What about them? What can you give us?
I am all ears. Or eyes, I guess.
dc
University of Texas. 4.0gclayjr wrote: ↑August 27th, 2017, 7:57 pm Red,
Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.
Regards,,
George Clay
Or course, with a name like Red (Texas Red) you mighta majeered in ridin', ropin', and tabacy spittin'.Red wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 4:56 pmUniversity of Texas. 4.0gclayjr wrote: ↑August 27th, 2017, 7:57 pm Red,
Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.
Regards,,
George Clay
lol that's awesome! I've never heard that one before.David13 wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 5:05 pmOr course, with a name like Red (Texas Red) you mighta majeered in ridin', ropin', and tabacy spittin'.Red wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 4:56 pmUniversity of Texas. 4.0gclayjr wrote: ↑August 27th, 2017, 7:57 pm Red,
Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.
Regards,,
George Clay
And now a musical break with great song about ... TEXAS RED!
dcProbably one of the finest songs ever written, and sung.
You seem to assert credentials and the SOS, without documentation. I am the only one to reference a Civil war era document (The actual Constitution of the Confederacy), instead of just assertions and opinion.People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.
I apologize, I didn't read everything you wrote. I was only making commentary on misconceptions on what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over. Perhaps there are other people on the forum that did not know that little tidbit, so feel free to ignore it, it certainly wasn't directed at you.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 6:07 pm Red,
You seem to assert credentials and the SOS, without documentation. I am the only one to reference a Civil war era document (The actual Constitution of the Confederacy), instead of just assertions and opinion.People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.
You also may have problems reading. I have agreed before that most southern SOLDIERS, and I will add most Southern CITIZENS did not own slaves, but the Oligarchy who controlled the government, and who were responsible for the Secession DID own slaves. As I have stated over and over, I do not consider people like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson and other southerns who served their state or "country" as evil, but the country that was created by those oligarchs was nothing but despicable, and despite you posturing and blabbing, you have shown nothing to disprove this.
Regards,
George Clay
Red wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 6:21 pmI apologize, I didn't read everything you wrote. I was only making commentary on misconceptions on what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over. Perhaps there are other people on the forum that did not know that little tidbit, so feel free to ignore it, it certainly wasn't directed at you.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 6:07 pm Red,
You seem to assert credentials and the SOS, without documentation. I am the only one to reference a Civil war era document (The actual Constitution of the Confederacy), instead of just assertions and opinion.People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.
You also may have problems reading. I have agreed before that most southern SOLDIERS, and I will add most Southern CITIZENS did not own slaves, but the Oligarchy who controlled the government, and who were responsible for the Secession DID own slaves. As I have stated over and over, I do not consider people like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson and other southerns who served their state or "country" as evil, but the country that was created by those oligarchs was nothing but despicable, and despite you posturing and blabbing, you have shown nothing to disprove this.
Regards,
George Clay
There's another post on the forum you might benefit from. It's called Alaris' Comment - Brotherly Love. Perhaps you could benefit from it.
I won't pretend to be a civil war expert and I'm not denouncing Chuck Baldwin, I voted for the man and respect him quite a bit. I don't particularly think Lincoln is the saint he's made out to be either.
5tev3 wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 9:11 pmI won't pretend to be a civil war expert and I'm not denouncing Chuck Baldwin, I voted for the man and respect him quite a bit. I don't particularly think Lincoln is the saint he's made out to be either.
My great x3 grandfather Axel Hayford Reed was a medal of honor recipient on the Union side, 2nd Minnesota. I have his journal and he wrote about his experiences. He saw his motivation for fighting as putting down a rebellion, preserving the union and abolishing human slavery. Whatever the historians pass down, that's just the perspective of a soldier at the time who was there.
The KGC were a secret society of southerners that initiated a rebellion against the north for the purpose of separating themselves to establish a "golden circle" of territories including the southern states, Mexico, and carribean isles all around the gulf. The KKK was a military arm of this organization. Not everyone in the south was a part of this scheme.
Personally, I see this group as a dark organization that stirred up a rebellion while the north reacted in ways that were also perhaps illegal and immoral. I think there were bad guys on both sides and many good people on both sides caught in between and fighting for perhaps very different reasons. The south against northern aggression and the north against southern rebellion.
Again, I'm no historian, but I don't think either side was entirely innocent.
I don't think anyone here would argue against that. No doubt that the victors would latch onto anything that gave them the moral high ground and veil any wrongdoing.
I am the only one here using ORIGINAL documentation of history. It is the southern apologists who are revisionists, trying to revise history to make the southern secession about some noble "limiting" of federal power. When in fact the only Federal power they gave a @#$# about was the power over Slavery, and as I noted previously, the Confederate Constitution enshrined Slavery and denied any state or local government the power to mitigate it in any state or county in any way.Neither side was perfect, nor "innocent" etc. That's not the point.
