A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

page: 22
100
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


to explain away from the true motive
at this point, i'd have to ask, what is your true motive?
what's with all the vitriol in your responses?
it's history, no need to get all riled just because the argument you present fails you.

i'm curious, you keep saying "southern apologists" and i can't seem to figure out what any Southerner or poster on this thread is/would be apologizing for, exactly.
would you explain what that phrase is supposed to mean?




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Depends on your definition of Liberty. I support individual liberty, the motives for Southern secession had very little to do with individual liberty. Liberty wasn't a term invented by constitutionalists, "Liberty" and the American constitution are not one in the same, people may refer to laws dictated by the constitution as those of liberty, but they are not necessarily so.


Split hairs over semantics all that you want, but you are simply employing another straw man tactic in order to divert attention away from the truth.

I have not made this argument and I do not have an interest in maintaining this argument.
This is an "unrelated and non-productive issue".

I am not saying that you are a shill, but you certainly meet the criteria of shill behavior.

Look no further than the latest thread here at ATS by ADVISOR-
Look no further- The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies


Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity.

link to source


So don't talk to me about "liberty", because the motives concerning southern secession had little to do with it.


That's all you. You seem a lot more concerned with it than me. I used the word rhetorically and you want to have a field day breaking down its meaning and whatnot. Have at it.



I would not compare Hitler to Lincoln.


I didn't compare the two.
Once again, a completely unrelated argument.

You really like to distract.

I actually used Hitler to show the asinine nature of your argument.


The morrill bill just become another excuse for Confederate apologists to explain away from the true motive of secession.


Which as I said, was the blatant disrespect that the abolitionist states had for the Constitution.

You seem to want to avoid every argument that I propose, but yet you also contend arguments that I have not made.
I am not saying that you are a shill, but you certainly meet the criteria of shill behavior.

*See quote on Topic Dilution*



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


You failed to actually address my point regarding "Liberty" in connection to the actions of Lincoln and Southern secessionists. That tells me that you have nothing to actually counter the point I made. "Liberty" is not synonymous with the laws of the original constitution, this is fact. The motives for southern secession had little to do with true liberty given the treatment of many residents in the South at the hands of their government, this is fact. "States rights" is not synomous with the definition of Liberty, another fact.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by petrus4
 


Let me know when you actually wish to join the debate over the civil war and whether or not South successfully achieved independence, I'm not interested in your speeches.


This is hilarious. Enter it on your terms, you mean? And people think I'm arrogant.


What you're really trying to say is that you have absolutely no comeback for what I've said, so you're not even going to attempt it. Get over yourself.
edit on 16-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by CaptChaos
This Southern Guardian is some kind of central tyranny NWO apologist.


CaptainChaos, if you believe that the South seceded for the individual liberties of all Americans, I'd like for you to explain yourside of the debate here. I presume by central tyranny you mean the central government? The one that Southern backed Democratic politicians dominated throughout the 1850's, prior to Lincoln's win?



That's ok, these guys are doing a fine job of ripping you to shreds all by themselves.


I'm reminded of a George Romero movie, though. No matter how many times Southern gets completely destroyed rhetorically, he just won't stay down. Some people enjoy being owned over and over again. It's a strange phenomenon.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Valhall
You state the seceded states were never seceded


The South attempted secession, but they never successfully achieved it. You can have a declaration of secession, and not successfully gain independence as the result of it. To claim that the Confederate States were successful at secession is false, we have the results of the civil war as evidence of this. Confederate sovereignty was only recognized by the Confederates themselves and their apologists.


they were not recognized as such but that's because the U.S. government's response was to declare them "illegal".


Illegal you say?


Do you think the rebellion of American patriots against the British was in anyway "legal" under British Crown law? The answer is no. Do you think it was perfectly "legal" for the United States to invade Northern Mexico and claim it for herself? It certainly was not under Mexican law, but the Mexicans had no real say, they had to defend their northern territories by force, and they lost.

