grant fought to enslave the south, and he succeeded...and most of you have been successfully brainwashed by a tyrant, lying government...until brave men with freedom in their hearts, once again rise up to fight tyranny, ill have to smell you filthy pigs
@longfootbuddy Yep, Grant, Lincoln, Sherman, Turchin, Sheridan....... while you're at it include all of lincoln's cabinet and the suspension on the "writ" and war crimes committed by all the above. Deo Vindice!
@JohnieReb7: Let us discuss the compromise of civil liberties that is slavery. In specific cases, we have the slave code where by all movements in the South were constantly monitored by enforces of the slave system. We can discuss the restrictions on free speech which were enforced across the South re: abolition of slavery. Even is a person wanted to read an abolitionist newpaper, Southern post masters were forbidden to even deliver them to private homes. Slavery was tyrannical to its bone.
@VictorLepanto Discuss what you would like. I have never said there was anything good about slavery. You keep in mind that the slavery was legal under the american flag and slaves were brought to this country under that flag by northern slave ships! History is history and you cannot change that. IMO, slavery was the worst possible thing that could have ever happened in the South..... JMO..... However at the time it existed it was a legal enterprise!
@JohnieReb7: I understand perfectly well the motives behind such fatuous moral equivolency. The Founding Fathers did not institute slavery. Slavery had existed in all the world from time immemorial. The Constitution of the U.S. provided for the end of the slave trade. The 1st constitution in the world to do so. The Founders thought that by ending the supply of slaves the institution itself would end. Politician saw to tht it didn't. The ones who engineered the Civil War to perpetuate slavery.
@longfootbuddy Grant got lucky....... He didn't have to face Lee until the Confederacy was very depleted of men and supplies after G'burg and the fall of Vicksburg. As to your post, the NORTH and it's government and leaders fought to destroy the South. We did not want war..... but lincoln forced us into that. He got what he wanted since the South was paying the governments debts he could not let it go. The truth is the truth!
I don't take much stock in what people in the 1860s thought of Slavery. They grew up with slavery being legal in Southern states, and that's just how it was. Most people I know who lived before 1950 have a warped mindset of black people. I don't much care for their opinion. My pastor(born in the 1920s) was telling us the story of meeting three guys on a mission trip and (around the yaer 1995) let the N-word slip from his mouth and barely apologized, this is just how that generation thinks
Ledpenny, these young fellows hate Grant and Lincoln because both were a type of American man who's dying out: quiet, humble, resolute, sense of humor, knows who he is. My uncle, Edward Joseph Nilges, 1915-April 6 1945 KIA Mt Folgorito, Italian theater, 442nd Regimental Combat Team ("Nisei" "Go for broke"), Silver Star. "Follow me".
Ledpenny, these boys will say anything because they are ignorant. They didn't get a good old traditional education in American history. That's why they hate Lincoln.
Y'all would obviously believe anything.I suppose you think "reconstruction" meant rebuilding the South,too! Hey, how's all this "conquest" working out for ya now? I really appreciate all this "freedom", where I can't even crap without "premission" from your dictorial Fed Gov. Your entire govt is a massive fraud, and y'all understand nothing of the ramifications of the UNRATIFIED 14th Amend (which I like how the same idiot that said it was ratified in '61 told me to check my facts).
THE FACTS....It is true that Grant was too poor to own slaves (due to his own business failures) but he did inherit a slave by the name of William Jones from his father-in-law in 1858. He would manumit Jones one year later. His wife, Julia, did own four slaves herself. She was from a slave holding family.
Grant also ran a slave operated farm in White Haven, Missouri, delegating duties and chores such as chopping firewood and caring after the livestock.
Very interesting quotes -- and perfectly correct. Slavery was about to explode in the South -- without the Civil War, the South was doomed to a far worse fate.
Grant, Lincoln & Sherman should've got the gallows of course, with their mortal remains being dumped into a swamp, or used to chum the waters for sharks.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Basically, the slaveowner class was a minority which persists today: I met this blonde who actually bragged about having ancestors that were slaveowners: imagine being proud of that.
They put Bush into office and destroyed this country. Oh yeah, and the blonde was a major psycho hosebag, too.
I am now failing to see your point funny enough. Who had to fight for slavery? Well, naturally the ones that owned them. Yet, not even they had too. Who was going to take them from those single digits in society? Not Lincoln, he basically called those claiming he may try retarded for making such a case. Before, during and even after secession that is. You are wrong about Sherman by the way. He adopted the term "collective responsibility" with Lincoln's approval to attack and execute civilians.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, Sherman did NOT attack civilians -unless they were spies or franc-tireurs. This was simply not the policy in 19th century warfare outside of Napoleon's campaign in Spain. You are, I'm afraid, viewing the Civil War through the distorting lens of too many movies and TV shows.
The notion of being able to punish the non-guilty was a 20th century Fascist notion that evolved from 19th century philosophy by way of the Communist notion of class war.
Sadly nothing was done to Sherman as with most generals on the victorious side despite mounting evidence that this order of utter brutality was by no means an isolated incident.
It was an order for General Louis Watkins to go to Fairmount, Georgia. The body read as follows, "burn ten or twelve houses and kill a few at random and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon" Not only did Union spies listening for Confederate messages bring it to a Union general's attention but the Confederate spy ring of Rose O'Neal Greenhow also have corroborated the telegraph being indeed sent and caught by their ciphers. Men on both sides saying the same.
@SgtZellmer Reprisals were legal under international law until after WWII; German convictions at Nuremberg for reprisals were due to the extent of the reprisals, not the reprisals themselves. See Prof. Telford Taylor's "Anatomy of the Nuermberg Trials"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is true that during Reconstruction, Southern poor whites had suddenly to compete with free blacks. But my experience, working in software in mainland China, that more workers produce more wealth. They don't take your job unless you're a loser. You're not a loser, Sarge.
The plantation Massahs then "sold" the poor whites on Jim Crow, and as a result, the South was relegated to permanent poverty until the 1950s.
So apparently you understood me just fine. Who told the whites and free blacks in the South that the "Yankees" were going to be their oppressors? No sir, it was everyones fight. Poor, middle class, and rich alike were invaded. They all had their farms burnt, homes ransacked, wives raped etc etc. It was not confined to the rich sir.......That is a very simplistic view on your part........
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, I don't understand you because you don't understand the point you're trying to make.
The Union under Sherman destroyed property but it was not in fact Sherman's policy to take civilian lives. Confederate troops also got outa hand, notably at the infamous Andersonville prison camp.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The south provided 50 regiments to fight for the North. Shermans cavalry escort was drawn from the south, and were the most loyal to the Union that he could find.
I am a little confused here. Seeing as most of what you said is not only true but old news... The United States lost men to the Confederacy and vice versa...alright. The United States lost just over half of its officer corps to the Confederacy...still what about it? Both used a draft....okay... No, you most certainly do not have to go when drafted. For one, you can just not go. Two, both sides allowed you to get out of it legally. By paying a fine of sorts or sending someone in your place.......
@SgtZellmer The North had experienced raids, bombings of hotels in New York, the seizure of a passenger liner on Lake Erie, the burning of Chambersburg, Pa, the seizure of free blacks in the north and their being sold into slavery during the Anteitam and Gettysburg Campaigns, and then Sherman's troops discovered escaped prisoners who had been in Andersonville......and they "swept like the sword of an avenging angel"--WTS letter
That is most certainly not true about "the notion of being able to punish the non-guilty" Please explain in detail why General Grenville M. Dodge of the United States Army and head of Shermans Intelligence and Covert operations (A title General Grant gave him) backed up not one, two or three but 5 of his 100 or so men that said the opposite of Sherman? In late 1864 several of Dodge's men brought an utterly disturbing telegraph sent by Sherman to his attention-
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But General Grant would tell you, Sarge, that if you can't write the words grammatically, then they don't make sense to me. Your meaning is crystal clear, to you, but if Grant messed up a written order at Shiloh, men would die.
What I'm reading is that your ancestors, like the majority of white Southerners, didn't own slaves. But this means that the war was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. The Southern people were told that Yankees would be their oppressors, which was bullshit.
Oh God I'm such a sexist. I suggest that part of the problem is this silly focus on words as opposed to grammar. It's as if Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were the problem, not slavery.
Slavery was a problem. It was a problem for my none slave holding Southern ancestors. It cost them and their entire class of middle class to even poor whites and Free blacks jobs. Thus, money thereby totally undermining their financial quality of life. Which can directly relate to even physical quality. Yes, slavery was a problem. Grammar should be your last concern on youtube. We aren'y typing college papers here. I type fast and I am sure you do too. As long as the words make sense I post it.
As in the rest of the North, there were many people who supported slavery in Missouri. Many of them had a business interest slavery, such as men who made their living catching slaves on the north side of the Ohio river and returning them for a bounty to their owner.
This is one of the reasons why Abraham Lincoln said "you can fool some of the people some of the time".
