America Needs To Rediscover The Spirit Of The Old South.

Can you provide some dates? Are you tak=lking aboout slaves owned by the Spanish?

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

No problem. I was going to repost some stuff to rebut Kessy, but I see it's not necessary. I do, however, have a little something that fleshes out some of the points you brought up and adds to the total picture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it's difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn't tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat -- and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college's first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family's candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown's University Hall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm

P.S. Surprising that Kessy ignores the fact of slave merchants serving as Mayor of Philadelphia since that is where Kessy is from. Oh, well, let's just ignore the truth. We're bashing the South here!!!

 

I live in the Deep South; in fact I live darn near the Gulf of Mexico. I have traveled all southern states and never saw anything like you describe except in the most rural areas. Are you sure you are not describing the typical perception of what people think of the South? I have already proven nothing wrong with the Confederate flag.

I note you are in a Yankee state!!!!

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

LOL LOL LOL good job.

GP

 

Isn't it something, a so called American supports genocide of fellow American citizens???

George Purvis

 

Isn't it something, a so called American supports genocide of fellow American citizens???

George Purvis

 

Isn't it something, a so called American supports genocide of fellow American citizens???

George Purvis

 

This ^ bulldog may be forgiven, as he was misled into believing that he was being photographed in front of a British flag and would be given a picture like so:

 

And your point is????

GP

 

On top of his head and nowhere else.

 

Well that really doesn't make sense. The same can be said about your post.



George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Isn't it something, a so called American supports genocide of fellow American citizens???

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Why should I? You've done a fine job of that yourself.

From your own posts:

"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service."

Alexander Stephens

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

...

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

South Carolina

Wow, isn't it amazing how all the so called "abuses" of the constitution just coincidentally happen to relate to slavery?

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Texas

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Georgia

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Mississippi

"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions (that'd be slavery) and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:"

Alabama

I really don't see how the Confederates could have made in any more clear that they were going to war over slavery. Stephens says it outright, "Slavery was undoubtedly the occasion of secession." No interpretation required - that's as bald a statement of the matter as I can imagine. You can scream "states' rights" all you like, it immediately leads to the question "Which states rights were supposedly being abrogated?" and the unavoidable answer always comes down to slavery. And even then, when you look more closely, it wasn't even about slavery in the South. It was mostly about slavery in the territories - Lincoln ran on a platform not of abolishing slavery, but of preventing the spread of slavery to the territories. And as the documents you yourself just quoted say, the South saw that as such a threat that they started a war over it. Those same documents also cite the failure of northern states to outlaw and suppress abolitionist societies, their failure to properly (in the South's view) enforce fugitive slave laws, and their audacity to actually grant citizenship and the franchise to free blacks. No matter how you flail about, it always comes down to the same thing - slavery, slavery, slavery.

So yes, the Confederates do indeed call you a liar. Or perhaps they're merely calling you... hmmm, how to put it to be within the forum rules? Perhaps they are merely questioning your reading comprehension skills.

And simply saying, "The South did not choose to got war, they were left with no choice," without any sort of support does not make it so. It was the South, not the North, that created a constitutional crisis by seceding simply because they lost a Presidential election. It was the North that tried mightily to find a peaceful solution, that offered the South concessions and guarantees, such as the quotes from Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment that you yourself cited. It was the South that responded to those overtures by besieging and then attacking federal installations. Neither Lincoln nor the North wanted war, and they went to great lengths to try to avoid it. It was the South that created the crisis, the South that turned it into a shooting war, the South's choice and the South's responsibility.

The North did indeed go to war to preserve the Union, and the South did indeed go to war to preserve slavery. It was the Confederacy that made it about slavery. Lincoln understood that his duty as President to the entire country took precedence over his personal opinions and beliefs. As President, Lincoln upheld his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. As a person, Lincoln wished to see the end of slavery, but he only took that course when his duty permitted it.

Of course discrimination existed in the North in the 1860's. Of course it was wrong. And of course the treatment of blacks in the North was still orders of magnitude better then in the South, particularly in the Deep South, where slavery was exceptionally brutal. As I said, trying to distract attention from Southern slavery by pointing to Northern discrimination is like a many caught standing over the mutilated body of his wife, bloody knife in hand saying, "But I saw you hit your wife just the other day!" It is simply not relevant. And did you overlook the fact that the instances of ill treatment of slaves in the North come from a century or more before the Civil War? In the 18th century, both the North and South knew that slavery was wrong and needed to be addressed. The North chose to do something about it, the South chose to rationalize and perpetuate it.