Tell me, why on earth did Lincoln and his Union forces have to care about what legalities the Confederates laid anymore than Polk had to care about what "legalities" the Mexicans would claim upon his invasion of their territory? The Union did what they did, raising the "legalities" of what they did back then does not change the result of the civil war. Had it not been for their actions, the greatest country in the world may very well have not existed.

Life isn't fair, is it? Neither is history.


OY! I don't care if Lincoln and the Union considered them "illegal" or not considering they were wrong! YOU are the one hanging your hat on the fact that those who WON the Civil War declared the whole act illegal. THAT is the very basis for the ruling in Texas v. White! You are saying that because the victors of the war decided to call the act of secession illegal and an act of insurrection instead of what it was (peacefully leaving the Union under the republican powers of the people and state) that it wasn't secession!



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Oh, and for the record, the seceded states didn't care that the U.S. government played that game at the time of secession either. Here, let me quote what the three commissioners who had been sent by the seceded sovereign state of South Carolina to negotiate removal of occupying federal troops from their sovereign soil had to say to President Buchanan when he said he wouldn't recognize "the change in status" of the state and therefore not treat the 3 commissioners as embassadors but simply as "private gentlemen".


...we deem it only necessary to say that the State of South Carolina having, in the exercise of that great right of self-government, which underlies all our political organizations, declared herself sovereign and independent, we, as her representatives, felt no special solicitude as to the character in which you might recognize us.


In other words...who gives a $h!t that you won't recognize the secession...it's happened, now negotiate for peaceful terms or (as Buchanan chose to do) try to ignore the whole issue into war.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall, I asked you earlier to give one example of a bill or law that was met with the resistence of southern politicians in the 1850's, I have not seen a response to my post. Do you have anything? Any law? What did this tyrannical federal government (dominated mostly by the southern backed democrats) do to cause southern secession? Do you anything from the 1850's? Any laws?


Well, I've been asleep, but it appears someone did answer you. Let us return to the Nullification Crisis of the 1830's. Unfair tariffs had been oppressing the south's economic advancement in favor of northern goods for decades and they became their most oppressive in the 1830's which led to South Carolina voting for nullifcation and the near secession of that state. You previously stated that this was all worked out and they didn't secede, but that's kind of white-washing a rotted fence.

While it is true that terms were negotiated that prevented South Carolina from seceding at that time and the tariffs that had been passed were modified and agreed to decrease over time, the south was STILL under economic inequality due to the tariffs in place (and that had been in place for decades). That fact never went away. Then the Morrill act passed Congress in 1859 and that was the beginning of the end in combination with Lincoln's victory of the election which was the period on the end of the declaration, so to speak. It was immediately after the election that the states started to secede.
edit on 7-16-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I'm not concerned as to whether you find this debate entertaining, I'm not concerned about your personal issues, I'm just concerned about your position this debate. I'm all ears, do you have any further arguments?


Further arguments...

I suppose that you find it perfectly acceptable that 'ole "Honest Abe" found it perfectly acceptable to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, initially only applying to one state... Maryland... and he did this to keep them from seceding.


Oh, please don't forget MISSOURI! Missouri - the state that was NEVER part of the confederacy but the constitution was completely set aside by Abraham Lincoln, the state's populace was robbed blind, the federal government seized private property and anything they didn't seize they burned. Federal troops occupied the state against the people's wishes, quartered on their private property without consent, ate, robbed and burned them out of their homes. And then when that didn't work literally by martial law order FORCED THEM to evacuate their own lands and drove them into exile.

Why? Because Kansas had been barking about Missouri being a "slave loving" state since about 1857 even though the census data and the popular votes in Missouri showed otherwise. It was also 1857 that the Kansans (who were really pro-abolitionists from the northeastern states who relocated to Kansas to ensure that it remained a free state) started raiding western Missouri and raping, plundering and pillaging Missouri dirt farmers.