There are criminal elements in ever government in the world. Certainly many people thought the Bush administration was one large criminal element in our government. In reference to Hitler national socialist/ Fascist government. It was all about unity. He tried to be a "rebel" It landed him behind bars and was nearly killed in Munich during his attempted "revolution" Both "Der Fuhrer" and the "il Duce" (Mussolini) had fascist governments yes. They depended on civilian support.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. *Tu quoque* is a logical fallacy and a criminal's argument. You boys WANTED Bush, and you got what you deserved.
"You boys" are you insinuating that no women voted for Bush? By the way the two handfulls of States in the low South East do not decide elections. Seeing as one could win our 10 or 11 States and still not be president. Apparently the United States wanted Bush....twice....
Grant sure didn't mind keeping his wife's slaves until AFTER the 13th amendment was ratified. His excuse coined the phrase:"Good help is hard to find"
Hay, ther' Hand Junior, don't lose that interest in American history, but let's hear the source of your information... mine was from Grant's own mind, wherein he called slavery an abomination to civilized people...and his one slave I explain in another video, a hypothetical narrative based on historically known facts.
Historical fact: Missouri had banned slavery before the amendment passed... and before the Great Conquest in January of 1861,,,the 13th passed in December of '61... Oh, the Dents were in Missouri at the time.
No responsible historian would use a book named "The South was Right" as an authoritative source, and any responsible history professor would flunk your ass for using this source.
This same group of authors most likely will claim that the confederacy was a bastion of democracy and fairness, that jim crow laws were set up to protect the black family, and the kookluxkan was trying to spread christianity into the black communities...Students! Research for yourselves! See what your 'leaders' said in their AUTObiographies!!
@handjrs Julia Grant's slaves were released in 1863. You are talking about what Julia wrote in her book. After the war, the idea of "40 acres and mule" to anyone who could prove they had been a slave, was being tossed around congress. Her exslaves asked to be given proof that they had been slaves for this purpose. She should have dated it 1963 but she dated it 1865. And the "40 acres and a mule" were forgot about making the whole point moot.
@handjrs Grant owned 1 slave himself and set him free in 1859. Grant did not own the slaves you refer to, his father-in-law did. Grant really doesn't have jurisdiction to force his father-in-law to release his slaves; maybe he did but really, it wasn't his ordeal.
@vaibanez17 In Grant's time, whatever his wife, Julia Dent Grant owned, Grant owned. That was the way the law read on that! He did not free those slaves until he absolutely had to. Grant's father in law hand nothing to do with the matter so forget that argument. Don't take my word for it..... go read up on the laws of property ownership of that time.
International law merely gives us a way, Sarge, to think outside self-interest and false consciousness, where our illusory self interest is in supporting some damned fool cause.
Lincoln meant the PEOPLE, not the STATES, especially not states taken-over by the small slave-owner class after the destruction of the anti-slave Democrats (including the beating of Sumner).
He specifically said, "any people anywhere" that equates to any group of people in any nation, State, tribe etc in the English language. Lincoln's words, not mine.
He obviously did NOT mean an urban gang (such as the Plug Uglies of Baltimore or the Know Nothings of Philadelphia) that "felt" aggrieved. Keep tryin', Sarge.
I find it contemptible that men like to fantasize about exercisin' natural rights to all sorts of fantasy rebellion as if bein' an American gave you that legal right. You want to knock over a convenience store or foment a rebellion, be my guest: but don't whine when people call you a reb and not a freedom fighter.
No he meant "any people anywhere" meaning, any one individual or group, anywhere. As he said it. I am not fomenting anything. I am in the United States Army. Almost every male in my family has been since the era we are discussing. The U.S. Army is an army of rebels/traitors or what have you. Really anyone bearing U.S. citizenship is. I could care less if I am accused of betraying traitors. Especially when I am not. No circumstances regarding the courts and the Constitution gave them that right.
No, all I was doing was quoting a president of the United States.
Fascism: A governmental system characterized by intense national unity, regimentation, rigid censorship and suppression of all domestic and foreign opposition...... Sir, that is the opposite of "rebellion" Fascism is 100% against "rebellion." Fascism is the type of government that goes to great lengths, including genocide to hault "rebellion"
In actuality (cf. Shirer and Arendt), a Fascist government is characterised, not by an "intense national unity", but by coalitions of criminal elements who mobilise lower middle class resentment. Hitler eliminated the Sturmbateilung Arbeiter in favor of the SS after the SA put him into power. Hitler's government was a tangled bureaucracy to satisfy criminal factions around personalities including Himmler and Goering.
Fascism is what you get when gangsta Rebels try to govern.
It is a common opinion that Fascism is sorta the opposite of your "rebellion". However, Fascism has also been described (by E. F. Hobsbawm) as "the anarchism of the lower middle class".
By "rebellion" you don't mean anyone's rebellion, Sarge. You mean your little rebellion for whatever you want. Unfortunately you have no way of reconciling this rebellion with other rebellions that strive for different ends.
I liked it fine. What's interesting is that while I have a more professorial tone (and am often called Professor, like the guy who plays the piano in the old time saloon) we both sound like codgers.
Now this could be a bad thing. But it could also mean that the language is devolving and men are no longer able to parse the meaning of slavery and the Civil war with proper subordinate clauses (such as the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition), as in the film Idiocracy.
In other words, than below, Sarge, you boys can whine all the hell you want: but the North exercised neither oppression (economic or otherwise) upon you boys apart from the hard knocks of free enterprise, nor were you of a different of a different ethnic group.
Bein' funny-lookin' don't count.
Instead, YOU were the colonial oppressor of the African.
Apparently Abraham Lincoln did not agree with your "modern international law" which by the way, what is your source on this? I mean you yourself used the word modern in it. The United States cared little for "international law" in regards to the conduct of warfare that is for sure. Even for the 1860s. Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere being inclined have right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better"
What's interesting is that explainin' all this forces me to use the style of Ulysses S Grant or Lincoln, and many modern teachers say that that style is too "complex".
But the result of thinking in fragments is Sarge's ill-concealed admiration of Hitler, and his misunderstanding of how Hitler came to power...which he narrates as if he were talking about George Bush.
When even poor schoolboys learned in one room schoolhouses how to write, we had democracy.
To elect him, Hitler, and his cronies to office. No one forced them. How can a party with no more than 50,000 members all of a sudden force some 70 million people to vote for them? Even if they all had 6 arms and guns in each hand they could force enough people sir. Like it or not democracy thwarted one of history's greatest villains into power.
Locke's genius was to discover rights, such as property, BETWEEN natural rights and written Constitutional rights, and the Ninth and Tenth amendments were meant to protect the Lockean rights.
There is of course no need to certify a natural right to rebellion or murder. The American as opposed to Jacobin genius was to safeguard Lockean rights, whereas in France, these rights were up for grabs. The written Droits d'Homme et Citoyen were all the French had, and they did not suffice.
Who cared about their slaves? The single digits of the population that had them?...perhaps... Why care anyway? Where was there slaves going to go? Nowhere according to Abraham Lincoln. For you to say that I admire Hitler only further demonstrates your poor comprehension of the English language. Until even about a year after the market crash in '29 his party was small and basically a joke. However, when Germany's 5 largest banks shut down, people began voting differently. Using Democracy to Elect
Recall my distinction between a Hobbesian "natural" right to secede or rob a store, and a Constitutional right. It is of the essence of civil order that a natural right never supersede a Constitutional right under a Constitution which you or your forefathers freely entered into with at least the solemnity of matrimony.
They of course would except their currency, goods, and of course continue to allow U.S. citizens and their property and crops to travel across their border to use their ports etc. Their survival as a Confederacy depended on this, as even Jeff Davis acknowledged. It was the United States that wanted to cut off trade and actually "blockade" the Confederacy. Causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths alone. How can a Southern State the joined the union on its own accord belong to the North??
Not true. The South switched to trying to market, by way of blockade running, its cotton to Lancashire direct, cutting out the "middlemen" who thereby lost a property right. You can whine that the Yankee middlemen didn't contribute to the product, but that makes no difference: your act of war destroyed a property right. Besides, the Yankees probably picked the bugs out.
In addition, your act of war deprived final finishers of raw material who were in competition with Lancashire.
Those States were more inclined legally to exercise secession because they were more legitimate and recognized in having political power. The king of england openly ignored thus denied any legitimacy to the Continental Congress. States in the U.S. are empowered to create their own laws, have those laws recognized and enforced, their own courts, whos decisions are likewise recognized, as well as their own legitimate State legislature. The clearly had real and structured political power over-
If you think trade could have continued in war time, Sarge, you're crazy. Napoleon had instituted the Continental System, restricting trade with Britain, as a matter of war fighting. The South EXPROPRIATED Yankee business men by its act of war, in violation of property rights as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment.
Furthermore, slavery, even at the "low" rate of ownership, which is much higher given the economic power of the owners, is in itself restraint of trade and the freedom of contract.
