Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

As an aside, those trees to the river at Oak Alley are pretty cool.

THIS

These trees....wife and I have about a dozen of the Mint Julep cups from there, that's what we typically drink them out of.

Unity of purpose? Why in the frick would I want to have unity of purpose with someone from Massachusetts? I have more in common with your average Mexican than I do someone from Massachusetts. And besides, they work harder, are nicer, and have better food.

???

All this is saying then is when faced with imminent secession Lincoln would have left slavery in place if it would only preserve the Union?

Didn't Lincoln plainly state that his own self in that famous single sentence about preserving the Union?

You should note too that the Corwin Amendment said nothing about allowing slavery into the Territories that were not yet states, THAT ban being a fundamental tenet of Lincoln's election platform..

But, once the bullets were already flying, how was Lincoln's work on the Thirteenth Amendment, AND his reelection platform in '64 NOT about total abolition?

Their motives for doing this, as the platform clearly stated was to once and for all eliminate this fundamental divisive factor from the United States.

Some irony in that both sides agreed...

The Confederates (via Veep Alexander Stephens)....

The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

...and the Lincoln Administration as expressed in their '64 reelection platform....

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion,

Birdwatcher

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.204/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-politics-of-black-colonization?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Sir, you didn't answer the question...

Both side instituted a draft, but that is not what we are talking here.

..what would have happened to people like that anonymous Austin TX carpenter in '61 if they did NOT side with secession?

For clues here in Texas google up the "Treue Der Union" monument in Comfort, and the largest public lynching/execution in our entire US history in Gainesville.

But it ain't just Texas, look up such incidents all across the South.

As for the sentiments of those guys actually in combat, drafted or not, in the '64 election the Union troops overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln like 5 to 1 even in the midst of the horrific bloodletting after Grant took command of the Army of the Potomac.

We dunno how the Confederate soldiers would have voted at that same time, we do know that the Confederate armies were by then evaporating out from under their commanders through steady losses to desertion despite the draconian punishments imposed for the same, tho' in fairness Confederate desertion in of itself at that time likely had little to do with political sentiment

Birdwatcher

So quote them, so many people across the South are emotionally invested in this that they oughta be easy to find.



*SHRUG*, I expect yer just PO'd because you don't have an argument.

I'm not quoting my words, I'm quoting THEIRS, and taking them at their word.

Anyhoo... like most Americans you are plainly clueless about our original White homelands

It was my great good fortune to be schooled by an order of Irish Catholic Brothers, in an all-male setting, where both Latin and a liberal application of the strap were laid on early. I do clearly recall the strap (that sumbitch HURT ) but sadly, little Latin tho when I came here in my early teens I was years ahead of my American peers in all but "Social Studies" (WTF??) which was rather shallow anyhow in that by comparison history as taught over there started like 2,000 years earlier

So... if you think Irish Catholics were/are "Brits" well hey, go for it Bub....

...and a point of clarity, I figure I am truly American by right of my father, who won it in principle with the Sixth Marines on Okinawa, and I was indeed born here, right outside of NYC, a citizen since I first drew breath. My folks just took a ship to England when I was four months old is all, see, they wanted us to have a good education, and brung us back later for the greater opportunities here once all that was achieved.

But, I can and have truly stated; I never set foot here until my early teens.

Actually, here in Texas I figure I am sorta like the Texians, see, all of THEM were from somewhere else also....

Birdwatcher

Run Forrest.... Ruuun
Some things just cant be "unseen"

Look,my point is if the war was only about slavery the corwin amendment seems like it couldve stopped it or delayed it...the. you have lincoln who,was all for it yet is known as an abolitionist and has spielberg making movies about him yet doesnt mention this amendment nor the fact thay lincoln didnt see blacks as our equal

He does get a pass of sorts in how he is taught in revisionist history...by todays standards he would be a major racist

"....But the 13th Amendment we know now differs substantially from the one first proposed. The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it.

This early version of the 13th Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, was proposed in December 1860 by William Seward, a senator from New York who would later join Lincoln’s cabinet as his first secretary of state.