Missouri is a classic study in how 1) your next door neighbor can rob you, burn you out and commit atrocities against you and the federal government all of a sudden can act like it doesn't give a crap, and 2) suspension of ALL constitutional rights can happen in a heart beat simply by your state being labeled "southern sympathizing" or "pro-secessionist" (conveniently, I might add, because it had all the key north and south and east and west railroads running through it and it bordered the Mississippi - hmmm, how convenient!)

Then the "winners" (i.e. the ones who get to write the text books) rewrite history and declare the 8 years (basically from 1857 through the end of the civil war) as if a bunch of southern-sympathizing raiders and "bushwhackers" were the ones that decimated the state when it was started by pro-Unionists, by majority committed by Federal troops (with the full knowledge of what was happening landing squarely on Lincoln's desk), and the Federal government itself.

Anyone who wants to know just how much a nationalized government regards your individual constitutionally protected rights should commit a detailed study to the pre-civil war and civil war period in the State of Missouri. (Hell, for that matter POST-Civil War because it was still several years before true constitutional rights were restored in that State!)

By the way, in the middle of this debacle (1863) my g-g-grandfather was dragged from his home in Missouri by Union raiders, taken down the road and shot. This happened because he was considered "southern sympathizing" by this band of merry Union raiders and that's all it took. That's it. You're a southern sympathizer - bang, you're dead.
edit on 7-16-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



Oh, please don't forget MISSOURI! Missouri - the state that was NEVER part of the confederacy but the constitution was completely set aside by Abraham Lincoln, the state's populace was robbed blind, the federal government seized private property and anything they didn't seize they burned.


Thank you for that info.
I have never really studied the war in Missouri.
I do know that the state of Missouri has a hatred for the state of Kansas that runs as deep as Southern pride in light of them Yankees, but I never knew that this hatred stemmed from a common source.
(I am an SEC football fanatic and I was stoked to see the Missouri invite. Now I know that they unfortunately earned their admission the hard way.)

I did a little digging and I found this historical nugget that you probably already know, but other readers might like to know.

Quantrill's Raid


The Lawrence Massacre, also known as Quantrill's Raid, was a rebel guerrilla attack during the U.S. Civil War by Quantrill's Raiders, led by William Clarke Quantrill, on the pro-Union town of Lawrence, Kansas.

The attack on August 21, 1863, targeted Lawrence due to the town's long support of abolition and its reputation as a center for Jayhawkers and Redlegs, which were free-state militia and vigilante groups known for attacking and destroying farms and plantations in Missouri's pro-slavery western counties.

Quantrill himself said his motivation for the attack was, "To plunder, and destroy the town in retaliation for Osceola".

link to source

Which then lead me to a link on the sacking of Osceola.

The Sacking of Osceola was a Union Jayhawker initiative on September 23, 1861, to push out pro-Southern elements at Osceola, Missouri. It was not authorized by Union military authorities but was the work of an informal group of Kansas pro-Union "Jayhawkers".

The town of 3,000 people was plundered and burned to the ground, and nine local citizens were executed.

link to source

As annoying as this Carpetbagger who dares invoke the word Southern in his avatar can be, I am really learning a ton of history in this thread.

Thank you for participating Valhall.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by Valhall
 



Oh, please don't forget MISSOURI! Missouri - the state that was NEVER part of the confederacy but the constitution was completely set aside by Abraham Lincoln, the state's populace was robbed blind, the federal government seized private property and anything they didn't seize they burned.


Thank you for that info.
I have never really studied the war in Missouri.
I do know that the state of Missouri has a hatred for the state of Kansas that runs as deep as Southern pride in light of them Yankees, but I never knew that this hatred stemmed from a common source.
(I am an SEC football fanatic and I was stoked to see the Missouri invite. Now I know that they truly earned their admission the hard way, unfortunately.)

I did a little digging and I found this historical nugget that you probably already know, but other readers might enjoy.

Quantrill's Raid


The Lawrence Massacre, also known as Quantrill's Raid, was a rebel guerrilla attack during the U.S. Civil War by Quantrill's Raiders, led by William Clarke Quantrill, on the pro-Union town of Lawrence, Kansas.

