The War of Southern Aggression

Might doesn't make right.
But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

The states voluntarily ceded sovereignity when they joined the union. If they were to maintain it, the Constitution would have stated it. But it did not. Only did it regulate the entry of new states into the union.

Secessionists are the height of hypocrisy to suggest the same of the union. For shame.

Read the tenth amendment, carefully, it's only one sentence, but maybe the most important one sentence in the Constitution, (and yes, it is an integral part of the Constitution), "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Here's what the founders were telling us:
The power of secession was not given to the United States to either prevent, or to force on any State, and it was not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, so it remained with the States.
Now that's the Constitutional aspect of secession.

Here's something else that should be considered:
There were over four million slaves in the States that seceded, that doesn't include the four "slave States" that remained in the Union. What was to be done with these people if slavery were to be ended. They didn't own any land, they barely owned the clothes they wore.
There were people in the South who would have gladly participated in a plan to eliminate slavery that wouldn't have thrown them into poverty and put millions of illiterate blacks lose to survive any way possible. That would have resulted in gangs of blacks roaming the countryside, raping and pillaging at will, as happened anyway at the end of the war.
But no, just like forced integration a hundred years later, the powers that be had to do it instantaneous[y, resulting in decades of racial violence.

I have four ancestors who served during the War Between The States, two in the 16th Maine Infantry (Thomas Dorset and Sylvanus Chick) Regiment and two in the Fifth Florida Infantry Division (William James Stewart and Robert May)., only one family owned slaves, the May family of Jefferson County Florida, and Asa May, the Patriarch of that family wanted to end slavery, but in a peaceful way that would not throw the slave owners into poverty. He had several ideas that would spread the expense .of converting to a paid workforce over all who profited from the institution of slavery, including the Northern Textile Mill owners and the people who bought and wore the clothes made from the cotton produced by slaves. But no again, the hothead abolitionist leaders and Textile Mill Mogels would hear nothing of it, So over 600,000 had to die, and over a million more go missing in action (some just went west, some went home, and others were miscounted, but even if one fourth of these were killed it would add another 250,000 to the killed list)
Now, you may say, and I'm sure some of you will, that I'm just making this up after the fact, but that's your prerogative. I got it from personal research into my family history inspired by family 'tradition'. In any case, there were many slave owners who would have gladly traded their slaves for a life free of the curse bestowed upon them by their ancestors, if they could have done it without throwing their children into abject poverty.

Now, as one man who was raised by a Mother from Maine, and a Father from Wakulla County Florida, say that you who say the slaves should have been set free instantly with no regard for the safety of the Southern Whites, mostly who didn't own slaves but owned 99% of the fire arms, or the slaves themselves who owned nothing and would have had no choice but to pillage a survival by any means available to them, you people are worse morally than the institution of slavery itself.

How about lets debate a way slavery could have been ended without the violence of war and the 100 years of racial violence that followed. Come on, I challenge you!
 
Nothing to be taken.

A great Civil War resolved that issue a long time and was confirmed by SCOTUS.

You are certainly entitled to the silly concept in which you want to believe.
 
Might doesn't make right.
But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.

I tried to think of something that rhymed and made sense, but I failed.

The Colonies fought for the right of self-government, and it's hypocritical for the government created by the Colonies to deny that right to the Confederacy. So in this case, might wasn't used for right.

The states voluntarily ceded sovereignity when they joined the union. If they were to maintain it, the Constitution would have stated it. But it did not. Only did it regulate the entry of new states into the union.

Secessionists are the height of hypocrisy to suggest the same of the union. For shame.

Read the tenth amendment, carefully, it's only one sentence, but maybe the most important one sentence in the Constitution, (and yes, it is an integral part of the Constitution), "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Here's what the founders were telling us:
The power of secession was not given to the United States to either prevent, or to force on any State, and it was not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, so it remained with the States.
Now that's the Constitutional aspect of secession.
incorrect4dr.jpg


United States Constitution said:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:
United States Constitution said:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You lose. Good day, sir.

