

Nor where they viable economic systems.

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Anarchism in Catalonia lead to plenty of innovation, prosperity, etc. Why do you say that there were no viable economic systems in the cases I pointed out?

Thank you for that graphic example of a brain dead responce. I couldn't have put it better myself.

While the smart response is another insult, obviously. You must be a goddamn genius given the amount of insulting you do around here.

When one side starts the shooting that is the side that must bear the responsiblity of the results of the actions. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with Lincoln holding the Union together.

He imposed his oppressive system of protective tariffs. Of course, the South likely would've gone the same way, eventually.

He did campaign at least partly on that issue. Balkanization of the US would likely not have been good in the long run.

I don't see it guaranteed that the South would balkanize if there wasn't any invasion. It could very well be that the South would eventually follow the domestic policies of the North (you start seeing beginning with the Compromise of 1877).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Ethelred,



One that disagrees with you? Can't have that, can we?

Pot meet kettle.

Actually the USA started the war by attempting to resupply US troops in CSA territory, and refusing to withdraw said troops, and by invading Virginia.

False. The the US did NOT have troop in CSA territory. They had troops on Federal land. As I pointed out to you before that Ft Sumter wasn't even a natural island and it wasn't actually resupplied. Indeed it had allready been blockaded by the the South which is an Act of War all by itself.

Virginia split in half over the War. Georgia siezed Ft. Pulaski in January. Another act of war. Federal forts did not become CSA property simply on the CSA's say so.

Especially since it didn't exist in January.

What does that matter? The concept of slavery essentially means forced labor, and there's no way you can say that conscription is not forced labor.

I didn't say it wasn't forced labor did I? Slavery is NOT simply forced labor nor is it temporary as conscription was. Slavery involves the actual ownership of human beings. Any attempt to blur this distinction speaks ill of your efforts in this discussion.

Approximately 160,000 CSA, 360,000 USA deaths, in addition to thousands of civilians.

Still the responsibility of the people that caused the war.

Not to mention thousands more who were displaced and had their lives ruined by William T. Sherman, who was much more a war criminal than Slobodan Milosevic.

Hardly. Milosevic was intentionly killing people in a campaign of extermination. Sherman was trying get an awful war over. He clearly overdid it but he was not in the same class as people that have engaged in genocide. Slavery by the way does fit genocide. Fifty percent of the victims died on the way over. Lots more in the US after they were sold as well.

And all this because Lincoln had an inferiority complex about his penis size, and wouldn't dream of letting people exercise their Constitutional rights in order to avoid all that slaughter.

I suspect he may have a bit better endowed than you imagine. Large people in general are better endowed.

Any claim to a right to secede is questionable at best. They certainly had no right to steal US military installations. That is what was done at Ft. Sumter by force of arms and indeed was done in a number of other places before the CSA was formed. Some even before the states in question had seceded so they had violated the constitution even before attempting to secede.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I also find it amusing that there are those the hold up Lincoln as the Emancipator without realizing what that Emancipation Proclimation actually did. It freed slaves in the states STILL IN REBELLION.

I find it amusing you think you are the only one aware of this.

It did nothing for slaves that were in states that were readmitted to the Union by that time. Why? Because Lincoln didn't want to ruffle any feathers in the North.

Wrong. He didn't have any way to do it in the North. Such an action would have had no legal force and been unconstitutional. Indeed slavery wasn't ended in the North untill a constitutional amendment was passed after the war. Whats amazing is that you knew that last part yet were unable to realize what it meant regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
Well, let's see what happens when it isn't in his political interest to free blacks.

For instance, he didn't support abolition in DC when the vote came. Nor did he oppose the Fugitive Slave Act. And he counter-manded Fremont's orders when he tried to emancipate slaves in Missouri. And he allowed Halleck to forbid slaves to enter his army lines. Etc., etc.

All those actions were legaly correct. Freed slaves had to be paid for. Its in the Constitution regarding property rights.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No he didn't. Even if one assumes that the CSA was NOT sovereign,

No assumption is needed. They had to win the war to be sovereign.

Lincoln still could not act in that way without Congress at the bare minimum (and personally, I don't think the federal government had any way to act at all, at least Constitutionally).

Wrong. He had the power in revolting states to do pretty much anything under martial law. The properties of rebels are automaticly forfeit. All he really did was formalize that fact.

[Ramo]

All those actions were legaly correct. Freed slaves had to be paid for. Its in the Constitution regarding property rights.

First off, the idea that Lincoln cared the least bit about the Constitution is ludicrous. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it authorize the President to use armies to break strikes? Where in the Constitution does it say the President can suspend habeas corpus? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can prohibit the states from seceding, etc., etc.?