-themselves. Therefore given that fact and the circumstances surrounding the legality of secession (at that time) there was zero reason to think it was anything but a State and its inhabitants decision to make. The act of war was committed by the invader, the United States. The first aggressive, offensive, invasion, move to be taken was by the United States when their troops left D.C. and invaded Virginia. Destroying private property and fighting Confederate troops.
LedPenny hits the old nail on the head. IF a section has the "legal" as opposed to the natural right to secede, there is no point in democracy, because at any time the LEGAL rights of the citizens in the non-seceding states to peaceful commerce and travel throughout the undivided nation are trampled-upon by the secesh boys.
You boys cared alot about your damn property rights...in human flesh. But you didn't give a damn for Northern property that was stolen in the act of secession!
I am still failing to see the difference between the actions of the "secesh boys" of the 1860s and those of the 1770s/80s. Neither the Colonies nor those few States comprised the entire the "nation" when they utilized secession. Both were identical in nature, if one is "treason" "rebellion" "civil disobedience" etc then by definition so is the other. Actually the Confederacy was 100% dependant on maintaining free trade and was the opposite of the U.S. They wanted to maintain trade with the U.S.
Modern international law, Sarge, recognizes secesh as legal ONLY in the case of a colonial relationship, which "permits" secesh exclusively as a right of the colonized people.
I'd say there are two tests for a "colonial relationship". One is geographical distance. It applied to the US as regards Britain and to the "white dominions" Canada and Australia of the British Empire (neither of which exercised secesh).
There is only one exception to rebellion/revolution. That is, if you win. The south appealed to the sword, and lost. If they had rights under the Constitution to seceed, they could have filed suit, and had it ajudicated in Federal Court. They didn't do that because they knew they were wrong.
Sarge, men crawl in here, their minds filled with the toxic waste of the half-educated, soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises in CS Lewis' words, and present as "histree" experts because as white males they reckon they own "histree"...without makin' LedPenny's effort to understand.
Only in that same wake of the depression his book would become a best seller world wide. He was almost overnight raised to the position of Chancellor. Record breaking voter turn out and within the first 3 years of the depression and thus the 30s his party went from an almost unheard of or at least uncared about one to the leading party. Democracy at work right there. People desire change, so they threw themselves and their votes at Hitler.
Hitler may have known, being a reader, of how the "abolitionist Democrats" (as opposed to the more numerous and more influential abolitionist Republicans) were erased from history in the beating of Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate. Hitler dealt likewise with non-Nazi German conservatives by accusing them of secret Bolshevist sympathies.
As to comparing Obama with Hitler, Sarge, get a life.
I never compared the two. Your comprehension of the English language must be very low. I only compared the high hopes they both have created. Hitler's being in the wake of the depression, Obama's today and yet to play out. Sir, Hitler began his political career preaching zero compromise, have you read Mein Kampf? His mid 20s book that he wrote while in prison for trying to lead a revolution against his government. He preached that unless Germany was free of Communists there would be no Germany.
You're wrong, Sarge. Hitler got the other parties with the exception of the Social Democrats and smaller parties to its left (including the Communists) to go along with him, they thinking he'd share power with Paul Hindenburg: to them, the real threat was the socialism of the Social Democrats, and the Bolshevism of the Communists.
But then Hitler, AFTER entering the coalition, played his hand and banned all other parties.
No, Sarge, I am not "clearly obsessed" with the tenth amendment, since I do not live in the twittering world of the half-educated: a world in which, on Amtrak, that looney bin, I met a man who claimed to be a "local histree expert" from Harper's Ferry, who didn't know who John Brown wuz.
In the twittering world, Sarge, any knowledge is conflated by its petty officers into opinions (so famously like assholes in the military simile) and hobbies.
Post WW1 Germany was a democracy. No one really paid much attention to his rants even in the 20s. It wasn't until the early 30s that his party was turned to for "change" sort of like the craze with Obama now. Only then did his party and his cronies the SA grow in size. Hitler's party rose to 230 seats in the Reichstag (the largest party) with overwhelming support of the people and record voter turnout in the young democracy.
Indeed, the silence on the matter of secession in the Constitution, its lack of a procedure for Secession, means that no Secession is permitted, whereas the detailed procedure for amendment is the authorisation for amendment.
The Ninth and Tenth amendment merely guaranteed ancient liberties such as the common law. They were passed to quell fears of the Jacobin party in France and its eradication of rural freedom. A right to "secede" would have been regarded as Jacobin and unAmerican.
Two is the Constitution. First of all you are apparently forgetting that the one and only reason these men were able to create their own Constitution, thus union was because they exercised secession. Second, if the Constitution is silent on any matter and there have been no court cases or amendments made to clearify and thus "officialy interpret" the Constitution on a given issue it is perfectly legal. Simply because nothing says otherwise. In regards to State power it was a "Reserved Right"
No, the Constitution meant the time-out-of mind freedoms of the states and more important, the people. It excluded economic legislation such as interstate tariffs which would create quasi-international competition and by implication secession which would create war.
Lincoln mentions a "13th" amendment in hist first Inaugural that would authorise Secesh explicitly. However, the South knew that this amendment would not be ratified by a super majority. Therefore it chose treason and rebellion.
How can you betray a traitor? If secession makes you guilty of treason and rebellion then those are our founding principles. Unless you forgot about the Declaration of Independence and the entire year of 1776. No sir this is why I haven't mentioned the 10th amendment unlike you. It only made explicit what was already implicit. If the Constitution is silent on an issue and no Supreme Court cases have officialy interpreted it on this issue. It is allowed. In this case,it is a "Reserved Right"
Thanks, Mr. LedPenny, I am likewise honored to be a guest here. Let us endeavor to set these callow youths straight on what it means to be an American...who would not be one to replace the Flag for which his fathers died with a Rebel flag.
You are clearly obsessed with the 10th amendment, note that I have not said a word about it. You are gravely mistaken on two counts. One with Germany, Hitler's National Socialist Party gained ALL its power through democracy. He tried to overthrow his government in the 20s and spent time in prison for it. The German people elected National Socialist members to the Reichstag. No one forced them. Prior to 1933 Hitler's party was weak with only a few seats. They chose him through democracy.
Read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (William Shirer) and "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (Hannah Arendt): Hitler came to power without the support of a majority of the German people by intimidating other parties into cooperating with Nazi goals lest they be called collaborators with the "Jews" and anti-German financiers imposing reparations and disarmament on Germany.
That is the wonderful thing about democracy. Anyone can become just about anything. Even Hitler, who not to many years earlier was homeless living under a bridge painting shitty postcard pictures for 10 cents a pop. That's why democracies are so great yet so dangerous. Virtually anyone can become anything. It is all up to the people.
Minimal government is good. However, it's an American fantasy that less-than-minimal government and Secession are better, since secession in particular creates stateless people.
Stateless people get killed in genocides such as Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Holocaust.
Actually now, yes, secession is illegal. However, in 1860-61? No sir. The Constitution is totally silent on the issue, there were no Supreme Court cases or amendments made to officialy interpret the Constitution on this issue at that time. Therefore the right of secession was undeniably whats often called a "Reserved Right" for the States. Now in 1869 the Texas v. White case officialy interperted the Constitution on this issue, saying secession is not allowed. 1869.....years after 1860/61....
No, the Constitution is NOT silent on this matter: its goal was to create a more perfect union. In superseding the Articles of "Confederation", the Federalists meant to create a NATION from which there was no right to secede as there would be from a "confederation". The prohibition on secession is implicit in the fact that no state then or now could conduct a foreign policy.
The Tenth Amendment merely reasserted rights not superseded by the Constitution. "Secession" was NOT one of these.
Pre-1861, the govt of the USA had purchased the midwest, Florida, and the Western states. Settlers into these areas got grants from the US govt to develop the land, but did not get for themselves or their political leaders, national ownership. The original 13 owed their EXISTENCE to the NATIONAL REBELLION against Britain. The D of I was signed by reps from every colony. (also, dissatisfaction with a federal government must be a national dissatisfaction not a regional)
Sir, with respect you certainly did not think this comment over very well. The Colonies were a region. The were one region of a vast British Empire. There was no "NATIONAL REBELLION", none. There were 13 colonies like 11 States at a later date. If dissatisfaction has to be at the national level to justify "rebellion" then it is impossible for you to support the Declaration of Independence and the United States' existence.
Until 1981, the "Kowloon walled city" in Hong Kong had passively "seceded" from China in the sense that under the last emperors, the Emperor had no way of enforcing his writ in the Kowloon walled city, surrounded as it was by a British colony.
Secession theory, a reversion to barbarism,, is in denial of the fact that a nation has to protect its national integrity. The Kowloon walled city was a hellhole for the most part.