Sherman conducted his campaigns entirely within the rules of war. His so called atrocities are either gross exaggerations and distortions or outright fiction. For example, Southerners accuse Sherman of burning Atlanta when it was the retreating Confederates themselves who started the fires. Yes, of course Sherman's orders weren't always followed to the letter, and of course civilians suffered as a result of his campaign. That is true of all wars under all commanders. Sherman was an advocate of hard war and soft peace - of bringing the war to an end as quickly and decisively as possible, and forging a just and lasting peace. In fact, both Sherman and Grant got in political trouble with Congress for offering very lenient terms of surrender. If I was unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of a war, I'd be grateful to have an opponent as honorable and reasonable as Sherman. And genocide? Please. Shouting merely amplifies your utterly ridiculous hyperbole.

Wow, 8,000 African Americans serving in the armed forces of the Confederacy. My that's such an impressive number. Especially considering that around 1,000,000 men served in the Confederate Army. Or considering that 179,000 African Americans served in the US Army, constituting nearly 10% of the total.

 

Because slavery was one of the reasons for secession not the war. I have said that many times, prove me wrong. In trying to prove me wrong you have just added support to my statements. I even went so far as to point out that if slavery was the only reason, then that statement could only be make for 4 of the Confederate states. What is hard to comprend about that fact?????We also know for a fact that the Union was only interested in preserving the Union. Honest Abe said so!!!

Again show me where they said they were going to war. War is not even mentioned in the secession documents, only the causes of secession. Can't you read???

You continually repeat yourself, I'll do the same. Show me the word war.

Listen you are just trying to convince slavery in the North was morally better. I supposed they used velvet covered chains in the bottom of the slave ships.

You are willfully ignoring the other causes listed. With all the information posted to this forum, you are still ignorant beyond belief.

I have posted supporting statements for everything I posted on this forum. Because you chose to ignore it is not my fault. If you do not understand the issue at Sumter now you never will. Just being honest you are making excuses because you don't know. Here is a Yankee website that will help you out, go there and educate yourself--- http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fosu/decision.pdf.

On Sherman yeah right, you got it the info from a first person account and still you deny the fact. Unbelievable!!!!! Talking about wanting to put a spin on history.

I never said that was all The Negros who served did I? I said that was the current number. Today I am over 9,000 and I am only getting started. Gee that is a right smart observance of you; we can only find records that have been saved from natural disasters theft, deliberate loss and destruction up to and including the Confederate authorities. The truth of the matter is I am the first person to take on such a project, and I do not have all of the docu,ments the United States has. The fact of the matter is we will never know just how many men white or black served with the Confederacy. So now what is your complaint again? Now your 179,000 USCT, some were impressed, some only served 60 days, and some were still slaves, but the fact remains that only about 3,000 died in battle. Grant nor Sherman had much use for them as soldiers. Now what is your point?


Let's not forget the fact you advocate the genocide of Americans!!!!!!!!!
George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

(Rubs my ears) Yes, Purvis, shouting really makes your arguments seem ever so much more reasonable and convincing. Maybe you should try shouting so loud I can actually hear you all the way here in Philly? That will surely put all argument to rest and show all the world how right you are.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Confederate leadership Didn't realize full well that secession would most certainly lead to war? Do you really think that they were taken by surprise by the fact that attacking a federal installation would be an act of war? You may as well say, "Oh no, I didn't kill that person. All I did was pull the trigger, the bullet is what killed them."

Willfully ignoring the other causes listed? What other causes? The only one I saw that was not directly related to slavery was Texas complaining about not getting enough federal aid in fighting the American Indians.

And for the umpteenth time, Sherman conducted his campaign according to the laws of war as the were at the time. The absolute worst you can accuse him of is not doing enough to prevent theft by his troops. Genocide? Get real. I suppose next you're going to accuse Sherman of personally roasting Southern babies alive on a spit over a camp fire.

I have never suggested in any way that slavery in the North was in any way morally superior. The moral difference comes from the decision in the North to abolish slavery, while the South chose to embrace it. African slavery in America was equally morally wrong everywhere it existed, and the legacy of slavery, discrimination, and racism is something that all of us in the US have to deal with. All nations have shameful chapters in their history, all people have ancestors who committed crimes. We all have a responsibility to remember the past, and we all have a responsibility to deal with the legacy of the past - the consequences of the past that are still happening today. We are all human, we are all imperfect, and we all, every single one of us, have the capacity for monstrous crimes within us. The only way to deal with that is to face the past and admit where we have made mistakes, either individually or collectively, and try to do better. Southerners today are not responsible for the crimes of the South a century and a half ago, any more then the German and Japanese people of today are responsible for the crimes of the Second World War, or I'm responsible for the crimes of my own ancestors against the American Indians. We do have a responsibility to try to make things better today, but not for the original crimes of past generations. We only take on responsibility for those crimes in so far as we chose to embrace them.