The attack on August 21, 1863, targeted Lawrence due to the town's long support of abolition and its reputation as a center for Jayhawkers and Redlegs, which were free-state militia and vigilante groups known for attacking and destroying farms and plantations in Missouri's pro-slavery western counties.

Quantrill himself said his motivation for the attack was, "To plunder, and destroy the town in retaliation for Osceola".

link to source

Which then lead me to a link on the sacking of Osceola.

The Sacking of Osceola was a Union Jayhawker initiative on September 23, 1861, to push out pro-Southern elements at Osceola, Missouri. It was not authorized by Union military authorities but was the work of an informal group of Kansas pro-Union "Jayhawkers".

The town of 3,000 people was plundered and burned to the ground, and nine local citizens were executed.

link to source

As annoying as this CarpetBagger who dares invoke the word Southern in his avatar can be, I am really learning a ton of history in this thread.

Thank you for participating Valhall.


Dig Deeper. It wasn't just for the years of atrocities committed by the "Jayhawkers". Union troops had arrested several women that were deemed wives, mothers, daughters and sisters of southern sympathizers, guerrilla warfare fighters or bushwhackers (depending on how poorly they wanted to represent the men in the family in order to justify the arrest of the women).

They carted them off and stuck them in a make-shift prison which subsequently collapsed and killed several of them and maimed several more permanently. Rumor got back to Quantrill and his raiders that the Union troops had intentionally sabotaged the building by weakening the supporting walls (literally sawing into the supporting frame work). While historical analysis of the event has pretty much set aside that there was deliberate tampering (but has not been able to definitively dismiss the claim), Quantrill and his men believed these women had been intentionally murdered. Let's face it, they should have never been imprisoned.

The Lawrence raid was initiated after the collapse of the Union prison and the death of these women. 4 of these women were related to Quantrill's second-hand man Bill Anderson (who after this went nucking futs and was known as "Bloody Bill Anderson"). The burning of Lawrence was strictly a retaliation for the mistreatment and deaths of Missouri women who never should have been incarcerated (in combination with the hatred that had festered due to the long history of atrocities committed by the Jayhawkers).
edit on 7-16-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


You failed to actually address my point regarding "Liberty" in connection to the actions of Lincoln and Southern secessionists. That tells me that you have nothing to actually counter the point I made. The motives for southern secession had little to do with true liberty given the treatment of many residents in the South at the hands of their government, this is fact. "States rights" is not synomous with the definition of Liberty, another fact.


I used the word liberty in a strictly rhetorical sense, and arguing its definition is not even close to the actual premise of my argument.
My actual argument concerned the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by Lincoln and his capacity to jail State Citizens for indefinite periods of time without charging them and then trying them in military tribunals.

This sounds so familiar?

It's almost like G.W. Bush invoked Lincoln when justifying the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants"?


The origins of presidential claims to extraconstitutional powers during national crises are contentious points of debate among constitutional and legal scholars.

The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet from Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War to George W. Bush's creation of the "enemy combatants" label, a number of presidents have invoked emergency executive power in defense of actions not specifically endorsed in the Constitution or granted by Congress.

link to source

You obviously have no argument against this so I suppose that I have no choice but to address your anemic and deflective argument over liberty.

I hope that people see how obvious your tactics are.


"Liberty" is not synonymous with the laws of the original constitution, this is fact.


Well, other than the fact that the word liberty is used twice at distinctly different times in the Constitution and one is the pre-amble, I would say that the idea of liberty was accepted as being the basis for every single thing that the Constitution was designed to protect.

Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

link to source

I don't know how else you can take this but to mean exactly what it says.
The Constitution was ordained and established to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

link to source

And yet you seem to believe this ridiculous statement.


"Liberty" is not synonymous with the laws of the original constitution, this is fact.


The only argument that you have, which is still an argument that Liberty was most definitely synonymous with the original Constitution, was the statement regarding "when in actual service in time of War or public danger".
However considering that liberty was deprived of STATE CITIZENS and the public danger was CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT that suspended habeas corpus, I do not see how it applies.