Sir Nazi Germany for example had one of the largest governments ever seen in recent human history, so did the Soviets. Their proper name was National Socialist Germany, the government controlled damn near everything. Interestingly parallel to their most hated enemy, the USSR. Where does it State in the Constitution that there is one and only one nation being created? I must have missed that part.....
That's ridiculous! Both governments started with rebellion, a form of your damn secession. The Soviet Union was founded by rebellion in Oct 1917 against Kerensky's legitimate government by the Bolsheviks who like the Confederacy felt that getting what they wanted was more important than democracy (Lincoln was elected fair and square).
The Nazis came to power by SECEDING from decency in their electoral campaigns, beating up political opponents as did Southerners prior to the war.
Hobbes saw that a man has a "right" to do most anything. However, this natural right is balanced by John Law's natural and LEGAL right to show up in force.
Locke thought to discover a level of rights between natural and legal rights, but these were property rights. Secession violates property rights insofar as there is any interstate commerce therefore secession has no rights beyond the "right" to kill offensively or defensively.
They didn't go to war to free the slaves~ that is very true. It did have a chance, if all the seceded States would have come back to ratify it. Presidents can not interfere with amending the Constitution, they play no actual role there. He couldn't have preserved the "union" The union established in 1789 was totally voluntary. The union existing as of April, 1865 was not totally voluntary. Lincoln preserved nothing. Instead he created a new union. One in which only some were there willingly.
Nonsense. The Constitution of 1789 was a marriage, creating a union in the strongest possible terms, creating one nation. A man can leave a marriage: as an Hobbesian "natural right", he has this right in the SAME way he has a right to rob a convenience store. BUT, the Constitution provided no legal right of secesh over and above the natural right, neither in the the Ninth nor in the Tenth amendments: the fact that Congress and the Executive do foreign policy implies no secession is allowed!
Spinosa, it is an honor to enjoy your visit: No human can own the earth or parts; he can only own force and concentration of his numbers in a given region. Allowing regions to break off and form antagonistic divisions would have doomed the nation to a vulnerability to Europe, Mexico, Britain, and the Indian nation's forces and concentrations.
In his First Inaugural address, Lincoln did not propose to interfere with the legal process of amending the Constitution, but he knew that the amendment had no chance of ratification.
Neo-Secesh are spreading the big lie and it's a whopper. It's that the NORTH was proslavery and racist and the South was fixin' to free the slaves.
However, the CSA Constitution as ratified contained the provision rejected by the states of the north: all slavery all the time.
To be fair LEDPENNY this is the text of the only 13th amendment Lincoln supported in either of his inaugural speeches. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Lincoln 'supported' the corwin amendment just as a mountainclimber must let a friend fall... can you not imagine his situation, a person with enormous NEW responsibilities, who knew that his election was rendering asunder the premise of "United States"... he understood that amendments could later be amended... as WE saw with the 18th.
Lincoln was an intelligent enough man to even know what those congressmen knew. Thats the only reason one can conclude that this man, though deemed a mere moderate on slavery, would say "Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" Even he knew it would never be rescinded, "irrevocable" Least wise not with out drawing up a whole new Constitution and thus government, but I thought that was what he was sworn to defend
There is no irrevocable law, and on one law being vulnerable and rescindible...would hardly undermine the other amendments: amend means 'to mend', not to cast in impregnable steel.
Your right there isn't one. That's because this is not our official 13th amendment. It would be though had this been it. In order to "rescind" this amendment you would first have to break the supreme law it put into place. You would have to delegate power back to Congress to "interfere" with or "abolish" existing "domestic institutions" of the States. Since that was the whole purpose behind this amendment....to take that power away unquestionably. Since that had been a question.
Actually the Corwin Amendment, had it been made official, would literally be the only one like it in the Constitution. As my Constitutional Law professor has recently expained one of the main problems the small number of congressmen who maintained their distaste for argued was that it would be impossible to rescind. Even with another Constitutional amendment like we did with Prohibition. It was to be the only amendment deemed "self-protectant legislation" and based purely on its wording.
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that [slaves]... I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
I can certainly agree that slavery as an institution was by definition alone a horrible thing for all whites and free blacks living where it was practiced. However, in order to be at war with the institution, the war would have to of started that way. It most certainly did not. Seeing as even in spring of 1862 (a year after its start) there was little to no notion of slavery ending anywhere it existed.
If abolition was not the key, the war would not have immediately ended slavery. The emancipation proc of '63 would have been seen as an artificial document by European/British leaders. One important note: Harriet Stowe's book had a major impact on the American citizen's view of the institution... for some years before Lincoln was even heard about...
The Emancipation was seen as what Lincoln called it. A war measure. It was because of that fact (it being a war measure issued by a president) that it would have zero legal standing post-war time. It didn't take effect until 1863. How can abolition be key when its embodiment wasn't even introduced into the conflict until about half way through it. As a war measure.
OK, it's 'good' to stick to your guns, but in many ways you do not seem able to be intellectually flexible...WHY WOULD FAKE EMANCIPATION DO THE WAR EFFORT ANY GOOD? ANSWER:
It wasn't fake. It was tactfully designed and its overall goal was achieved. That goal was aimed at causing slaves to revolt/run away in the areas it did affect (not even the whole Confederacy) That way the males could perhaps fight for the North and it successfully injected the aspect of freeing at least some slaves, even if it wasn't permanent. Which the Emancipation was most certainly not. It was this injection that was absent from the war's start but still made foreign intervention obsolete.
The foreign intervention the U.S. government feared so much and was seeming as though it could become a reality. For the South anyway. It was indeed tactfully designed on Lincoln's behalf and was indeed a war measure that did what it was supposed to do.
There were aspects of it that backfired as well. Such as the injecting of that idea that caused mass desertion in the U.S. ranks for nearly a month after it became official. Nearly 100,000 men left the Union Army because of this war measure.
Okay, think about this statement, based on fact: these deserters were a microcosm of the divisions in the general white American attitude...can you not see how the genius Lincoln had to maneuver carefully through this forest of dissension to accomplish with small but directed steps to his goal? So what if he wasn't the black race's Joan of Arc? He got it done.
What Lincoln did support, in fact literally just about the first thing seeing as he was being inaugurated when he did was a different 13th amendment. One that wasn't just a proposal but one that had actually passed both the Senate and the House and was on its way for ratification. An amendment that would not only ensure slavery where it existed but even its right to expand. No, I would not want to be the one beaten. However, not all were. To say so is like saying all US troops were abolitionists
Stowe's book was a sensation. However even the radical Free Soil Party tried to divorce itself from using the book by the 1852 presidential elections. For two reasons, one being its obvious exaggeration it implies. That all slaves were beat to within an inch of their life everyday. Yet still able to continue with back breaking labor on many occassions. Two because it simply incited to much anger. From those not in a slav State that believed all Southerners beat them to the Southerners themselves
This is a clumsily written piece...the Masters' had the right of life or death over their properties, and of course wouldn't need to cruelly beat to death each one. But would you want to be the one chosen to be the example to the rest for 'what could happen to you'????
What did Lincoln get done? I was merely stating the fact that there were obscure and almost automatic negative side effects to the Emancipation along with any good one. If those 85,000-100,000 men represented such a minute amount (which it could be) of the North's feelings then where was the push for a 13th amendment to destroy slavery that would effect all States both still in the union and any that are to be brought back by force (all of them in the end) as well as any territories?
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Grant was a drunk
patteel 1 month ago
grant fought to enslave the south, and he succeeded...and most of you have been successfully brainwashed by a tyrant, lying government...until brave men with freedom in their hearts, once again rise up to fight tyranny, ill have to smell you filthy pigs
longfootbuddy 7 months ago
@longfootbuddy Yep, Grant, Lincoln, Sherman, Turchin, Sheridan....... while you're at it include all of lincoln's cabinet and the suspension on the "writ" and war crimes committed by all the above. Deo Vindice!
JohnieReb7 6 months ago
@JohnieReb7: Let us discuss the compromise of civil liberties that is slavery. In specific cases, we have the slave code where by all movements in the South were constantly monitored by enforces of the slave system. We can discuss the restrictions on free speech which were enforced across the South re: abolition of slavery. Even is a person wanted to read an abolitionist newpaper, Southern post masters were forbidden to even deliver them to private homes. Slavery was tyrannical to its bone.
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@VictorLepanto Discuss what you would like. I have never said there was anything good about slavery. You keep in mind that the slavery was legal under the american flag and slaves were brought to this country under that flag by northern slave ships! History is history and you cannot change that. IMO, slavery was the worst possible thing that could have ever happened in the South..... JMO..... However at the time it existed it was a legal enterprise!