 

Secession was the last resort for a people that could get no redress within the framework of the government. It was considered to be a legitimate right of the people and can be shown through the several threats of secession by the New England States, the writings of many Founders and even of Lincoln himself. BTW, America was FOUNDED upon its SECESSION from the Crown.

The fact is that the South hadn't been getting a fair shake for quite some time. There were those advocating slave rebellion (remember John Brown, for example?), the South was paying the lion's share of the Federal Govt's expenses and, due to its lower population, did not have the representation in Congress and was consequently getting screwed in legislative matters. Add to this the high tariffs imposed that helped the North but punished the South. No wonder why the South seceded.

In Lincoln's own words......

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Back to your first point. There was no reason to expect WAR. Secession was a recognized right not prohibited by the Constitution. Why should a people expect war over something they had a right to do?

Much has been posted going into some detail about each of these things already. You obviously aren't one for reading much before posting. With that in mind, I'll answer your other points separately.

 

You must be forgetting about the four states that seceded only after the firing on Fort Sumter. Virginia seceded on April 17, 1861. Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas seceded in May, 1861. They would not send troops to support Lincoln's war and would not allow armies marching through their territory. For them, it wasn't about slavery.

So what about slavery? Think what you want about it in 2011, but at the time, slavery was legal. So freaking what if you, I, or anybody else likes the idea or not. The fact is we are a nation of laws and slavery was a lawful practice in those days. Don't forget, also, that slavery was still practiced in the North and in the border states that did not secede and was left untouched until ratification of the 13th amendment in December, 1865.

 

Actually, Lincoln changed the rules of war during the War Between the States. As for Sherman, here's a little something from him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpts from two letters written in 1864—one, by General Sherman; the other, by General Sheridan—bear witness to the reality of the Leiber Code.

"Sherman ordered a subordinate to "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." Sheridan, in turn, wrote to Grant that his troops, whom he described as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes," had already "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But these weren't just a couple of rogue Generals. It was more widespread. A couple more examples....

In April, 1862 Union General John Basil Turchin unleashed his troops on Athens, Alabama. Turchin told his troops, "I shut mine eyes for two hours. I see nothing". What followed was a spree of looting, raping and pillaging. When news of this brutality reached General Don Carlos Buell in June, he launched an investigation and had Turchin relieved of his command on July 2. Charges stemmed from not only the brutal behavior but also from Turchin's having his wife accompany him in the field. Turchin was court-marshaled, found guilty and sentenced to dismissal from the Army in August, 1862.

President Lincoln set the order aside and promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, retroactive to July 17.

From ...Encyclopedia of the American Civil War P. 1984

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On May 15, 1862, Gen. Benjamin Butler issued Field Order 28, which stated..

"As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insult from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation [a prostitute]."

In Britain, where the upper class was already sympathetic to the Confederacy, the London Times characterized Butler's Woman Order as a "military rule of intolerable brutality." The prime minister, Lord Palmerston, condemned it as "infamous. Sir, an Englishman must blush to think that such an act has been committed by one belonging to the Anglo-Saxon race." His foreign secretary, Lord Russell, agreed, and sent an envoy to the American secretary of state, William Henry Seward, who stood firm behind Butler's action.

From Harper's Weekly July 12, 1862

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a link on Lincoln's changing the rules of war......

http://www.vdare.com/articles/lincoln-the-leiber-code-and-total-war

 

Yea gods, what a stupefying level of rationalization. The threat of secession is not the same as actually doing it. The Constitution contains no provisions for secession or its own annulment. There is not and never has been any right to secession except in the overactive imaginations of the Confederates and their apologists. If it never occurred to anyone in the South that secession would mean war, why did the Confederate Secretary of War, LeRoy Pope Walker, feel the need to offer to soak up all the blood spilled with his handkerchief, even before Ft Sumter? You don't need to reassure people who had no thought of war that there wouldn't be any great bloodshed.

And the founders were fully aware the declaring independence from Great Britain would be treason against the crown, and would mean war. Or do you think that pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor was a rhetorical flourish?

The South hadn't been getting a fair shake? Oh what a load of crap. Those poor, poor, Southerners, not being allowed to turn the entire west into slave territory. And it was such obvious tyranny that those awful Free States would allow those horrible abolitionists to have the temerity to point out the brutality, immorality, barbarism, and just plain evil that was slavery. Why, decent respectable folk shouldn't have to put up with their actions being questioned by such riff-raff!