The point is that "political correctness", the left, and the revisionist historians I'many years ago decided to rewrite history and say the Civil War was about slavery. First and foremost.
That was not the history.
And it goes on and on, not about Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but about Northern government interference in the beloved practice of SLAVERY!Whereas, the constitutional Union was formed by the several states in their separate sovereign capacity for the purpose of mutual advantage and protection;
That the several states are distinct sovereignties, whose supremacy is limited so far only as the same has been delegated by voluntary compact to a federal government, and, when it fails to accomplish the ends for which it was established, the parties to the compact have the right to resume, each state for itself, such delegated powers;
That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter, and all efforts to impair its value or lessen its duration by Congress, or any of the free states, is a violation of the compact of Union and is destructive of the ends for which it was ordained, but in defiance of the principles of the Union thus established, the people of the Northern states have assumed a revolutionary position toward the Southern states;
That they have set at defiance that provision of the Constitution which was intended to secure domestic tranquillity among the states and promote their general welfare, namely: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due";
That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies, and state legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slaveholding states,
That they have enticed our slaves from us and, by state intervention, obstructed and prevented their rendition under the Fugitive Slave Law;
That they continue their system of agitation obviously for the purpose of encouraging other slaves to escape from service, to weaken the institution in the slaveholding states by rendering the holding of such property insecure, and as a consequence its ultimate abolition certain;
That they claim the right and demand its execution by Congress, to exclude slavery from the territories, but claim the right of protection for every species of property owned by themselves;
There are none so blind as they who will not see!n the present case, the fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the states have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which obligations, and the laws of the general government, have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these states the fugitive is discharged from the service of labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.
That was a pretty good article. I just bought that book The Real Lincoln on Amazon. Hopefully it's just as good. I've read most of Robert E. Lee on Leadership and that was a good book.ajax wrote: ↑August 26th, 2017, 9:52 pm Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson that is, says Chuck Baldwin:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Ariticles/t ... ckson.aspx
There is a lot more to it than that.
I may not have answered because this is even stupider than the usual level of stupidity I so often find here!The real question is: Why did the North invade? Slavery? If Lincoln chooses not to invade, there is no war.
So you support 911 backlash due to the prior shady involvement of the usa in foreign affairs?gclayjr wrote: ↑August 29th, 2017, 9:02 am Ajax,
I may not have answered because this is even stupider than the usual level of stupidity I so often find here!The real question is: Why did the North invade? Slavery? If Lincoln chooses not to invade, there is no war.
The South first attacked by firing on Fort Sumter!
I know you have a lot of stupid things to say about how the there would be no war if the US ignored the attack on Fort Sumter.
And I'm sure that we would not have entered WW2 if the Japs didn't attack Pearl harbor, So I guess it was our militant fault that we attacked Japan, because it wasn't their fault! ...If we had only given them the scrap metal they wanted, they wouldn't have attacked us.
This is among the stupidest of the Stupid Southern revisionist arguments. Yes, if we let everybody do what they want, until they kill us all , then we will never provoke evil men to do what they say they do because of our provocations
Hey, If the Jews didn't run the world and make a poor treaty a Versailles, then Hitler would not have been forced to Kill them all. It was the Jews' fault to make him do it, just like it was Lincoln's fault to make the South attack Fort Sumter and start the Civil war because they wanted to be left alone to perpetuate and promulgate SLAVERY!
Regards,
George Clay
Post by kittycat51 »
What's your point? So what that the Chief Judge was a globalist. That had nothing to do with the scripture Lincoln chose and why and Chase's own observation of the "kiss".Silver wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 10:16 amHere's everything you need to know about Chase...hmmm...sounds like the name of a bank...kittycat51 wrote: ↑August 28th, 2017, 9:48 am Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ha administered the oath, later commented that Lincoln seemed to intentionally kiss two particular verses from Isaiah 5...verses 25 and 26:
http://www.history.com/topics/salmon-p-chase
Salmon P. Chase (1808-1873) was a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio and Supreme Court chief justice who served as the U.S. secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War (1861-65). A staunch abolitionist, Chase spent his early career as a lawyer and became known as “the attorney general for fugitive slaves” for his frequent defenses of runaway blacks. After representing Ohio in the U.S. Senate from 1849 to 1855, Chase went on to serve as the state’s governor from 1855 to 1859. He made a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 before serving as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of the Treasury. Chase was responsible for managing the finances of the Union during the Civil War and was instrumental in establishing the national banking system and issuing paper currency. Chase resigned his position in June 1864 and was appointed chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court later that year. He would serve until his death in 1873 at the age of 65. (close quote)
Let's open our eyes and see how Presidents have been puppets for a long, long time.
Secretary of Treasury Chase:Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in
Fort Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to
do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting
to demolish the defenses of the Carolinians? . . . I may be
asked whether I would in no case, and at no time advise force—
whether I propose to give up everything? I reply no. I would not
initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil
of the seceding States.