JohnieReb7 3 months ago
@JohnieReb7: I understand perfectly well the motives behind such fatuous moral equivolency. The Founding Fathers did not institute slavery. Slavery had existed in all the world from time immemorial. The Constitution of the U.S. provided for the end of the slave trade. The 1st constitution in the world to do so. The Founders thought that by ending the supply of slaves the institution itself would end. Politician saw to tht it didn't. The ones who engineered the Civil War to perpetuate slavery.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@JohnieReb7 very true
JohnnyCBCS 2 months ago
@longfootbuddy Grant got lucky....... He didn't have to face Lee until the Confederacy was very depleted of men and supplies after G'burg and the fall of Vicksburg. As to your post, the NORTH and it's government and leaders fought to destroy the South. We did not want war..... but lincoln forced us into that. He got what he wanted since the South was paying the governments debts he could not let it go. The truth is the truth!
JohnieReb7 3 months ago 2
I don't take much stock in what people in the 1860s thought of Slavery. They grew up with slavery being legal in Southern states, and that's just how it was. Most people I know who lived before 1950 have a warped mindset of black people. I don't much care for their opinion. My pastor(born in the 1920s) was telling us the story of meeting three guys on a mission trip and (around the yaer 1995) let the N-word slip from his mouth and barely apologized, this is just how that generation thinks
vaibanez17 8 months ago
Ledpenny, these young fellows hate Grant and Lincoln because both were a type of American man who's dying out: quiet, humble, resolute, sense of humor, knows who he is. My uncle, Edward Joseph Nilges, 1915-April 6 1945 KIA Mt Folgorito, Italian theater, 442nd Regimental Combat Team ("Nisei" "Go for broke"), Silver Star. "Follow me".
spinoza1111 9 months ago
Grant could write because in his day, they read real books: the King James Bible, Shakespeare, and the Pilgrim's Progress.
spinoza1111 9 months ago
Ledpenny, these boys will say anything because they are ignorant. They didn't get a good old traditional education in American history. That's why they hate Lincoln.
spinoza1111 9 months ago
Y'all would obviously believe anything.I suppose you think "reconstruction" meant rebuilding the South,too! Hey, how's all this "conquest" working out for ya now? I really appreciate all this "freedom", where I can't even crap without "premission" from your dictorial Fed Gov. Your entire govt is a massive fraud, and y'all understand nothing of the ramifications of the UNRATIFIED 14th Amend (which I like how the same idiot that said it was ratified in '61 told me to check my facts).
handjrs 1 year ago
THE FACTS....It is true that Grant was too poor to own slaves (due to his own business failures) but he did inherit a slave by the name of William Jones from his father-in-law in 1858. He would manumit Jones one year later. His wife, Julia, did own four slaves herself. She was from a slave holding family.
Grant also ran a slave operated farm in White Haven, Missouri, delegating duties and chores such as chopping firewood and caring after the livestock.
Back2Dixie 1 year ago
Comment removed
Back2Dixie 1 year ago
Very interesting quotes -- and perfectly correct. Slavery was about to explode in the South -- without the Civil War, the South was doomed to a far worse fate.
Slavery was a cancer --it had to spread or die.
CanteenKid 2 years ago
YEAH WHITE POWER
TEADRINKA 2 years ago
Grant, Lincoln & Sherman should've got the gallows of course, with their mortal remains being dumped into a swamp, or used to chum the waters for sharks.
procommenter 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Basically, the slaveowner class was a minority which persists today: I met this blonde who actually bragged about having ancestors that were slaveowners: imagine being proud of that.
They put Bush into office and destroyed this country. Oh yeah, and the blonde was a major psycho hosebag, too.
You done fightin' their battles for them, Sarge?
spinoza1111 3 years ago
I am now failing to see your point funny enough. Who had to fight for slavery? Well, naturally the ones that owned them. Yet, not even they had too. Who was going to take them from those single digits in society? Not Lincoln, he basically called those claiming he may try retarded for making such a case. Before, during and even after secession that is. You are wrong about Sherman by the way. He adopted the term "collective responsibility" with Lincoln's approval to attack and execute civilians.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, Sherman did NOT attack civilians -unless they were spies or franc-tireurs. This was simply not the policy in 19th century warfare outside of Napoleon's campaign in Spain. You are, I'm afraid, viewing the Civil War through the distorting lens of too many movies and TV shows.
The notion of being able to punish the non-guilty was a 20th century Fascist notion that evolved from 19th century philosophy by way of the Communist notion of class war.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Sadly nothing was done to Sherman as with most generals on the victorious side despite mounting evidence that this order of utter brutality was by no means an isolated incident.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 15
The south drafted men to fight long before the north. So yes, they did have to fight.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Don -- did you know Jeff Davis decreed that all slaves in SOuth who ever were given their freedom were RE-enslaved?
And probably over a million slaves and "freed" blacks were put to work for the Confderacy.
Read the diary of a clerk in Richmond during the way.
CanteenKid 2 years ago
It was an order for General Louis Watkins to go to Fairmount, Georgia. The body read as follows, "burn ten or twelve houses and kill a few at random and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon" Not only did Union spies listening for Confederate messages bring it to a Union general's attention but the Confederate spy ring of Rose O'Neal Greenhow also have corroborated the telegraph being indeed sent and caught by their ciphers. Men on both sides saying the same.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 10
@SgtZellmer Reprisals were legal under international law until after WWII; German convictions at Nuremberg for reprisals were due to the extent of the reprisals, not the reprisals themselves. See Prof. Telford Taylor's "Anatomy of the Nuermberg Trials"
cailleanmc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is true that during Reconstruction, Southern poor whites had suddenly to compete with free blacks. But my experience, working in software in mainland China, that more workers produce more wealth. They don't take your job unless you're a loser. You're not a loser, Sarge.
The plantation Massahs then "sold" the poor whites on Jim Crow, and as a result, the South was relegated to permanent poverty until the 1950s.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
So apparently you understood me just fine. Who told the whites and free blacks in the South that the "Yankees" were going to be their oppressors? No sir, it was everyones fight. Poor, middle class, and rich alike were invaded. They all had their farms burnt, homes ransacked, wives raped etc etc. It was not confined to the rich sir.......That is a very simplistic view on your part........
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, I don't understand you because you don't understand the point you're trying to make.
The Union under Sherman destroyed property but it was not in fact Sherman's policy to take civilian lives. Confederate troops also got outa hand, notably at the infamous Andersonville prison camp.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The south provided 50 regiments to fight for the North. Shermans cavalry escort was drawn from the south, and were the most loyal to the Union that he could find.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I am a little confused here. Seeing as most of what you said is not only true but old news... The United States lost men to the Confederacy and vice versa...alright. The United States lost just over half of its officer corps to the Confederacy...still what about it? Both used a draft....okay... No, you most certainly do not have to go when drafted. For one, you can just not go. Two, both sides allowed you to get out of it legally. By paying a fine of sorts or sending someone in your place.......
SgtZellmer 2 years ago 3
@SgtZellmer The North had experienced raids, bombings of hotels in New York, the seizure of a passenger liner on Lake Erie, the burning of Chambersburg, Pa, the seizure of free blacks in the north and their being sold into slavery during the Anteitam and Gettysburg Campaigns, and then Sherman's troops discovered escaped prisoners who had been in Andersonville......and they "swept like the sword of an avenging angel"--WTS letter
cailleanmc 1 year ago
That is most certainly not true about "the notion of being able to punish the non-guilty" Please explain in detail why General Grenville M. Dodge of the United States Army and head of Shermans Intelligence and Covert operations (A title General Grant gave him) backed up not one, two or three but 5 of his 100 or so men that said the opposite of Sherman? In late 1864 several of Dodge's men brought an utterly disturbing telegraph sent by Sherman to his attention-
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But General Grant would tell you, Sarge, that if you can't write the words grammatically, then they don't make sense to me. Your meaning is crystal clear, to you, but if Grant messed up a written order at Shiloh, men would die.
What I'm reading is that your ancestors, like the majority of white Southerners, didn't own slaves. But this means that the war was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. The Southern people were told that Yankees would be their oppressors, which was bullshit.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Oh God I'm such a sexist. I suggest that part of the problem is this silly focus on words as opposed to grammar. It's as if Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were the problem, not slavery.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Slavery was a problem. It was a problem for my none slave holding Southern ancestors. It cost them and their entire class of middle class to even poor whites and Free blacks jobs. Thus, money thereby totally undermining their financial quality of life. Which can directly relate to even physical quality. Yes, slavery was a problem. Grammar should be your last concern on youtube. We aren'y typing college papers here. I type fast and I am sure you do too. As long as the words make sense I post it.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
As in the rest of the North, there were many people who supported slavery in Missouri. Many of them had a business interest slavery, such as men who made their living catching slaves on the north side of the Ohio river and returning them for a bounty to their owner.
This is one of the reasons why Abraham Lincoln said "you can fool some of the people some of the time".
spinoza1111 3 years ago
There are criminal elements in ever government in the world. Certainly many people thought the Bush administration was one large criminal element in our government. In reference to Hitler national socialist/ Fascist government. It was all about unity. He tried to be a "rebel" It landed him behind bars and was nearly killed in Munich during his attempted "revolution" Both "Der Fuhrer" and the "il Duce" (Mussolini) had fascist governments yes. They depended on civilian support.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. *Tu quoque* is a logical fallacy and a criminal's argument. You boys WANTED Bush, and you got what you deserved.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
"You boys" are you insinuating that no women voted for Bush? By the way the two handfulls of States in the low South East do not decide elections. Seeing as one could win our 10 or 11 States and still not be president. Apparently the United States wanted Bush....twice....
