reb or yank

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,
Davis was elected by the Southern congress, as a matter of fact the same way President Washington was elected the first President of the United States, so I dont see you point with the remark. As for this remark

"Lincoln knew he could not end slavery abruptly where it currently existed because it existed there "legally". "

We finaly agree, slavery was legal, therefore Mr Lincoln broke the law, correct?

[ironfoot]

Here is a lincoln quote from the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.


"...I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]"

In an age when white society would not accept blacks as equals, and an age where blacks were treated as subhuman property by much of the country, Lincoln believed blacks should be treated as having many of the rights of white people. That was pretty progressive for the time. It was a concept so controversial that it led the South to secede. If Lincoln had said, in those days, that blacks were the complete equal of whites, and that its OK for a black man to marry your sister,  he never would have been elected president.

 In Lincoln's last speech he advocated giving black service veterans the right to vote. That idea outrage John Wilkes Booth who soon after killed Lincoln. Lincoln was about as progressive in his views of racial equality as the age would permit.

[ironfoot]

El Confederado stated:
"We finaly agree, slavery was legal, therefore Mr Lincoln broke the law, correct?"

How did Lincoln break the law?
He did not make the Emancipation Proclamation until the war. In war you can deprive the other side of its property. That is what the Emancipation Proclamation did. It was a step toward depriving the states in rebellion of their slave property. It also had other ramifications. It was a another step toward the abolition of slavery.

[ironfoot]

JB,
"If one reads the Confederate Constitution, it made it clear that within a generation that slavery would be dead...."

Where do you read that?
Here is a quote from the Confederate Constitution:

"1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

[ironfoot]

Here we go again ,well, here are some other things that should be put up that the beloved Mr Lincoln said.

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


El Confederado, when did Lincoln make that statement?
I would like to read Lincoln's full statement. I suspect the full statement would include Lincoln's advocating for black freedom.

Here is a quote from the sixth Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." [Cheers, "That's the doctrine."] "I have never said any thing to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color-perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." [Loud cheers.]

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,
I will say this, you can sure take offence easy, however, I will not be baited into a fight. But I will respond to your thoughts.

1st-I have not check your Confederate Constitution quote as of yet, but I will put out there the section of the Constitution , C.S.A. that most scholars point to when they claim that the Confederacy was looking into the future of a slaveless south,

Secxtion 9 - 1, Constitution of the Confederate States of America,
The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other that the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is requared to pas such laws as shall effectually prevent the same..

As for the Lincoln statesment, they had there referencees attached, so go look them up.


As for when did Mr Lincoln break the law, well, you yourself point out that slavery was legal, and here is your words--

"Lincoln knew he could not end slavery abruptly where it currently existed because it existed there "legally"."

So now that we all agree the slavery was legal, then one must also agree that Mr Lincoln broke the Constitutional law granting slavery, correct?

As for your clinging to the "Emancipation Proclamation", it only freed the slaves in the Confederacy , a land may I remind you that Mr Lincoln was not President, it didnt cover slaver owning border states or Union slave states.
Ironfoot, one can not have it both ways pard, it is either one or the other and I think I have showed here that your points are flawed and even opposite of what you have posted as fact just three posts before, sorry pard.

[ironfoot]

"El Confederado"
YOU:
Ironfoot,
I will say this, you can sure take offence easy, however, I will not be baited into a fight. But I will respond to your thoughts.
ME:
Where did I take offense?
You are "fighting" aren't you, with your response? You seem to have the last word on most threads if you disagree with what was said before you add your retort. But this is not about you or me. It is about discussing a point of history.
YOU:
1st-I have not check your Confederate Constitution quote as of yet, but I will put out there the section of the Constitution , C.S.A. that most scholars point to when they claim that the Confederacy was looking into the future of a slaveless south,

Secxtion 9 - 1, Constitution of the Confederate States of America,
The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other that the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is requared to pas such laws as shall effectually prevent the same..
ME: The South did not need the slave trade anymore. It was quite adept at reproducing its own slaves. Don't you claim that the slave trade was a northern institution, not a southern one? I provided only one preservation of slavery quote from the Confederate Constitution. There are more. I saw no language that would ban slavery.
YOU:
As for the Lincoln statesment, they had there referencees attached, so go look them up.
ME:
I do not own the book you cited. I thought you did since you quoted it. You weren't quoting from memory were you? I suspect the quote you provided  omitted a part of Lincoln's statement that advocated granting blacks rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as their birthright under the Declaration of Independence.
YOU:
As for when did Mr Lincoln break the law, well, you yourself point out that slavery was legal, and here is your words--

"Lincoln knew he could not end slavery abruptly where it currently existed because it existed there "legally"."