John Brown and his family were a bunch of lunatics about as representative of the abolition movement as the Phelps family and the Westboro wingnuts are representative of the evangelical movement today.

Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas may not have wanted to start a war over slavery, but once it had begun, there was no doubt which side they were on.

So if the war wasn't over slavery, how do you explain Stephen's cornerstone speech and the declarations of causes? If the war wasn't over slavery, why would they come out and say it was? That's rather like saying that Hitler didn't really want to conquer Europe, he was just out to (insert your favorite rationalization here.) This is ridiculous, stupid, dishonest, and frankly disrespectful to both sides of the Civil War. When people go to war for a cause, and they explicitly tell you why in no uncertain terms, right or wrong, they deserve the respect of being remembered for the cause they fought for.

 

Abraham Lincoln on Texas' secession from Mexico...in a speech before the US House Of Representatives, January 12,1848....

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now why would he say that? Hmmm....

People like you are so blinded by Lincoln and the propaganda that been raised to justify his pretext and prosecution of the war that you can't see the liberties he took from everyone, yourself included. His was the first Administration that usurped the Constitution and consolidated power in the Federal Govt...something expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Ever hear of a little something called the Bill Of Rights, specifically the 10th Amendment?

But no, you'll go on...never ceasing to bash the South for a moment, or attempting to seize some perceived moral high ground to the point of completely ignoring everything that doesn't fit neatly into your fantasy.

Funny how a great many Northerners saw Lincoln's machinations for what they truly were. I suppose, though, you, from on high, somehow know better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following quotes speak for themselves. The Lincoln quote clearly shows his intent at Fort Sumter was to start a war.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following quotes are from editorials in Northern newspapers and, again, speak for themselves.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The English press saw this as well.....

"Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

"With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

"The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." ~ Wigan Examiner (UK) May, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But you know better...OK

 

Wow, a handful of cherry picked quotes from the editorial pages, yes, that's really convincing. About as convincing as taking a handful of quotes from Micheal Moore and the Huffington Post to try to make Bush Jr look like a tyrant.

So, since you can't answer me on slavery, you're just going to change the subject and try to assassinate Lincoln's character? I suppose that's as close as I'm going to get as an admission that there simply is no answer on the subject of slavery.

Ft Sumter was a federal military installation being illegally besieged by individuals in rebellion against the lawful government of the United States. Laying siege to the fort was itself an act of war. As was firing on the unarmed civilian merchantman Star of the West, dispatched by President Buchanan. Lincoln notified the governor of SC as a courtesy and gesture of goodwill beforehand that he was sending a relief expedition to supply Ft Sumter with provisions only, not troops, arms, or ammunition. Lincoln even offered to evacuate Ft Sumter as a concession to Virginia. I really don't see how Lincoln could have possibly been more conciliatory. And if you want some quotes, how about one from CSA Secretary of State Robert Toombs, who advised Jefferson Davis that attacking Ft Sumter, "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

As for the right of revolution... A form of government is essentially a social contract between the people and the government, is it not? Like all contracts, it may be altered or nullified at any time by mutual agreement of the parties. If there is not mutual agreement, then the party which wishes to amend the contract may seek to do so unilaterally, and the party which wishes to keep the contract as it is may also seek to do so. Which party may be judged to be in the right depends on numerous factors of each individual case, including the terms of the original contract, the proposed changes to the contract, the motives for both changing and maintaining the contract, and the methods employed in seeking to resolve the dispute. The Confederacy sought to destroy a constitutional democracy in order to absolutely guarantee that no challenge would ever be brought against the institution of slavery, and did so by starting an incredibly bloody and destructive war. I really fail to see how such a course of action is in any way defensible, either morally or legally.

So, pray tell me exactly what liberties I have been deprived of? The liberty to own slaves? The liberty to have a state government that disregards due process of law and individual rights? The liberty to have a state government that that denies citizenship and the franchise to some of its residents? I do not call those liberties, and as far as I'm concerned, such things have no place in the United States or in any constitutional democracy.

I am quite familiar with the Bill of Rights, and I am also quite familiar with the 14th Amendment, which in essence applied that bill to the state governments, which had previously been free to ignore them if they felt so inclined. I am also quite familiar with the 10th Amendment, which reserved all other powers to the states or to the people. As all powers under the constitution are derived from the people, not from the states, the people may choose to exercise their powers through whatever means they deem fit, including the federal government.