Now let's look at this equally ludicrous statement-

You failed to actually address my point regarding "Liberty" in connection to the actions of Lincoln and Southern secessionists.


No.. No, I actually did address this.
This was the entire premise behind my discussion of Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

By suspending habeas corpus, Lincoln deprived of liberty EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN THE UNION AND THE EVENTUALLY OCCUPIED CONFEDERATE STATES.

AND HE DID THIS IN SPITE OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAID, WORD FOR FREAKING WORD, THAT HE COULD NOT DO THIS.

You diversionary tactic was attempted and it has failed.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The long and the short of it is that if you ONLY centered on the 4 years in Missouri during the Civil War any claim that Lincoln was a "great statesman" acting in the best interest of citizens' rights is proven bullcrap. And I do mean utter bullcrap. He was a tyrant that allowed atrocities, knew full well they were occurring, condoned the abolition of constitutional rights of citizens in states, the destruction of private property, the unlawful incarceration of citizens, the suspension of habeus corpus, the federal stealing of private goods and many many more unconstitutional atrocities.

BUT, even though Missouri proves his record is much much different than the text books want to portray him, you can look through-out the south and see he allowed, completely unchecked, the wanton destruction of private property for absolutely no justifiable reason. The Union troops' destruction of private property across the south cannot, under even a remotely acceptable twisting of logic, be attributed to "beating the Confederate government" OR abolishing slavery.

Take for instance the ransacking and destruction of Jackson, Mississippi as just one SHINING exemplory instance of how unfounded the destruction was and how detached from either the powers of the Confederate government OR the institution of slavery that destruction was aimed.

Upon Union troops entering Jackson a vast number of residential homes were ransacked and/or burned (usually both). HOWEVER, the governor's mansion and MOST of the "planter class" homes were left unscathed...because of gentlemanly courtesy. Do what? The SOUTHERN POLITICIANS and the PLANTER CLASS represented almost ALL of the evil institution of slavery. The working class people of Jackson, Mississippi, if they owned slaves, owned only personal house hold slaves, JUST LIKE THE PREPONDERANCE OF NORTHERN CITIZENS. So the lower working class and middle class in no way represented the "institution of slavery".

Why, in the wide wide world of sports, would the lower and middle class homes be destroyed and the homes of the very holders of the institution of slavery be untouched out of "courtesy"?

And how about the textile factory in Jackson? When the troops entered the textile factory they found the grey cloth of the confederate troops in the looms. They did not say: "Hey, listen here. You will cease and desist all production that in any way supports the Confederate government and the Confederate troops and you will convert to production that supports the United States government and the Union troops, OR we will lock your doors until such time that this hideous war is over."

Nope...they didn't do that. THEY BURNED IT TO THE GROUND. They destroyed the livelihood of all workers in that factory and destroyed the hard work of the family that had built that business. Their entire livelihood was set to flame.

And such is the story over and over across the south. Ever wondered why so many of the antebellum plantations still exist? When all the while Sherman was spreading flame and destruction across the south like he was riding a horse that issued fire from its ass? Odd isn't it?

It was hatred. It was tyranny. It was violation of the constitution. And it was done under the overlord's watch - that overlord was Lincoln.
edit on 7-16-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Wow. Great find, Eastwood.

I seems current government system was even obvious then.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Then the Morrill act passed Congress in 1859


Making the same mistake as the other member here, again. Either that or negligence:


The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an American protective tariff law adopted on March 2, 1861 during the Buchanan Administration and signed into law by President James Buchanan, a Democrat

www.sccs.swarthmore.edu...

The Morrill Act was passed on March 2nd 1861, nearly 4 months following secession of the first states. Ironically the only reason it managed to pass was because of the absence of Southern Democratic representitives in congress at the time due to, wait for it, secession.