So now that we all agree the slavery was legal, then one must also agree that Mr Lincoln broke the Constitutional law granting slavery, correct?
ME:
No we do not agree. Either you did not read my prior post, or did not understand it.
YOU:
As for your clinging to the "Emancipation Proclamation", it only freed the slaves in the Confederacy , a land may I remind you that Mr Lincoln was not President, it didnt cover slaver owning border states or Union slave states.
ME:
Lincoln was elected president over the whole country, north and south. Just like George W. Bush was elected over the whole country, both red and blue states. The South took part in the election where Lincoln was elected president.
YOU:
Ironfoot, one can not have it both ways pard, it is either one or the other and I think I have showed here that your points are flawed and even opposite of what you have posted as fact just three posts before, sorry pard.[/quote]
ME:
We disagree on your powers of persuasion.
ME (again):
Wasn't there a thread a few moths back on "Cause of the Civil War"?
Whatever happened to that thread?

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,

1st , yes there was a thread " Causes of the Civil War", however, it fell by the way side as I thinned the herd from time to time, which by the way I need to do here soon again, so thanks for reminding me.


So now on to the meat and potatos.

I no longer have those books on the Lincoln statments, however, I did find them on the 37th Texas Cavalry web site, a multi racial Confederate history unit and site, so sorry I was so cut and dry on ya, I misunderstood your intent.
I also see that we will never agree on the legality of slavery and that Mr Lincoln willfully broke the law.As for the Lincoln/Bush deal, that is a stretch, I mean come on, the South left the Union and formed their own nation, thus Lincoln was not their President in the same way that King George was not the King of the American people once we declaired our independance from England, correct, or do you see that different also?
I think you will, as I feel nothing anyone could say to you about the South or their cause would be correct, right or even open to disscussion to you because you feel that maybe the old South was evil in some way, I hope I am wrong and if I am I am sorry, but that is the way you seem to think about that time period.

I also fail to understand how you can state things like " Slavery was legal" and yet still claim that Mr Lincoln didnt break the law, but that is something that I feel the two of us will never agree on pard and that is fine , but to paint the South with the hate brush and only talk about part of why they did what they did is wrong and unfair. The War between teh States is a very complex subject with many causes and to just cling to one small part of the cause and beat it like a step child is just a crime against history and the men that fought in that war, both sides.

[ironfoot]

Here are more quotes of Lincoln that illustrate his anti-slavery stance:
http://www.nps.gov/liho/slavery/al01.htm

The rest of the issues El Confederado raised were pretty well covered in the "Causes of the Civil War" thread, which El Confederado has apparently deleted for some reason. In summary:

The South's rebellion was illegal. The secession was in response to the South not liking the outcome of the presidential election. The South wanted to preserve slavery where it existed, and expand it into the territories. The North wanted to stop the expansion of slavery, and to keep it on the road to extinction. Despite any other grievances the South may have had over other issues, like taxes or tariffs, they were not sufficient to cause secession. It was when northerner Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform that the South seceded. Lincoln was elected president over the whole country, and he felt it was his job as president to preserve it. If a state could secede every time the state did not like the results of a presidential election, we wouldn't have much of a country. In similar fashion, the blue states cannot secede if they don't like the fact that George W Bush was elected president. During the Civil War it was legal to deprive the enemy of its property and the Emancipation Proclamation was, in part, an effort to do that. The Emancipation Proclamation also helped speed up the demise of slavery, which was appreciated by many abolitionist Lincoln supporters.

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot ,
1st I deleted "Causes of the Civil War" because it was loosing interest, by means of no posts, so I weeded it out, just as I weed out any of the older posts that do not perform. Second, last time I checked, I didnt need you ok to do this, if you would like talk to Gray and have me replaced, hell, then I can take the glves off and realy tell ya what I think, so do as you wish sir.