Here's something else that should be considered:
There were over four million slaves in the States that seceded, that doesn't include the four "slave States" that remained in the Union. What was to be done with these people if slavery were to be ended. They didn't own any land, they barely owned the clothes they wore.
There were people in the South who would have gladly participated in a plan to eliminate slavery that wouldn't have thrown them into poverty and put millions of illiterate blacks lose to survive any way possible. That would have resulted in gangs of blacks roaming the countryside, raping and pillaging at will, as happened anyway at the end of the war.
But no, just like forced integration a hundred years later, the powers that be had to do it instantaneous[y, resulting in decades of racial violence.

I have four ancestors who served during the War Between The States, two in the 16th Maine Infantry (Thomas Dorset and Sylvanus Chick) Regiment and two in the Fifth Florida Infantry Division (William James Stewart and Robert May)., only one family owned slaves, the May family of Jefferson County Florida, and Asa May, the Patriarch of that family wanted to end slavery, but in a peaceful way that would not throw the slave owners into poverty. He had several ideas that would spread the expense .of converting to a paid workforce over all who profited from the institution of slavery, including the Northern Textile Mill owners and the people who bought and wore the clothes made from the cotton produced by slaves. But no again, the hothead abolitionist leaders and Textile Mill Mogels would hear nothing of it, So over 600,000 had to die, and over a million more go missing in action (some just went west, some went home, and others were miscounted, but even if one fourth of these were killed it would add another 250,000 to the killed list)
Now, you may say, and I'm sure some of you will, that I'm just making this up after the fact, but that's your prerogative. I got it from personal research into my family history inspired by family 'tradition'. In any case, there were many slave owners who would have gladly traded their slaves for a life free of the curse bestowed upon them by their ancestors, if they could have done it without throwing their children into abject poverty.

Now, as one man who was raised by a Mother from Maine, and a Father from Wakulla County Florida, say that you who say the slaves should have been set free instantly with no regard for the safety of the Southern Whites, mostly who didn't own slaves but owned 99% of the fire arms, or the slaves themselves who owned nothing and would have had no choice but to pillage a survival by any means available to them, you people are worse morally than the institution of slavery itself.

How about lets debate a way slavery could have been ended without the violence of war and the 100 years of racial violence that followed. Come on, I challenge you!
Wow.



Your facts are all wrong, sir. I mean, I hardly know where to begin, so I'll start from the top.

First, no, the people of the South (or at least the slaveholders of the South, which is who mattered) were not glad to participate in any plan to eliminate slavery, compensated or otherwise. Such a plan was offered to the border states during the war, and flatly rejected. Such plans were proposed in the decades prior and the literature proposing them was barred from the mails, and if the proposer was dumb enough to go South to make his pitch personally he stood a fairly good chance of being run out of town at best and lynched at worst.

Second, you have who was doing the roaming around raping and pillaging backwards. You may wish to examine the history of the Ku Klux Klan.

Third, the Freedman's Bureau was supposed to assist the freed slaves to prevent exactly the sort of desperate poverty you decry - but its agents were run out of town most everywhere they went, because preventing that desperate poverty would have short-circuited the sharecropping system, slavery by another name. Desperate people only go around pillaging against people much more heavily armed than they are if they aren't given another option - which they were. And that option was to return to working the fields for pay that was immediately taken back in rent.

Your ancestry has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong on any of these facts, and as it happens you are most decidedly the latter. I myself have multiple ancestors that served in the 45th Alabama Infantry, CSA, but that doesn't make them right. The chattel slavery system is one of the most brutal and evil atrocities ever perpetuated by man against man, and those perpetuating it were unwilling to end it - in case you failed to notice, they started a war when its mere EXPANSION was threatened, to say nothing of an actual attempt to end it. Any claim that they were willing to go along with an emancipation scheme when emancipation was made unconstitutional under the government they created for themselves is laughable.
 
The roots of nullification go much deeper than just John C. Calhoun, to the days of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

And if the south was such a nuisance to the north it would seem like good policy to simply wish them well and let them go, rather than waging a war to force them to stay.

The South saw to it no peaceful resolution would occur. Lincoln REFUSED to act as the South rebelled, wanting to wait for the Congress to act. The South would have none of that resorting to armed rebellion, FORCING Lincoln to raise an Army in defense of the loyal States.
Unmitigated horseshit.
 
How did any of the idiots that owned slaves(anyone who did was not a truly great American) come up with the idea that it was ok to own a slave?
 
How did any of the idiots that owned slaves(anyone who did was not a truly great American) come up with the idea that it was ok to own a slave?