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Grant sure didn't mind keeping his wife's slaves until AFTER the 13th amendment was ratified. His excuse coined the phrase:"Good help is hard to find"
handjrs 3 years ago 6
Hay, ther' Hand Junior, don't lose that interest in American history, but let's hear the source of your information... mine was from Grant's own mind, wherein he called slavery an abomination to civilized people...and his one slave I explain in another video, a hypothetical narrative based on historically known facts.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
Historical fact: Missouri had banned slavery before the amendment passed... and before the Great Conquest in January of 1861,,,the 13th passed in December of '61... Oh, the Dents were in Missouri at the time.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
The 13th was passed 06 DEC 1865,and at that time, Missouri was one of the few states where it (slavery)is considered to have still have been legal.
handjrs 3 years ago
"The South Was Right" page 27,"The Grey Book" page39,and from memoirs
handjrs 3 years ago
No responsible historian would use a book named "The South was Right" as an authoritative source, and any responsible history professor would flunk your ass for using this source.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
This same group of authors most likely will claim that the confederacy was a bastion of democracy and fairness, that jim crow laws were set up to protect the black family, and the kookluxkan was trying to spread christianity into the black communities...Students! Research for yourselves! See what your 'leaders' said in their AUTObiographies!!
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
@handjrs Julia Grant's slaves were released in 1863. You are talking about what Julia wrote in her book. After the war, the idea of "40 acres and mule" to anyone who could prove they had been a slave, was being tossed around congress. Her exslaves asked to be given proof that they had been slaves for this purpose. She should have dated it 1963 but she dated it 1865. And the "40 acres and a mule" were forgot about making the whole point moot.
Deej1125 1 year ago
@handjrs Grant owned 1 slave himself and set him free in 1859. Grant did not own the slaves you refer to, his father-in-law did. Grant really doesn't have jurisdiction to force his father-in-law to release his slaves; maybe he did but really, it wasn't his ordeal.
vaibanez17 8 months ago
@vaibanez17 In Grant's time, whatever his wife, Julia Dent Grant owned, Grant owned. That was the way the law read on that! He did not free those slaves until he absolutely had to. Grant's father in law hand nothing to do with the matter so forget that argument. Don't take my word for it..... go read up on the laws of property ownership of that time.
JohnieReb7 6 months ago 2
International law merely gives us a way, Sarge, to think outside self-interest and false consciousness, where our illusory self interest is in supporting some damned fool cause.
Lincoln meant the PEOPLE, not the STATES, especially not states taken-over by the small slave-owner class after the destruction of the anti-slave Democrats (including the beating of Sumner).
spinoza1111 3 years ago
He specifically said, "any people anywhere" that equates to any group of people in any nation, State, tribe etc in the English language. Lincoln's words, not mine.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 3
He obviously did NOT mean an urban gang (such as the Plug Uglies of Baltimore or the Know Nothings of Philadelphia) that "felt" aggrieved. Keep tryin', Sarge.
I find it contemptible that men like to fantasize about exercisin' natural rights to all sorts of fantasy rebellion as if bein' an American gave you that legal right. You want to knock over a convenience store or foment a rebellion, be my guest: but don't whine when people call you a reb and not a freedom fighter.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
No he meant "any people anywhere" meaning, any one individual or group, anywhere. As he said it. I am not fomenting anything. I am in the United States Army. Almost every male in my family has been since the era we are discussing. The U.S. Army is an army of rebels/traitors or what have you. Really anyone bearing U.S. citizenship is. I could care less if I am accused of betraying traitors. Especially when I am not. No circumstances regarding the courts and the Constitution gave them that right.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
Your presumption seems to be that military service gives you the right to foment rebellion. That's Fascism.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
No, all I was doing was quoting a president of the United States.
Fascism: A governmental system characterized by intense national unity, regimentation, rigid censorship and suppression of all domestic and foreign opposition...... Sir, that is the opposite of "rebellion" Fascism is 100% against "rebellion." Fascism is the type of government that goes to great lengths, including genocide to hault "rebellion"
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
In actuality (cf. Shirer and Arendt), a Fascist government is characterised, not by an "intense national unity", but by coalitions of criminal elements who mobilise lower middle class resentment. Hitler eliminated the Sturmbateilung Arbeiter in favor of the SS after the SA put him into power. Hitler's government was a tangled bureaucracy to satisfy criminal factions around personalities including Himmler and Goering.
Fascism is what you get when gangsta Rebels try to govern.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
It is a common opinion that Fascism is sorta the opposite of your "rebellion". However, Fascism has also been described (by E. F. Hobsbawm) as "the anarchism of the lower middle class".
By "rebellion" you don't mean anyone's rebellion, Sarge. You mean your little rebellion for whatever you want. Unfortunately you have no way of reconciling this rebellion with other rebellions that strive for different ends.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
It was all about national unity. Intense, fanatical unity. Reinforced by a daily dose of party propaganda and parades and speeches.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
I liked it fine. What's interesting is that while I have a more professorial tone (and am often called Professor, like the guy who plays the piano in the old time saloon) we both sound like codgers.
Now this could be a bad thing. But it could also mean that the language is devolving and men are no longer able to parse the meaning of slavery and the Civil war with proper subordinate clauses (such as the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition), as in the film Idiocracy.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Say, how'd you like my video?
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
@LEDPENNY LEDPENNY for PRESIDENT
The253King 9 months ago
In other words, than below, Sarge, you boys can whine all the hell you want: but the North exercised neither oppression (economic or otherwise) upon you boys apart from the hard knocks of free enterprise, nor were you of a different of a different ethnic group.
Bein' funny-lookin' don't count.
Instead, YOU were the colonial oppressor of the African.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Apparently Abraham Lincoln did not agree with your "modern international law" which by the way, what is your source on this? I mean you yourself used the word modern in it. The United States cared little for "international law" in regards to the conduct of warfare that is for sure. Even for the 1860s. Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere being inclined have right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better"
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
What's interesting is that explainin' all this forces me to use the style of Ulysses S Grant or Lincoln, and many modern teachers say that that style is too "complex".
But the result of thinking in fragments is Sarge's ill-concealed admiration of Hitler, and his misunderstanding of how Hitler came to power...which he narrates as if he were talking about George Bush.
When even poor schoolboys learned in one room schoolhouses how to write, we had democracy.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
To elect him, Hitler, and his cronies to office. No one forced them. How can a party with no more than 50,000 members all of a sudden force some 70 million people to vote for them? Even if they all had 6 arms and guns in each hand they could force enough people sir. Like it or not democracy thwarted one of history's greatest villains into power.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
'Meant could they force enough people sir?'
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Locke's genius was to discover rights, such as property, BETWEEN natural rights and written Constitutional rights, and the Ninth and Tenth amendments were meant to protect the Lockean rights.
There is of course no need to certify a natural right to rebellion or murder. The American as opposed to Jacobin genius was to safeguard Lockean rights, whereas in France, these rights were up for grabs. The written Droits d'Homme et Citoyen were all the French had, and they did not suffice.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Who cared about their slaves? The single digits of the population that had them?...perhaps... Why care anyway? Where was there slaves going to go? Nowhere according to Abraham Lincoln. For you to say that I admire Hitler only further demonstrates your poor comprehension of the English language. Until even about a year after the market crash in '29 his party was small and basically a joke. However, when Germany's 5 largest banks shut down, people began voting differently. Using Democracy to Elect
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Recall my distinction between a Hobbesian "natural" right to secede or rob a store, and a Constitutional right. It is of the essence of civil order that a natural right never supersede a Constitutional right under a Constitution which you or your forefathers freely entered into with at least the solemnity of matrimony.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
They of course would except their currency, goods, and of course continue to allow U.S. citizens and their property and crops to travel across their border to use their ports etc. Their survival as a Confederacy depended on this, as even Jeff Davis acknowledged. It was the United States that wanted to cut off trade and actually "blockade" the Confederacy. Causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths alone. How can a Southern State the joined the union on its own accord belong to the North??
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Not true. The South switched to trying to market, by way of blockade running, its cotton to Lancashire direct, cutting out the "middlemen" who thereby lost a property right. You can whine that the Yankee middlemen didn't contribute to the product, but that makes no difference: your act of war destroyed a property right. Besides, the Yankees probably picked the bugs out.