Now to your statements, I for onec would like you to prove anything, not just say it or write it, prove it.Show us how the Confederacy was illegal, show us a ruling , a place in the Constitution where it says it was illegal anything. If you cant show it to be illegal have the honor not to soil the cause of the  men who fought in it.

[IntrepidWizard]

Illegal is a strong unprovable word,but violation of the integrity of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS PROVABLE.

[El Confederado]

IntrepidWizard,

"violation of the integrity " has nothing to do with illegal, Ironfoot claims that what was done was illegal and to this date he has nevr come up with any proof to support that claim.Now I will agree that the secession of the Southern States shot the integrity of the Union all to hell, but still didnt violate the Constitution in any fashion, thus its actions were protected under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. So again I cant see how Ironfoot or anyone who can read and understand english can state that "secession was illegal", wrong against the Union of States , maybe, but not illegal.

[nohorse]

El Confed:

Section. 10 of the US Constitution:

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The Confederacy pretty much threw caution to the wind and formed a "Confederation', printed their own money, etc.

[El Confederado]

Nohorse,
The south only entered into a Confederation once the States had left the Union under lawfull secession, invoked the powers under Amendment 10 and then and only then forned the Confederacy.So at the time that they entered into the Confederation, they were in fact no longer States in the Union, thus the law does not apply.

[IntrepidWizard]

Confed,that is your interpretation of Section 10,does not make it so.Your point has not been made and is of no consequence to where we are today.

[El Confederado]

IntrepidWizard,
This is not only my understanding of the 10th Amendment  and Section 10 it is also the understanding of the majority of the Supreme Court at that time, so I do feel that there is meritt to the point sir, now do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you just here to watch?Because I am interested in your views on this very impotant topic is why I ask.

[IntrepidWizard]

As presented by you I don't se it as "Very important Topic",but rather a Abstruse approach to a Historical event.

[El Confederado]

IntrepidWizard,
Then sir I must ask why you have even put yourself into the disscussion if you feel it is a abtruse approch to history? Maybe the answer can be found in the fact that your too close to the left coast maybe?I have yet seen you post anything of historical importance or even partially common to the war, thus one must ask , why are you here if not to look into the history and causes of the war?

[IntrepidWizard]

Well,well the real Lib is now showing,I am a deep student of the Civil War I have Cattons Trilogy[and read through by me] author signed and I have Shelby Footes--God Bless him's Trilogy and author signed because of my contributions.You are not even close to haveing a discussion logically as you are biased .

[El Confederado]

IntrepidWizard,
 Well then you seem to have the nug for the job, dont just sit there give some imput, otherwise please be a man of honor and let those who wish to talk about this do without haveing to fight about it with you.Now I am sure happy that you have all this stuff signed by the authors, but what does that prove, do you want a gold star or something?Come on get involved or please dont interject.



P.S maybe you and Ironfoot could get together and start a thread.

[IntrepidWizard]

If you can be impartial--as you should if you are moderating--and stick to one point of substance we can talk and we can disagree.I knew some of the people in the war and the familys affected,most of Americans were so affected and you want to keep jabing a old wound and not talk sense,you sound like Jimmy Carter----you from Georgia??

[El Confederado]

IntrepidWizard,
I and most of the folks around here feel I am impartial for the most part, so , start talking , we are all waiting for any wors of wisdom you can lend to any and all the threads.As for knowing folks that faught in thwar, man you must be old :-D , the best I can do was my Great Grandfather and he was just a baby at the time of the war. As for your jabbing at an old wound , yep, I am, I lost too many family in that war not to call foul whan it should be.As for Jimmy Carter, I dont even get that one as he was your parties man not mine, sorry pard.

[IntrepidWizard]

You are in corrigible,you know I am a conservative and I have told you about my familys participation on both sides and the barbaric events that occurred by Americans on
Americans.The battles can be discussed by the why is self evident and you are bigoted.

[El Confederado]

IntrepidWizard,
I didnt know your a conservitave, hell I thought that you claimed to be a Demo,anyhow all that aside, I am sorry that you think I am a bigot, oh well, cant make everyone happy, but I do try around here and I hope you make up your mind to get involved and not just snipe at folks. Come on pard, get into it.