Secretary of War Cameron:If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate
necessity for the enlistment of armies and the expedition of millions,
I cannot advise it in the existing circumstances of the
country and in the present condition of the national finances.
.Whatever might have been done as late as a month ago, it is
too sadly evident that it cannot now be done without the sacrifice
of life and treasure not at all commensurate with the
object to be attained; and as the abandonment of the fort in a
few weeks, sooner or later, appears to be an inevitable necessity,
it seems to me that the sooner it is done the better
Secretary of the Navy Wells:The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained
and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration
if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many
distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not
believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody
and protracted conflict.
Attorney General Bates:By sending, or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not
war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any
course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to
advise a course that would provoke hostilities. It does not appear to
me that the dignity, strength, or character of the government
will be promoted by an attempt to provision Sumter in the
manner proposed, even should it succeed, while a failure would
be attended with untold disaster.
The possession of the fort, as we now hold it, does not enable us
to collect the revenue or enforce the laws of commercial navigation.
It may indeed involve a point of honor or a point of pride,
but I do not see any great national interest involved in the bare
fact of holding the fort as we now hold it.
It is stunning to the mind that grew up on Lincoln love and "the Union was of God"...bbsion wrote: ↑August 29th, 2017, 8:05 amThat was a pretty good article. I just bought that book The Real Lincoln on Amazon. Hopefully it's just as good. I've read most of Robert E. Lee on Leadership and that was a good book.ajax wrote: ↑August 26th, 2017, 9:52 pm Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson that is, says Chuck Baldwin:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Ariticles/t ... ckson.aspx
I'll read the book The Real Lincoln with an open mind but I think it might just confirm some of the thoughts and feelings I already have on the topic.
ajax wrote: ↑August 29th, 2017, 9:24 am Sumter was in South Carolina, who had already seceded. All of Lincolns cabinet advised against provisioning the fort and provoking attack except his Postmaster general Montgomery Blair.
Why was Sumter so important to Lincoln to hold on to?
What was the death toll of the barrage on Sumter to justify calling up 75,000 troops to invade the South?
Here is what members of his cabinet, besides Blaire, noted to Lincoln:
Secretary of State Seward:Secretary of Treasury Chase:Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in
Fort Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to
do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting
to demolish the defenses of the Carolinians? . . . I may be
asked whether I would in no case, and at no time advise force—
whether I propose to give up everything? I reply no. I would not
initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil
of the seceding States.Secretary of War Cameron:If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate
necessity for the enlistment of armies and the expedition of millions,
I cannot advise it in the existing circumstances of the
country and in the present condition of the national finances..Whatever might have been done as late as a month ago, it is
too sadly evident that it cannot now be done without the sacrifice
of life and treasure not at all commensurate with the
object to be attained; and as the abandonment of the fort in a
few weeks, sooner or later, appears to be an inevitable necessity,
it seems to me that the sooner it is done the better
Cameron also stated that:Secretary of the Navy Wells:The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained
and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration
if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many
distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not
believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody
and protracted conflict.Attorney General Bates:By sending, or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not
war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any
course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to
advise a course that would provoke hostilities. It does not appear to
me that the dignity, strength, or character of the government
will be promoted by an attempt to provision Sumter in the
manner proposed, even should it succeed, while a failure would
be attended with untold disaster.The possession of the fort, as we now hold it, does not enable us
to collect the revenue or enforce the laws of commercial navigation.
It may indeed involve a point of honor or a point of pride,
but I do not see any great national interest involved in the bare
fact of holding the fort as we now hold it.
This makes no sense what so ever, How do you make any such conclusion like this from what I said? You are so immersed in your conspiracy garbage, that you cannot even write a coherent thought.So you support 911 backlash due to the prior shady involvement of the usa in foreign affairs?
While I don't totally agree with you. This is at least getting close to reality and rationality. There were differences in opinion as to whether a state could just quit the union or not. This can be debated.Let me answer my own questions, before George answers to both questions SLAVERY:
Why was Sumter so important to Lincoln to hold on to? “My policy sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue.” -Lincoln's first message to Congress.
What was the death toll of the barrage on Sumter to justify calling up 75,000 troops to invade the South? There were no casualties during the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter at the start of the American Civil War. The only Union deaths came during the evacuation: One soldier was killed and another mortally wounded in an accidental explosion during a planned 100-gun salute.
The result of the Lincoln presidency was to transform a voluntary Union of states into a compulsory Union.
It quite literally was a fight between the Hamiltonian/Lincolnian vision vs the Jeffersonian vision.
Fascinating that also with the proposed Corwin amendment and Lincoln's own word in his first inaugural, ("I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,")
that the frothing at the mouth slave loving Southerners would still secede.
LDSFreedomForum.com and its admin / moderators do not necessarily agree with all content posted by users of this forum.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.