I am not bashing the South, I am condemning the Confederacy as the evil that it was. Unless, of course, you're saying the the South today is the same thing as the Confederacy. As I said in a previous post, we are only responsible for the sins of our ancestors in so far as we choose to embrace those sins. While the South today has its problems, some of which may well be directly traceable to the Confederacy, so too does the North have its own problems, some of which are directly traceable to its past, and so does the West, and everyplace else for that matter. The South is no different in that regard to any other human society. Differences arise in what we chose to do about it.

 

Funny you see plainly the sins of the South, but you fail to see any of the North. Here's another 'cherry-picked' happening from the time. It has to do with Lincoln suspending the right of habeas corpus and arresting civilians.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Freedom from arbitrary arrest, guaranteed in the writ of habeas corpus, has long been a centerpiece of American civil liberties. During the Civil War, however, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested antiwar protesters to suppress dissent. Under presidential orders, the federal government required residents to carry passports, organized a secret service, and cooperated with local police to apprehend suspects. The government also circumvented the civil liberties of political prisoners. Although federal officials usually detained suspects for only short periods, they did so without any regular hearings.

Furthermore, the federal government sometimes used military commissions to try civilians for their crimes. Although the Supreme Court did not question the power of such commissions during the war, their use outside the war zone for the trial of civilians was declared unconstitutional after the war. High-ranking politicians were not immune from conviction; federal agents imprisoned several prominent politicians, including the mayors of Baltimore and Washington, D.C., Congressman Henry May, and former Kentucky governor Charles S. Morehead, as well as many Northern newspaper editors. Historians do not know exactly how many people the government arrested for antiwar protests during the Civil War, although estimates vary from just over 13,000 to as many as 38,000. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and other jurists questioned Lincoln's actions and held that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus. The president, however, defended his position in a series of open letters and continued to arrest antiwar protesters, even after 3 March 1863, when federal lawmakers required the government to release or subject political prisoners to regular judicial procedure."

From.....Dictionary of American History...2003 edition

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The grandson of Francis Scott Key, Francis Key Howard, the editor of the Baltimore Exchange, was arrested as well as others who wrote against Lincoln. While he was imprisoned at Fort McHenry, he wrote the following words. The date was September 13, 1861...... 47 years to the day!

"When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, the prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Ft. McHenry. When on the following morning the hospital fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed."

When he was finally released on November 27, 1862 he wrote:

"We came out of prison just as we had gone in, holding the same just scorn and detestation [for] the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution that ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort."

From......"Fourteen Months In the American Bastiles" by Francis Key Howard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, in all your rantings you never did reply to the info I posted on the behavior of Lincoln's Generals or the fact that he not only overthrew a courts martial conviction of one, but actually promoted him after his war crimes. There's your Great Abraham.

 

YOU MUST KNOW MORE ABOUT SHERMANS ARTROCITIES THAN YOU ARE WILLING TO ADMIT. YOU KEEP EXCUSING AND DENYING FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU. NOW THAT YOU ARE AGREEING WITH ME ON NORTHERN SLAVERY, SHERMAN APPEARS TO BE THE LAST GRASP AT SMOKE TO JUSTIFY ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENTS.

"We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms." President Jefferson Davis - April 29, 1861

OTHER MEN OF THE TIME SAW THE WAR FOR WHAT IT WAS; SHALL I POST MORE QUOTES FOR YOU?

GO BACK AND READ THE CAUSES ARE PLAINLY LISTED

SURE YOU HAVE, NO I AM NOT GONNA SEARCH THIS TRASHY BLOG TRYING TO FIIND SOME MINOR POINT AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE BECAUSE--

YOU ARE TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE RAPE, MURDER, THEFT, AND BURNING OF CIVILIANS LIVES ANDPROPERT BY A YANKEE INVADER.

SO YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS BETTER?????? LEARN SOME REAL HISTORY.YOU CONTINUE TO ARGUE WHEN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE PERIOD HAS BEEN POSTED HERE UNEDITED AND WITHOUT CHERRY PICKING SECTIONS TO POST.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW ME WAR IN THE SECESSION DOCUMENTS???? IT AIN'T THERE IS IT????

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision." --Gen. Pat Cleburne, CSA

GEORGE PURVIS
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Isn't this the same thing you are doing to the secession documents? Would you like the entire passages posted? It is not impossible.

Your defense of Sherman also smacks of cherry picking. In fact what you want to believe about US history is cherry picked information.

SHOW ME WAR IN THE SECESSION DOCUMNTS!!

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BELIVES IT IS LEGAL TO RAPE, MURDER, STEAL, BURN AND OTHERWISE ABUSE CIVILIANS.


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

I have already posted info on Stephen's Cornerstone speech. Were you asleep when it was posted? If you would do some actual research you would know.

George Purvis

http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4