[maggot]

Don't get confused "El" today's northern supporters are more closely assoiciated with the "right wing". After all the extreme "right" is faciasm, is it not. Lincoln acted like a dictator king!!!

[ironfoot]

El Confederado"
You:
1st I deleted "Causes of the Civil War" because it was loosing interest, by means of no posts, so I weeded it out, just as I weed out any of the older posts that do not perform. Second, last time I checked, I didnt need you ok to do this, if you would like talk to Gray and have me replaced, hell, then I can take the glves off and realy tell ya what I think, so do as you wish sir.
Me:
Most forums do not delete threads because they are not being currently added to.
You haven't been saying what you really think? You mean you really think I'm right?
You:
Now to your statements, I for onec would like you to prove anything, not just say it or write it, prove it.Show us how the Confederacy was illegal, show us a ruling , a place in the Constitution where it says it was illegal anything.
Me:
I discussed this at length in the "Cause of the Civil War" thread you delelted. Lincoln discussed it in detail and pointed out that the Constitution was perpetual. It had provisions for adding states. It had no provisions for states to secede.
You:
If you cant show it to be illegal have the honor not to soil the cause of the  men who fought in it.
Me:
Like the way you dishonor the Union veterans by calling it "The War of Northern Aggression"?

[ironfoot]

El Confederado

You:
The south only entered into a Confederation once the States had left the Union under lawfull secession, invoked the powers under Amendment 10 and then and only then forned the Confederacy.So at the time that they entered into the Confederation, they were in fact no longer States in the Union, thus the law does not apply.

Me:
Here is the 10th Amendment:

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.

It talks about powers of the states in the Union, not about dissolving the Union.

Here is what Lincoln said about it in his first inaugural address:
 
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

[ironfoot]

El Confederado
Here is the section, in Article IV of the Constitution, that provides for adding states:

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


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.


There is no provision for losing states.

[ironfoot]

El Confederado
You:
Show us how the Confederacy was illegal, show us a ruling , a place in the Constitution where it says it was illegal anything. If you cant show it to be illegal have the honor not to soil the cause of the  men who fought in it.
Me:
I have shown why I think the secession was illegal.
I have not written anything to dishonor the Confederate soldier.
I have said in prior posts, which apparently you deleted, that I believe that many of the Confederate soldiers were men of honor whose personal motivations were to fight for their people, as they saw it. But the motivations to fight of the the average Confederate soldier did not cause the war.

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,

1st sir,I must say that I seemsed to get your dander up.
2nd,
Last time I check nobody but you had a problem with me getting rid of no post threads, so, I see not what your problem is, hell I had just as many posts involved in that as you did, so sorry , I see no foul.
As to my statment

 "if you would like talk to Gray and have me replaced, hell, then I can take the glves off and realy tell ya what I think, so do as you wish sir. "

Your correct, I have not been saying everything that I feel that should be said, why, because I am trying to stay out of pushing things into fights, a thing I find hard to do when people refuse to listen or read and no sir, I dont think your right, not by a jug full.

Now in this post you go right back to Mr Lincoln, Ironfoot, useing Lincoln as a yard stick about the Constitution is like asking John Gotti about right and wrong under the law.As for me dihonoring the Union soldiers by calling the War between the States a war of Northern Aggression, well I dont know about it dishonoring them, but last time I checked the Union did invade the South, looks aggressive to me.

Now about the 10th Amendment, read it, just dont look at it, I am growing tired of trying to get you to realy read it.As for your quote of Section 3.1 of the Constitution, that is correct it only deals with entry of states, nobody said otherwise, however, if you check your history, the Union violated this by making the State of West Virginia.As for your pointing out that Section 3.1 didnt talk about secession of States, thats correct, it doesn't, again, please refer to Amendment 10.
Now I agree that you have showed many things that Mr Lincoln has said about secession, but last time I checked Mr Lincoln was not a real good person to ask about this, this same man violated about half of the Constitution in his illegal war against the South.As for you showing why you think secession was illegal , yes you have, but what is your basis, what do you base it on, Mr Lincolns thoughts, if so, no wonder we will never stop fighting.