And you're telling me that the federal goverment has the authority to force states into returning escaped slaves?

And I thought you just argued that Lincoln had authority to pass the Emancipation Proclamation. Why couldn't Fremont do the same thing with rebels in Missouri? And if he was allowed to pass the EP, why was he legally forced into allowing Halleck to prevent slaves from escaping?

You've got some interesting views on the Constitution, to say the least.

[Ramo]

I didn't say it wasn't forced labor did I? Slavery is NOT simply forced labor nor is it temporary as conscription was. Slavery involves the actual ownership of human beings. Any attempt to blur this distinction speaks ill of your efforts in this discussion.

What do you think ownership is, but legal control? Conscription is government slavery.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Yes it is. Who owned the federal forts after secession determines who started the war. And that involves minor legal sematnics.

Again hardly minor considering the number of deaths that ensued.

Conscription is a type of slavery. There's nothing loaded about what I wrote.

Well now its just fraud instead of loaded. Glad we get down to the essentials there.

Nor are paranoid ramblings.

I have been leaving that sort of thing to you. You are very good at it. My hat and even some hair is off to you.

Riiight.

I can always hope that parnoid people can learn better.

The people of Catalonia would disagree.

Did they get to vote on it? And did they really intend to have no government at all. I take they were mostly farmers then and had no cities or infrastructure to speak of.

What do you consider a government? And why is it relevant if you don't consider thre to be governments in these examples?

If they had a government then they weren't anarchists. Libertarians maybe.

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Anarchism in Catalonia lead to plenty of innovation, prosperity, etc. Why do you say that there were no viable economic systems in the cases I pointed out?

How about you give a link or three covering them?

After all the cases are hardly common knowledge.

While the smart response is another insult, obviously. You must be a goddamn genius given the amount of insulting you do around here.

Thank you for your support in this matter. You did just call me paranoid now didn't you. Can I add hypocrite to your list of qualities now?

Frankly my responce was much funnier than yours was.

He imposed his oppressive system of protective tariffs. Of course, the South likely would've gone the same way, eventually.

Esecially since they did so even before he was in office. He didn't impose anything untill AFTER he was in office. He couldn't. Not even Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin managed to pass laws till they had the power in hand.

I don't see it guaranteed that the South would balkanize if there wasn't any invasion.

The US was being balkinized. I really don't care to speculate a lot about what would have happened with the South but it did set seccesion as both a precedent and a clear legal right for States. What would Texas have done if the rest of the South finally figured out that slavery was a bad thing? Its articles of Seccesion were by far the most strongly pro slavery.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo




First off, the idea that Lincoln cared the least bit about the Constitution is ludicrous. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it authorize the President to use armies to break strikes? Where in the Constitution does it say the President can suspend habeas corpus?

Its in there. We went over that one before. You KNOW its in there. Its in the CSAs constitution as well. As for strike breaking that sucks. I don't know what legal excuse he used.

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can prohibit the states from seceding, etc., etc.?

Where does it even imply that they can? There is a reason why its very explicit in the CSAs Constitution.

And you're telling me that the federal goverment has the authority to force states into returning escaped slaves?

I sure wasn't saying that but the South did. Take it up with them. They had the law passed AND the Supreme Court did make the Dred Scott Decision. Perhaps you just had some strange misunderstanding that led you to ask that of me out of the blue like that.

And I thought you just argued that Lincoln had authority to pass the Emancipation Proclamation.

I did.

Why couldn't Fremont do the same thing with rebels in Missouri? And if he was allowed to pass the EP, why was he legally forced into allowing Halleck to prevent slaves from escaping?

Since when was Fremont the President? I hadn't heard he was elected. Missouri was still part of the US and not a rebelling state in any case.

You've got some interesting views on the Constitution, to say the least.

Accurate views are interesting yes. I fully agree with you on that. I am almost as interesting as Judge Souter I suppose.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


What do you think ownership is, but legal control? Conscription is government slavery.

The government can't sell you. They can't keep you forever either. Trying to redefine things is the sort of thing I am used in arguing with Creationists. They love to reinvent words so they can have different and unusual meanings than others use. Makes is easier to obfuscate the issues.

[Ramo]

Again hardly minor considering the number of deaths that ensued.

Whoever started the war comes down to legal semantics. It's that simple.

Did they get to vote on it?

Yes... You don't seem to understand what anarcho-syndicalism (the prevalent doctrine in Catalonia at the time) is. Look it up.

And did they really intend to have no government at all.

You never defined what you think a government is. You seem to be touchy about that kind of stuff. I think they definitely had a government.