So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not great Americans?
 
The roots of nullification go much deeper than just John C. Calhoun, to the days of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

And if the south was such a nuisance to the north it would seem like good policy to simply wish them well and let them go, rather than waging a war to force them to stay.
That was an option...until the South fired on Fort Sumter.
 
The roots of nullification go much deeper than just John C. Calhoun, to the days of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

And if the south was such a nuisance to the north it would seem like good policy to simply wish them well and let them go, rather than waging a war to force them to stay.
That was an option...until the South fired on Fort Sumter.

Firing on Ft Sumter had nothing to do with the option.
 
"So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not great Americans?"

Anyone who condones slavery or owned a slave will not ever get the" great" label next to their names. Deep down they knew it was anti Christian, anti human, and totally immoral to even think of considering a person someone's property". In no way shape or form can anyone justify slavery. The reason I believe is that they wanted to become rich and needed to mistreat others in order to have their work done. I call it lazy. They were lazy.
 
"So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not great Americans?"

Anyone who condones slavery or owned a slave will not ever get the" great" label next to their names. Deep down they knew it was anti Christian, anti human, and totally immoral to even think of considering a person someone's property". In no way shape or form can anyone justify slavery. The reason I believe is that they wanted to become rich and needed to mistreat others in order to have their work done. I call it lazy. They were lazy.

I guess we build monuments to people in Washington D.C. because they are despised.
 
I could care less about monuments. While they had a hand in forming this nation, the fact that they felt that owning slaves was somehow OK in my eyes takes them down several notches on the great category. Slave owners were greedy, immoral bastards who were too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to pay a decent wage for the work. It is sad they didn't see the total error in their ways. So do I see them as great? Nope I don't. I believe thbey knew it was wrong and sadistic to own slaves yet did anyway. What is wrong in every way is simply wrong.
 
I could care less about monuments. While they had a hand in forming this nation, the fact that they felt that owning slaves was somehow OK in my eyes takes them down several notches on the great category. Slave owners were greedy, immoral bastards who were too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to pay a decent wage for the work. It is sad they didn't see the total error in their ways. So do I see them as great? Nope I don't. I believe thbey knew it was wrong and sadistic to own slaves yet did anyway. What is wrong in every way is simply wrong.

I could care less about your opinion. You're looking at them with 20/20 hindsight and judging them by modern standards. Slavery is as old as civilization. Older, even. The practice was considered normal and socially acceptable at the time. It makes as much sense to condemn the Founding Fathers for practising slavery as it does to condemn Julius Caesar or Pericles for owning slaves.

Many of the libs in here claim to be the ideological descendants of the Founding Fathers, but you all condemn them for owning slaves. You're all astounding hypocrites.
 
Slavery is wrong in every way. You agree with this I assume. If it is wrong today was it not wrong back then? Simply because there were thousands of slave owners back then and it was considered normal, does that make it right? If they were that great they wouldn't have owned slaves and would have had the conviction to speak out against it. If you want work done, you pay people a good wage, you don't whip them and rule with fear and not pay them. Where is the greatness in that?
 
I could care less about monuments. While they had a hand in forming this nation, the fact that they felt that owning slaves was somehow OK in my eyes takes them down several notches on the great category. Slave owners were greedy, immoral bastards who were too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to pay a decent wage for the work. It is sad they didn't see the total error in their ways. So do I see them as great? Nope I don't. I believe thbey knew it was wrong and sadistic to own slaves yet did anyway. What is wrong in every way is simply wrong.

I could care less about your opinion. You're looking at them with 20/20 hindsight and judging them by modern standards. Slavery is as old as civilization. Older, even. The practice was considered normal and socially acceptable at the time. It makes as much sense to condemn the Founding Fathers for practising slavery as it does to condemn Julius Caesar or Pericles for owning slaves.

Many of the libs in here claim to be the ideological descendants of the Founding Fathers, but you all condemn them for owning slaves. You're all astounding hypocrites.

I agree 100% with the above. I taught my children and grandchildren that you can't judge our forefathers by morals of today.
 
Ah, moral relativism. Where would we be without you?

But that isn't the point. The point is that it was the Slave Power that was the aggressor, not the free states - not only at the outbreak of the war, but in matters of internal policy for over a decade prior.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top