In addition, your act of war deprived final finishers of raw material who were in competition with Lancashire.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Those States were more inclined legally to exercise secession because they were more legitimate and recognized in having political power. The king of england openly ignored thus denied any legitimacy to the Continental Congress. States in the U.S. are empowered to create their own laws, have those laws recognized and enforced, their own courts, whos decisions are likewise recognized, as well as their own legitimate State legislature. The clearly had real and structured political power over-
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
If you think trade could have continued in war time, Sarge, you're crazy. Napoleon had instituted the Continental System, restricting trade with Britain, as a matter of war fighting. The South EXPROPRIATED Yankee business men by its act of war, in violation of property rights as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment.
Furthermore, slavery, even at the "low" rate of ownership, which is much higher given the economic power of the owners, is in itself restraint of trade and the freedom of contract.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
-themselves. Therefore given that fact and the circumstances surrounding the legality of secession (at that time) there was zero reason to think it was anything but a State and its inhabitants decision to make. The act of war was committed by the invader, the United States. The first aggressive, offensive, invasion, move to be taken was by the United States when their troops left D.C. and invaded Virginia. Destroying private property and fighting Confederate troops.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
LedPenny hits the old nail on the head. IF a section has the "legal" as opposed to the natural right to secede, there is no point in democracy, because at any time the LEGAL rights of the citizens in the non-seceding states to peaceful commerce and travel throughout the undivided nation are trampled-upon by the secesh boys.
You boys cared alot about your damn property rights...in human flesh. But you didn't give a damn for Northern property that was stolen in the act of secession!
spinoza1111 3 years ago
I am still failing to see the difference between the actions of the "secesh boys" of the 1860s and those of the 1770s/80s. Neither the Colonies nor those few States comprised the entire the "nation" when they utilized secession. Both were identical in nature, if one is "treason" "rebellion" "civil disobedience" etc then by definition so is the other. Actually the Confederacy was 100% dependant on maintaining free trade and was the opposite of the U.S. They wanted to maintain trade with the U.S.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Modern international law, Sarge, recognizes secesh as legal ONLY in the case of a colonial relationship, which "permits" secesh exclusively as a right of the colonized people.
I'd say there are two tests for a "colonial relationship". One is geographical distance. It applied to the US as regards Britain and to the "white dominions" Canada and Australia of the British Empire (neither of which exercised secesh).
The other is difference of ethnicity.
Neither applied to the CSA, Sarge.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
There is only one exception to rebellion/revolution. That is, if you win. The south appealed to the sword, and lost. If they had rights under the Constitution to seceed, they could have filed suit, and had it ajudicated in Federal Court. They didn't do that because they knew they were wrong.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Exactly right, Don.
spinoza1111 2 years ago
Sarge, men crawl in here, their minds filled with the toxic waste of the half-educated, soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises in CS Lewis' words, and present as "histree" experts because as white males they reckon they own "histree"...without makin' LedPenny's effort to understand.
Are you one of them, Sarge?
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Only in that same wake of the depression his book would become a best seller world wide. He was almost overnight raised to the position of Chancellor. Record breaking voter turn out and within the first 3 years of the depression and thus the 30s his party went from an almost unheard of or at least uncared about one to the leading party. Democracy at work right there. People desire change, so they threw themselves and their votes at Hitler.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Hitler may have known, being a reader, of how the "abolitionist Democrats" (as opposed to the more numerous and more influential abolitionist Republicans) were erased from history in the beating of Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate. Hitler dealt likewise with non-Nazi German conservatives by accusing them of secret Bolshevist sympathies.
As to comparing Obama with Hitler, Sarge, get a life.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
I never compared the two. Your comprehension of the English language must be very low. I only compared the high hopes they both have created. Hitler's being in the wake of the depression, Obama's today and yet to play out. Sir, Hitler began his political career preaching zero compromise, have you read Mein Kampf? His mid 20s book that he wrote while in prison for trying to lead a revolution against his government. He preached that unless Germany was free of Communists there would be no Germany.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
You're wrong, Sarge. Hitler got the other parties with the exception of the Social Democrats and smaller parties to its left (including the Communists) to go along with him, they thinking he'd share power with Paul Hindenburg: to them, the real threat was the socialism of the Social Democrats, and the Bolshevism of the Communists.
But then Hitler, AFTER entering the coalition, played his hand and banned all other parties.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Free of the Communists and the Jews he claimed were controlling them anyway.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
No, Sarge, I am not "clearly obsessed" with the tenth amendment, since I do not live in the twittering world of the half-educated: a world in which, on Amtrak, that looney bin, I met a man who claimed to be a "local histree expert" from Harper's Ferry, who didn't know who John Brown wuz.
In the twittering world, Sarge, any knowledge is conflated by its petty officers into opinions (so famously like assholes in the military simile) and hobbies.
It's called knowledge, Sarge sir I mean Sarge.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Post WW1 Germany was a democracy. No one really paid much attention to his rants even in the 20s. It wasn't until the early 30s that his party was turned to for "change" sort of like the craze with Obama now. Only then did his party and his cronies the SA grow in size. Hitler's party rose to 230 seats in the Reichstag (the largest party) with overwhelming support of the people and record voter turnout in the young democracy.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Indeed, the silence on the matter of secession in the Constitution, its lack of a procedure for Secession, means that no Secession is permitted, whereas the detailed procedure for amendment is the authorisation for amendment.
The Ninth and Tenth amendment merely guaranteed ancient liberties such as the common law. They were passed to quell fears of the Jacobin party in France and its eradication of rural freedom. A right to "secede" would have been regarded as Jacobin and unAmerican.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Two is the Constitution. First of all you are apparently forgetting that the one and only reason these men were able to create their own Constitution, thus union was because they exercised secession. Second, if the Constitution is silent on any matter and there have been no court cases or amendments made to clearify and thus "officialy interpret" the Constitution on a given issue it is perfectly legal. Simply because nothing says otherwise. In regards to State power it was a "Reserved Right"
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
No, the Constitution meant the time-out-of mind freedoms of the states and more important, the people. It excluded economic legislation such as interstate tariffs which would create quasi-international competition and by implication secession which would create war.
Lincoln mentions a "13th" amendment in hist first Inaugural that would authorise Secesh explicitly. However, the South knew that this amendment would not be ratified by a super majority. Therefore it chose treason and rebellion.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
How can you betray a traitor? If secession makes you guilty of treason and rebellion then those are our founding principles. Unless you forgot about the Declaration of Independence and the entire year of 1776. No sir this is why I haven't mentioned the 10th amendment unlike you. It only made explicit what was already implicit. If the Constitution is silent on an issue and no Supreme Court cases have officialy interpreted it on this issue. It is allowed. In this case,it is a "Reserved Right"
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks, Mr. LedPenny, I am likewise honored to be a guest here. Let us endeavor to set these callow youths straight on what it means to be an American...who would not be one to replace the Flag for which his fathers died with a Rebel flag.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
You are clearly obsessed with the 10th amendment, note that I have not said a word about it. You are gravely mistaken on two counts. One with Germany, Hitler's National Socialist Party gained ALL its power through democracy. He tried to overthrow his government in the 20s and spent time in prison for it. The German people elected National Socialist members to the Reichstag. No one forced them. Prior to 1933 Hitler's party was weak with only a few seats. They chose him through democracy.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
Read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (William Shirer) and "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (Hannah Arendt): Hitler came to power without the support of a majority of the German people by intimidating other parties into cooperating with Nazi goals lest they be called collaborators with the "Jews" and anti-German financiers imposing reparations and disarmament on Germany.
This wasn't democracy, Sarge.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
That is the wonderful thing about democracy. Anyone can become just about anything. Even Hitler, who not to many years earlier was homeless living under a bridge painting shitty postcard pictures for 10 cents a pop. That's why democracies are so great yet so dangerous. Virtually anyone can become anything. It is all up to the people.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Minimal government is good. However, it's an American fantasy that less-than-minimal government and Secession are better, since secession in particular creates stateless people.
Stateless people get killed in genocides such as Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Holocaust.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Actually now, yes, secession is illegal. However, in 1860-61? No sir. The Constitution is totally silent on the issue, there were no Supreme Court cases or amendments made to officialy interpret the Constitution on this issue at that time. Therefore the right of secession was undeniably whats often called a "Reserved Right" for the States. Now in 1869 the Texas v. White case officialy interperted the Constitution on this issue, saying secession is not allowed. 1869.....years after 1860/61....
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
No, the Constitution is NOT silent on this matter: its goal was to create a more perfect union. In superseding the Articles of "Confederation", the Federalists meant to create a NATION from which there was no right to secede as there would be from a "confederation". The prohibition on secession is implicit in the fact that no state then or now could conduct a foreign policy.