The Nullification crises happened close to 30 years prior to the civil war. The nullification crises ended with the compromise of 1833 where South Carolina representitives declared a victory over the matter. Tarriffs were also at their lowest in decades just prior to the Civil Wars, thanks to the 1857 tax reduction:

The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States. It created a mid-century low point for tariffs. It amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering tax rates around 17 percent.

Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter of Virginia authored the Tariff of 1857. The bill was a response to a federal budget surplus during the mid 1850s. Hunter planned to distribute this surplus in the form of a tax cut. Supporters of the bill came mostly from Southern and agricultural states. These states tended to depend on exports and thus were inclined to support free trade.

www.monacorarecoins.com...

So there is very little connection between tariffs and the motives for southern secession. There is really nothing Confederate apologists can point to as an example of a "tyrannical government" causing secession because in the many years prior to secession, the Southern Backed democrats held majorities in the congress, and both prior presidents were southern backed Democrats.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
However considering that liberty was deprived of STATE CITIZENS


State citizens deprived of liberty? I suppose you mean white christian men when you defined State citizens possessing liberty? Because if anything, those were the only kinds of Americans that actually possessed rights during that period closest to what you and I may define Liberty. This was especially the case in the South.

Rights closest to those resembling "Liberty" were still very much restricted to a certain kind prior to the civil war.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


OMG...please read a book. And also please read my posts. I said that the bill passed CONGRESS in 1859. The president vetoed later on and then it got reintroduced. I did not say the bill became law. Never said.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



The Morrill Act was passed on March 2nd 1861, nearly 4 months following secession of the first states. Ironically the only reason it managed to pass was because of the absence of Southern Democratic representitives in congress at the time due to, wait for it, secession.


You don't possess the ability to be clever. Give it up.

The Morrill Act was a major part of the abolitionist party platform.
Despite the fact that logic and reason finally ruled Congress by means of the Walker tariff of 1846, the North wanted to break the South.
This tariff was an affront to the abolitionists, so they decided to enact personal liberty laws.

Let's look at the dates for enactment of said personal liberty laws.

Vermont 1843
New Hampshire 1846
Maine 1821
Massachusetts 1843
Connecticut 1844
Rhode Island 1848
New Jersey 1846
New York 1840...etc...

The fugitive slave law of 1850 as seen in Article 4 section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution was passed in reaction to the fact that these states were going to every length to break the Southern states.
The abolitionists were NOT humanitarians who loved people and had overflowing empathy.

They had a superficial platform of "free the slaves", but in reality they did not want to have anything to do with them.
The Northern states were industrially based and the only possible way to compete and stay on equal ground with the Southern states was either tariffs on imported goods that literally forced the South into buying manufactured goods from the North at a premium, or they could break the Southern economy.

They did not care about slaves.
I cannot say this enough times.

It is all a ruse. The slavery argument has been used since the early 1800's.

That is why the Morrill Act is of such importance because it shows that the abolitionists wanted power and control over the South.

Contraband slaves who made it up to this great free north that you speak of were treated horribly.
Mayor Sherman of Chicago wouldn't let them work in the city because "it would be a great injustice to the laboring population".

The Governor of Massachusetts wouldn't let any escaped slaves enter into the state.
In actuality, he didn't want ANY blacks in his state. Free or slave.

Lincoln wanted to ship the freed slaves to Haiti.

The abolitionist were so caught up in winning this battle that they forgot to actually take care of the freed slaves.
The US Army was, in fact, charged with negligence by the first representative of the US Sanitary Commission sent to a contraband slave camp.

Her name was Maria Mann and here are some excerpts from her written letters concerning life in a contraband camp.
Here is some real abolitionist love at its finest.

“One family of 40 plantation negroes came two months since, did very well for a time, several got work, but the change of life, weather, & being robbed by our soldiers of clothing & bedding till they were greatly exposed & became sick & 13 of them died, others must die, & when their master came to persuade them to return most of them did. They did not wish to go, faltered, changed their minds daily for a week, but as destitution, persecution & death stared them in the face the sad sufferers went back.



Whatever be the quantities of the above named articles when leaving their plantations, they are greatly reduced before landed here, then subject to further accidental losses in the transfer to quarters.



