Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[cnm]

Well, fair enough, completely ignoring treaties and agreements is part of the revisionist approach to justifying a government based on the inferiority of the black man.

 

[Bobby1250]

Where was Fort Sumter again? South Carolina, wasn't it?

Was S.C. a part of the North at the time?

Yes or No?

Was Fort Sumter Federal Property, yes or no?

No, it wasn't.

Why?

Because South Carolina had seceded and was no longer a part of the "Federal" Union. South Carolina was part of ANOTHER country that HAD NO "Federal" ties at the time. The so called "Federal' troops were illegally occupying Confederate property that did not belong to them. i.e. S_Q_U_A_T_T_I_N_G.

bump for new page since cnm wants to try a strawman argument on for size about "treaties and agreements" that were no longer in effect after South Carolina's secession.

 

[cnm]

Yeah, yeah. How about South Carolina law? I guess revisionists must revise the meaning of 'all the right, title and claim' for the sake of their arguments.

Ownership of Fort Sumter

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Committee on Federal RelationsIn the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:​

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."​

"In Senate, December 21st, 1836​

 

[Asclepias]

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Not much question lincoln was a racist and considered blacks inferior to whites. Everyone though that way back then and still do today. Blacks are mentally inferior and the evidence is overwhelming.

If you keep repeating that to yourself maybe you will begin to really feel it and get more confidence in yourself.

 

[Bobby1250]

Yeah, yeah. How about South Carolina law? I guess revisionists must revise the meaning of 'all the right, title and claim' for the sake of their arguments.

1836

​

Here is the key to your wall of text strawman argument.

1836

In 1861 after S.C. had seceded, that treaty was no longer in effect. It had become null and void.

 

[cnm]

Hoho, wall of text being the resolution where the South Carolina Senate ceded 'all the right, title and claim', which did not become void. It was South Carolina law. South Carolina remained a state. You can keep denying this part of history as you deny the rest, it's what the South does best, after all; but it means nothing in the real world.

 

[Bobby1250]

Hoho, wall of text being the resolution where the South Carolina Senate ceded 'all the right, title and claim' which does not become void. It was South Carolina law. South Carolina remained a state. You can keep denying this part of history as you deny the rest, it's what the South does best, after all; but it means nothing in the real world.

South Carolina was part of the Union in 1836. In 1861 after it had seceded, S.C. was part of ANOTHER country where Federal treaties had become null and void.

You might as well stop projecting. You aren't fooling anyone. Try another strawman argument on for size would be my advice.

 

[Boss]

The secessionary documents demonstrate exactly that, which is why you don't reference them.

The secession documents demonstrate no such thing. The legal, binding and standing institution of slavery has to be dismissed entirely, in order for you to read this argument into secession documents. No law had been passed to ban slavery in the US.

To the extent they mention slavery, they do use some colorful language and I'm sure there were devoutly racist views expressed... most all Americans of 1861 were racist by today's standard.... so that isn't a shocker to me. The context it was used in was promotion of the state right of self-determination. Whether or not to have slavery should be the up to the state to decide and not the federal government.

When people deliberately distort the facts of history, they do themselves a great disservice. You tend to underestimate the courage of people like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass. The Underground Railroad becomes not such a big deal... everybody but the plantation owners wanted the slaves freed... that's what you've learned, that's what you think.

 

[there4eyeM]

There was a movement to secede. It was a form of rebellion against membership in the Perpetual Union states had joined. This attempt to separate was resisted and defeated. The Confederacy was an organization of rebellious people, not a foreign country. The war was a civil war.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is nothing more clearly against the spirit and the law of the Constitution than slavery.

 

[Bobby1250]

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens.

The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.

Dred Scott case

In 1861 the negro wasn't even considered human, except by (perhaps) libtards.

 

[cnm]

South Carolina was part of the Union in 1836. In 1861 after it had seceded, S.C. was part of ANOTHER country where Federal treaties had become null and void.

You might as well stop projecting. You aren't fooling anyone. Try another strawman argument on for size would be my advice.

It was law of the 'sovereign' state of South Carolina. If you want to argue that South Carolina was not 'sovereign' and laws it passed depended on it being part of the US, well, I'm not sure of your point as that would imply it had no right to secede.

 

[cnm]

The secession documents demonstrate no such thing.

They absolutely do, which, again, because they could not be more explicit, is why you won't reference them and quote their contents as they point to the North's rejection of slavery as the most compelling reason to secede.

 

[Bobby1250]

Hoho, wall of text being the resolution where the South Carolina Senate ceded 'all the right, title and claim' which does not become void. It was South Carolina law. South Carolina remained a state. You can keep denying this part of history as you deny the rest, it's what the South does best, after all; but it means nothing in the real world.

South Carolina was part of the Union in 1836. In 1861 after it had seceded, S.C. was part of ANOTHER country where Federal treaties had become null and void.

You might as well stop projecting. You aren't fooling anyone. Try another strawman argument on for size would be my advice.

It was law of the 'sovereign' state of South Carolina. If you want to argue that South Carolina was not 'sovereign' and laws it passed depended on it being part of the US, well, I'm not sure of your point as that would imply it had no right to secede.

It doesn't matter what you think it was prior to 1861.

You can make up any strawman argument you want to. You can make up any lie and repeat it over and over, but no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it does not make it a fact.

On April 12–14, 1861, Fort Sumter was the property of the sovereign nation of South Carolina, a sovereign state of the Confederate states. A separate country from the former United States to the North. The government of South Carolina had the right to evict the Yankee's from the fort however they saw fit.

Attempts by the Confederate government to settle its differences with the Union were spurned by Lincoln, and the Confederacy felt it could no longer tolerate the presence of a foreign force in its territory.

 

[there4eyeM]

There was no legal process to unilaterally separate from the Perpetual Union. The secession movement was rebellion and illegal.

 

[Boss]

The secession documents demonstrate no such thing.

They absolutely do, which, again, because they could not be more explicit, is why you won't reference them and quote their contents as they point to the North's rejection of slavery as the most compelling reason to secede.

Their contents are very often taken out of context. For instance, you are attempting to make the individual statements of secession some sort of manifesto of the confederacy, and that's not what they were. These were statements prepared by the political leaders in the statehouses of the time when emotions ran high and they were getting things off their chest. Are there "racist" sentiments expressed? Sure there are! 98% of America was racist!

When you take the entirety of the secession declarations in context, you see that the issue was not slavery. Fundamentally, it was about Confederation over Federation... and it was about MONEY.

 

[cnm]

Fundamentally, it was about Confederation over Federation... and it was about MONEY.

Yes, property in the form of black people.

 

[there4eyeM]

Slavery cannot be extracted from the economy of the South. If the confrontation was over money, it was also inherently over slavery. That blacks were held to be less than human does not mean blacks were less than human, just that ignorance can, for a time, dominate.

 

[Bobby1250]

There was no legal process to unilaterally separate from the Perpetual Union. The secession movement was rebellion and illegal.

Who says?

Oh right. Lincoln the tyrant and the radical Republicans of 1861 as well as the lemmings of today. Like I said before, you guys can make up any strawman argument you want to. You can make up any lie and repeat it over and over, but no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it does not make it a fact.

 

[Bobby1250]

Fundamentally, it was about Confederation over Federation... and it was about MONEY.

Yes, property in the form of black people.

No, it was about money.

Re-Post:
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!


The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, DC , keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution.

AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!