The Tenth Amendment merely reasserted rights not superseded by the Constitution. "Secession" was NOT one of these.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Pre-1861, the govt of the USA had purchased the midwest, Florida, and the Western states. Settlers into these areas got grants from the US govt to develop the land, but did not get for themselves or their political leaders, national ownership. The original 13 owed their EXISTENCE to the NATIONAL REBELLION against Britain. The D of I was signed by reps from every colony. (also, dissatisfaction with a federal government must be a national dissatisfaction not a regional)
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
Sir, with respect you certainly did not think this comment over very well. The Colonies were a region. The were one region of a vast British Empire. There was no "NATIONAL REBELLION", none. There were 13 colonies like 11 States at a later date. If dissatisfaction has to be at the national level to justify "rebellion" then it is impossible for you to support the Declaration of Independence and the United States' existence.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Until 1981, the "Kowloon walled city" in Hong Kong had passively "seceded" from China in the sense that under the last emperors, the Emperor had no way of enforcing his writ in the Kowloon walled city, surrounded as it was by a British colony.
Secession theory, a reversion to barbarism,, is in denial of the fact that a nation has to protect its national integrity. The Kowloon walled city was a hellhole for the most part.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Sir Nazi Germany for example had one of the largest governments ever seen in recent human history, so did the Soviets. Their proper name was National Socialist Germany, the government controlled damn near everything. Interestingly parallel to their most hated enemy, the USSR. Where does it State in the Constitution that there is one and only one nation being created? I must have missed that part.....
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
That's ridiculous! Both governments started with rebellion, a form of your damn secession. The Soviet Union was founded by rebellion in Oct 1917 against Kerensky's legitimate government by the Bolsheviks who like the Confederacy felt that getting what they wanted was more important than democracy (Lincoln was elected fair and square).
The Nazis came to power by SECEDING from decency in their electoral campaigns, beating up political opponents as did Southerners prior to the war.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Hobbes saw that a man has a "right" to do most anything. However, this natural right is balanced by John Law's natural and LEGAL right to show up in force.
Locke thought to discover a level of rights between natural and legal rights, but these were property rights. Secession violates property rights insofar as there is any interstate commerce therefore secession has no rights beyond the "right" to kill offensively or defensively.
Secession is therefore a criminal's "right.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Lincoln and Grant had the racialist (not necessarily racist) views of their time. They didn't go to war to free the slaves.
They went to war for what's arguably a nobler cause: the preservation of the Union.
Why do I call it a nobler cause?
Because you can't end slavery, nor can you elect Barack Husayn Obama, without a Union.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
They didn't go to war to free the slaves~ that is very true. It did have a chance, if all the seceded States would have come back to ratify it. Presidents can not interfere with amending the Constitution, they play no actual role there. He couldn't have preserved the "union" The union established in 1789 was totally voluntary. The union existing as of April, 1865 was not totally voluntary. Lincoln preserved nothing. Instead he created a new union. One in which only some were there willingly.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 2
Nonsense. The Constitution of 1789 was a marriage, creating a union in the strongest possible terms, creating one nation. A man can leave a marriage: as an Hobbesian "natural right", he has this right in the SAME way he has a right to rob a convenience store. BUT, the Constitution provided no legal right of secesh over and above the natural right, neither in the the Ninth nor in the Tenth amendments: the fact that Congress and the Executive do foreign policy implies no secession is allowed!
spinoza1111 3 years ago
Spinosa, it is an honor to enjoy your visit: No human can own the earth or parts; he can only own force and concentration of his numbers in a given region. Allowing regions to break off and form antagonistic divisions would have doomed the nation to a vulnerability to Europe, Mexico, Britain, and the Indian nation's forces and concentrations.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
In his First Inaugural address, Lincoln did not propose to interfere with the legal process of amending the Constitution, but he knew that the amendment had no chance of ratification.
Neo-Secesh are spreading the big lie and it's a whopper. It's that the NORTH was proslavery and racist and the South was fixin' to free the slaves.
However, the CSA Constitution as ratified contained the provision rejected by the states of the north: all slavery all the time.
spinoza1111 3 years ago
To be fair LEDPENNY this is the text of the only 13th amendment Lincoln supported in either of his inaugural speeches. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 6
Lincoln 'supported' the corwin amendment just as a mountainclimber must let a friend fall... can you not imagine his situation, a person with enormous NEW responsibilities, who knew that his election was rendering asunder the premise of "United States"... he understood that amendments could later be amended... as WE saw with the 18th.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
Lincoln was an intelligent enough man to even know what those congressmen knew. Thats the only reason one can conclude that this man, though deemed a mere moderate on slavery, would say "Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" Even he knew it would never be rescinded, "irrevocable" Least wise not with out drawing up a whole new Constitution and thus government, but I thought that was what he was sworn to defend
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 4
There is no irrevocable law, and on one law being vulnerable and rescindible...would hardly undermine the other amendments: amend means 'to mend', not to cast in impregnable steel.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
Your right there isn't one. That's because this is not our official 13th amendment. It would be though had this been it. In order to "rescind" this amendment you would first have to break the supreme law it put into place. You would have to delegate power back to Congress to "interfere" with or "abolish" existing "domestic institutions" of the States. Since that was the whole purpose behind this amendment....to take that power away unquestionably. Since that had been a question.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago
Actually the Corwin Amendment, had it been made official, would literally be the only one like it in the Constitution. As my Constitutional Law professor has recently expained one of the main problems the small number of congressmen who maintained their distaste for argued was that it would be impossible to rescind. Even with another Constitutional amendment like we did with Prohibition. It was to be the only amendment deemed "self-protectant legislation" and based purely on its wording.
SgtZellmer 3 years ago 4
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that [slaves]... I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
spinoza1111 3 years ago
I can certainly agree that slavery as an institution was by definition alone a horrible thing for all whites and free blacks living where it was practiced. However, in order to be at war with the institution, the war would have to of started that way. It most certainly did not. Seeing as even in spring of 1862 (a year after its start) there was little to no notion of slavery ending anywhere it existed.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
If abolition was not the key, the war would not have immediately ended slavery. The emancipation proc of '63 would have been seen as an artificial document by European/British leaders. One important note: Harriet Stowe's book had a major impact on the American citizen's view of the institution... for some years before Lincoln was even heard about...
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
The Emancipation was seen as what Lincoln called it. A war measure. It was because of that fact (it being a war measure issued by a president) that it would have zero legal standing post-war time. It didn't take effect until 1863. How can abolition be key when its embodiment wasn't even introduced into the conflict until about half way through it. As a war measure.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
OK, it's 'good' to stick to your guns, but in many ways you do not seem able to be intellectually flexible...WHY WOULD FAKE EMANCIPATION DO THE WAR EFFORT ANY GOOD? ANSWER:
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
It wasn't fake. It was tactfully designed and its overall goal was achieved. That goal was aimed at causing slaves to revolt/run away in the areas it did affect (not even the whole Confederacy) That way the males could perhaps fight for the North and it successfully injected the aspect of freeing at least some slaves, even if it wasn't permanent. Which the Emancipation was most certainly not. It was this injection that was absent from the war's start but still made foreign intervention obsolete.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
The foreign intervention the U.S. government feared so much and was seeming as though it could become a reality. For the South anyway. It was indeed tactfully designed on Lincoln's behalf and was indeed a war measure that did what it was supposed to do.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
There were aspects of it that backfired as well. Such as the injecting of that idea that caused mass desertion in the U.S. ranks for nearly a month after it became official. Nearly 100,000 men left the Union Army because of this war measure.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
Okay, think about this statement, based on fact: these deserters were a microcosm of the divisions in the general white American attitude...can you not see how the genius Lincoln had to maneuver carefully through this forest of dissension to accomplish with small but directed steps to his goal? So what if he wasn't the black race's Joan of Arc? He got it done.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
What Lincoln did support, in fact literally just about the first thing seeing as he was being inaugurated when he did was a different 13th amendment. One that wasn't just a proposal but one that had actually passed both the Senate and the House and was on its way for ratification. An amendment that would not only ensure slavery where it existed but even its right to expand. No, I would not want to be the one beaten. However, not all were. To say so is like saying all US troops were abolitionists
Joseph565112 3 years ago
Stowe's book was a sensation. However even the radical Free Soil Party tried to divorce itself from using the book by the 1852 presidential elections. For two reasons, one being its obvious exaggeration it implies. That all slaves were beat to within an inch of their life everyday. Yet still able to continue with back breaking labor on many occassions. Two because it simply incited to much anger. From those not in a slav State that believed all Southerners beat them to the Southerners themselves
Joseph565112 3 years ago
This is a clumsily written piece...the Masters' had the right of life or death over their properties, and of course wouldn't need to cruelly beat to death each one. But would you want to be the one chosen to be the example to the rest for 'what could happen to you'????
LEDPENNY 3 years ago
What did Lincoln get done? I was merely stating the fact that there were obscure and almost automatic negative side effects to the Emancipation along with any good one. If those 85,000-100,000 men represented such a minute amount (which it could be) of the North's feelings then where was the push for a 13th amendment to destroy slavery that would effect all States both still in the union and any that are to be brought back by force (all of them in the end) as well as any territories?
Joseph565112 3 years ago
Joe, this is the text of the 13th amendment...
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
LEDPENNY 3 years ago