I take they were mostly farmers then and had no cities or infrastructure to speak of.

Ever hear of a city called Barcelona, you know the capital of Catalonia? Catalonia was the most industrialized area of Spain.

If they had a government then they weren't anarchists. Libertarians maybe.

1. That depends upon the definition of government.
2. I don't think you understand what anarchism is in the least.

How about you give a link or three covering them?

The only online link I can recall is the the Anarchist FAQ (look it up in google). I believe it covers all three, as well as other examples.

Thank you for your support in this matter. You did just call me paranoid now didn't you. Can I add hypocrite to your list of qualities now?

I never said I never insult. I don't consider it a civil response, but some times it's warranted in the case of *******s such as yourself.

I was pointing out that insulting without reason is a far more idiotic than ignoring an assinine assertion. Particularly when you obviously are completely ignorant about what you're insulting.

Esecially since they did so even before he was in office. He didn't impose anything untill AFTER he was in office. He couldn't. Not even Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin managed to pass laws till they had the power in hand.

What are you on about now? Did some Southerner rape you when you were a kid?

Think about what you're reading and what you're writing for a minute.

All I'm saying is that if Lincoln didn't invade the South, Southern farmers wouldn't be subsidizing industrialists in the short term.

I really don't care to speculate a lot about what would have happened with the South but it did set seccesion as both a precedent and a clear legal right for States.

And I'd find it very unlikely that the US would allow another state to peacefully secede.

What would Texas have done if the rest of the South finally figured out that slavery was a bad thing? Its articles of Seccesion were by far the most strongly pro slavery.

I see it very likely that Texas would try to secede from the South, given that it would industrialize later (and slavery would die out later, given the large supply of land) than the rest of the South. However, I see it far more likely that the CSA would forcefully prevent secession than not.

[Ramo]

Its in there. We went over that one before. You KNOW its in there.

Nowhere does it say the PRESIDENT has the authority to suspend habeas corpus.

Where does it even imply that they can? There is a reason why its very explicit in the CSAs Constitution.

9th and 10th Amendments.

I sure wasn't saying that

Yes you were. I mentioned that the Lincoln didn't oppose the Fugitive Slave Act, and you said that was because it was legal. I was wondering how.

Since when was Fremont the President?

Why does only the President have such authority? That doesn't make sense. Surely rebels under martial law are under the authority of the general who captures them. Why does the general need Presidential authority for every decision?

Missouri was still part of the US and not a rebelling state in any case.

So? Fremont was involving himself with rebels in Missouri.

And you didn't address Halleck.

The government can't sell you.

Why is that relevant? Not all slave systems involved buying and selling. Raiding exclusively among hunter-gartherers, for instance.

They can't keep you forever either.

So? There were slave systems where this wasn't true either.

Trying to redefine things is the sort of thing I am used in arguing with Creationists. They love to reinvent words so they can have different and unusual meanings than others use. Makes is easier to obfuscate the issues.

I'm not redefining anything. Look, from dictionary.com:

slave Pronunciation Key (slv)
n.
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

That's the first definition, BTW.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
The Republicans of that era would be the Democrats of today. Comparing the neo-fascist right wing organization known as the GOP to the Republicans of the mid to late 19th century is false. They share little more than a name.

Point number one; you are over simplifying the political culture of the United States of the mid 19th century, with today's policial culture.

Point number two; you are right though, when you say that the Republican party of the mid 19th century is not like today's Republican party.




And Imran, the issue over slavery began from the days of our revolution, with our Declaration of Independence.
Southern Congressional leaders threatened to kill the revolution by not fighting for independence, when Jeffereson originally proposed a passage in the Declaration of Independence, condeming the slave trade.
Jefferson then deleted the passage in the face of blackmail by Southern Congressional leaders.

Historians continue to argue whether or not the Northwest Ordinance set a legal precedent for all future western territories in regards to slavery by settling who had the power to restrict slavery, or if that specific ordinance only applied to the old northwestern territories.

Southern states argued FOR a STRONGER federal government, in terms of forcing Northern states to return slave fugitives who have fled to the Northern states.
Southern leaders argued for a weaker government only when it was convenient for them, and then for a stronger federal government when it was in their best interest.

So to how much of an extent was states' rights not the real issue, and merely a facade??

[SlowwHand]

Some of you dipsticks that keep running your mouth overtime on State's Rights, need to realize that the concept existed then just as it exists now.
Proof? Differing laws for the same conduct varies from state-to-state.
So put that in your ditty bag.

[Boris Godunov]

Sloww, don't be so slow. Differing states laws doesn't in anyway challenge the notion of the supremacy of the Federal Government, which is explicit in the constitution. Basic civics.