The Corwin Amendment read as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The Corwin Amendment was an effort to placate the South and contain secessionist sentiment. It proposed to do three things. First, to protect slavery by giving each state the power to regulate the “domestic institutions” within its borders. This was an enticing carrot for the slave states: stay in the Union and you can keep slavery. Second, to dispossess Congress of the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. And third, to make itself unamendable by providing that “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution” that would undo the Corwin Amendment.

After Seward proposed the Corwin Amendment, then newly-elected President Lincoln defended the states’ right to adopt it. In his first inaugural address Lincoln declared that he had “no objection” to the Corwin Amendment, nor that it be made forever unamendable. He didnt seem too worried about blacks

The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861. Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment. Had it been ratified, however, the Corwin Amendment would have become the 13th Amendment, forever protecting slavery instead of abolishing it"

The Corwin Amendment guaranteed slavery where it already existed, LIMITING the power of the Federal government to abolish it, and Lincoln supported that.

Odd coming from a Lincoln who is held up around these parts as being the original Federalist Beelzebub hisself....

....and then Lincoln does an about-face on the slavery issue with the Thirteenth Amendment unequivocally abolishing slavery and his clearly-stated '64 reelection tenet to that effect.

Inconsistent?

Naah....

Lincoln's own words, published for all to see in an open letter to the Abolitionist Horace Greeley the August 20th, 1862 edition of the New York Tribune....

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.…

For context it should be noted that Lincoln openly declared that at a time when the outcome of that war was still very much in doubt. I wish all presidents would be so forthright and plain-spoken.

The Corwin Amendment was a last-ditch effort to stave off secession, so of course Lincoln supported it. When that didn't work the Thirteenth Amendment was intended to finally eradicate an institution which both sides agreed had been the cause of the war, so of course Lincoln supported that too.

Note once again however that the Corwin Amendment did NOT alter the ban on slavery in Federal territories, ensuring that the residents of those areas when statehood arrived would include but few with any compelling economic stake in propagating slavery and hence vote themselves in as Free States,at one stroke further marginalizing the Slave States and effectively cutting them off from participation in the future of the nation.


Birdwatcher

I've seen you pull this schit time and again; trying to rewrite people's familial history of which you haven't a clue.

You want to see the proof? Hop on your wee bike and go find it. It's there, and in publicly accessible places. As for quoting it for you; F'k that. Earn it and learn it.

You apparently didn't hear the word of a lot of people, just the information that you chose to read, which maybe someone else already:



You're opening argument is to quote 5 articles of secession that supposedly govern 65% of the population as proof that the whole thing is about slavery.

As if the popular vote of those 5 were for it, not to mention the remaining people in the other states who's articles mention nothing of it.

What was the reason for those remaining states then? Shouldn't you quote them and take them at their word?

Gee, sorry you got the strap in school. But that does foist your CV into some sort of savant status....Glad that the Irish folks were so thorough in your history studies.

Lord knows they never dabbled in revisioninsm..

Let us speak plainly.

The real problem is, when asked to put up or shut up on this specific issue you got nothing.

Truth is important, and the people back them spoke it and wrote it as they knew it. Much as we might fervently wish people back then lived in our same reality, it weren't so.

On the 4th I'll be at the Alamo dressed out 1836. Travis of course famously brung his slave Joe and Bowie among other things had previously tried to make his fortune buying, selling and illegally smuggling them. Crockett AFAIK was largely silent on the topic tho his principled stance against Indian Removal whatever the cost to his career is but one of the things that makes him so admirable.

ALL of these guys were justly respected by those who knew them as good and honorable men regardless of their own degree of involvement in what to us today was a morally reprehensible institution, an actual atrocity.

Its like Noah Smithwick (who, tho pro-Union, owned two slaves in 1861) said; times were different back then.



Aye, there's the rub.... you yourself ain't ever hardly looked at all, else you'd be all over it <shrug>

Birdwatcher

I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?

Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?

Lincoln invaded VA. My people joined to to protect VA. Pretty simple.

Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia did not secede until after Lincoln announced the invasion to subdue the Confederacy and ordered them to provide troops.

Arkansas' ordinance of secession is quite clear that the reason it left were Lincoln's illegal actions of invading sovereign states. Arkansas had already had a secession convention and decided to stay in the Union deciding that slavery and the other issues were not enough reason to leave.

My people in Va and NC did the same.