No class of charitable object ever before appealed to the benevolent where it required so much to accomplish so little, yet it must be done, for will their moral & intellectual elevation ever commence until their physical natures are improved. If any thing is done for them, it must be done quickly. Money is the best aid you can give, because boxes of clothing if ready made would cost much for transportation, while it would be doubtful if they ever reached here.

link to source

A quote from Grant-

"Oh, you are the man who has all those darkies on his shoulders." So Grant in the autumn of 1862 addressed Chaplain John Eaton of the 27th Ohio, a 33-year old....whom he had just appointed supervisor of the contrabands crowding into the army camps at LaGrange, Tennessee.

link to source

The abolitionists had no soul.

This quote is loaded and not even an argument-

Rights closest to those resembling "Liberty" were still very much restricted to a certain kind prior to the civil war.

When you can't win a point, you just resort to the race card.

You are played out.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



Dig Deeper. It wasn't just for the years of atrocities committed by the "Jayhawkers". Union troops had arrested several women that were deemed wives, mothers, daughters and sisters of southern sympathizers, guerrilla warfare fighters or bushwhackers (depending on how poorly they wanted to represent the men in the family in order to justify the arrest of the women).


I did do a bit more research, and I came across an interesting article from Slate online.

Missouri got the super shaft from the Lincoln regime.
I am very glad that you pointed me in this direction because I honestly did not know that Missouri had such a dark period in their history.
This further exemplifies the degree to which this information has been tucked away safely from the eyes of the general public in order to placate the masses into believing that everything is okay.

This is part of a discussion on the illegal detention and denial of due process to Missouri Citizens through the use of military tribunals-

Frémont and his successor, Henry W. Halleck, believed (incorrectly) that they could legitimately employ military courts in Missouri because they had imposed martial law there.



The defendants who came before these tribunals weren't Confederate soldiers, who, when captured, typically became prisoners of war and weren't put on trial.

Rather, the defendants in military court were mainly civilians suspected of aiding the rebels. Gen. Halleck explained the rationale: In Missouri, he said, those burning bridges or buildings weren't "armed and open enemies" but "pretended quiet citizens living on their farms."



So starting in September 1861, Missourians were prosecuted under military tribunals that Union generals established. Lincoln did nothing to deter his generals from doing as they saw fit to subdue Missouri.



Of the 4,000-plus military trials throughout the war, about 55 percent took place in the border states of Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky (where the Union military maintained a strong presence and where generals wouldn't trust juries composed of locals).


link to source

I can not, for the life of me, understand how someone like the arguing carpetbagger fool can read and understand this information while reacting with contempt toward critical thinking individuals who legitimately question our obviously oppressive corporate home office... also known as the USA inc.

This thread has really fired me up.

Even being from the South, I rarely find people willing to overtly embrace the truth of their Southern heritage because so many are consumed with misplaced guilt about a history that has been grossly distorted and flipped upside down in order to portray the bad guys as good and the good guys as bad.

I see people come to ATS and complain about this and that, but when they are confronted with valid documented truth, the horrid nature of this nightmare becomes so real that the conversation tends to take a perverse turn toward aliens and the illuminati.

edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


OMG...please read a book. And also please read my posts. I said that the bill passed CONGRESS in 1859.


No it wasn't, the Morrill bill was only passed in the House of representitives on May 10th 1860, it was then passed in the Senate in February 20th, 1861.


This tariff was so unjust in its impact on consumers, agricultural interests, exporters, and especially the Southern cotton-producing states, that it became a major provocation and economic incentive to Southern secession, when it finally passed the House on May 10, 1860.



Only one of 40 Southern representatives voted for it. It did not come before the Senate until February 20, 1861, after Lincoln’s election. It passed 25 to 14, with no Southern or Border State votes.

theashevilletribune.com...

It was finally signed by Democratic president Buchanan in March 1861, right before Lincoln assumed office.

What's this source of yours that you speak of?





top topics
 
100
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join