does the fact that The United States of America and the Confederated States of America fought a war tell you anything? it was like a man forcing his wife at gun point to stay in a marriage when she had all the rights in the world to leave.
Not knowledgeable enough to comment on the legality of secession.
Kind of think that little deal at Ft Sumpter might make the grade though.
Leaving a spouse is one thing, shooting them...
Using that analogy ft sumpter was a little like a crazy ex locking herself in your house and then saying its your fault when you try to eject her from the premises
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.-
10th Amendment to the Constitution
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.-
So was it Constitutional to secede or not? My understanding has always been that it was legal to secede and if so they cannot be called treasonous.
No. Secession was not lawful. Revolution is. The South deliberately did not call their withdrawal a "revolution" because they know it could not be justified as such.
So was it Constitutional to secede or not? My understanding has always been that it was legal to secede and if so they cannot be called treasonous.
No. Secession was not lawful. Revolution is. The South deliberately did not call their withdrawal a "revolution" because they know it could not be justified as such.
What part of california did you live in before you moved to Idaho... if you are actually living in Idaho...
if you are, you are a transplant from somewhere.. you're too stupid to be from Idaho...
The last time soldiers actually died defending the Constitution, they were wearing gray uniforms and marching under the Stars and Bars! The spirit, if not the letter of that document got shredded after the 1860's.
I'd point out the idiocy of saying "Succession is unlawful." If it is, then we have to go back under the English Crown to repair the breach of law made in 1776.
It's stupid to think it's unlawful.
Nearly every nation of earth was formed by either breaking from another, or being concurred by another. There are exceptions you you have to look closely to find them.
All that was needed to not fight the civil war was for the north to not attack. Fort Sumter was Lincoln forcing a war that he wanted.All the occupying forces (trespassers) had to do was leave South Carolina.The South did not invade the North.The North was occupying the South.Lincoln did it to start the war.
The last time soldiers actually died defending the Constitution, they were wearing gray uniforms and marching under the Stars and Bars! The spirit, if not the letter of that document got shredded after the 1860's.
home being Northern Virginia, when I was young, the number of remenents of the Civil War were left all over the place.. in almost every grove of trees, were what was left of artillery positions from 1861 to 1865....finding musket balls was like finding pennies in a parking lot... even then, you could tell if they were built by Confederate Troops or Northern Troops, based on what direction was where the most damage was... if it was facing north bound, it was a Confederate Emplacement.. if it was facing South it was a Northern Emplacement...
Growing up around that you understood what the south fought for... defense of homeland...invaded because Washington was right across the Potomac River.. people fought to defend their home land, out numbered heavily.. yet it held the Union back for 4 years of heavy fighting... the remains, you could tell it wasn't about Slavery... because of the number of men that left their homes, families, farms and loved ones to fight for their state....and none of these people owned slaves.. it wasn't slave owners out there putting their asses on the line...for the rich folks and their money....helll there never was many plantations in Northern VA ever...
these men were not traitors to their nation.. they were loyal to their home state...and the Union invaded it...and started destroying everything in Arlington and Fairfax Counties.. until they were stopped in Prince William at a little place called Manassas...
when I was a kid growing up and living in Manassas, at the Centennial in 1961 and 1962, its population was about 2500 people... exactly what it had been 100 yrs earlier in1861 and 1862.. that is why so much damage and remains of the Civil War was quite obvious 100 years after the fact....
it was the Union who were traitors to the Southern States....
All that was needed to not fight the civil war was for the north to not attack. Fort Sumter was Lincoln forcing a war that he wanted.All the occupying forces (trespassers) had to do was leave South Carolina.The South did not invade the North.The North was occupying the South.Lincoln did it to start the war.
That`s why we refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression not the Civil War.
Im all for the few southern states to be kicked out of the US.. enough taxpayer money gets funneled into those backwards states.
I would be damned glad for us to go!
Where do I sign up? This Govt hasn't been of, by and for the people for way too long. The oppression we face is 10x anything the colonist ever dealt with. We're nothing but slaves now, and the more technology advances the less chance we'll ever have of being free again. How did we allow ourselves to be surveilled and tracked 24/7? For our power to issue currency and our entire economy to become under the control of privately owned banks/families/corporations?
These mother-fu-kers need to do their GD job and STFU about politics, everyone wants to be an attention whore slut for the news! and never missing the opportunity to let everyone else know they're a fu-king liberal!
Preface: yes, I realize the response this will generate and no, I'm not from California.
1. The Articles of Confederstion created an intentionally weak central government that had very little coercive power over member states (no taxes, etc.). This was by design after waging an improbably successful revolt against a tyrannical government.
2. The original Constitution of 1789 -- which had no 10th amendment -- specifically states that it continued the AOC with noted changes/upgrades. The continuation language is critically important because the full title of the AOC was actually "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."
3. You know what perpetual means, and so did the Founders. Patrick Henry specifically argues against ratification -- as did other prominent anti-Federalists (Warren, etc.) *because* once in, a state could not legally leave the Union. The Bill of Rights was added later to get ratification over the hump, but the 9th and 10th amendments did not supersede the original frame of the Union itself or its central government. Again: anti-Federalists knew this and didn't like it.
4. The American Revolution constituted high treason and its leaders knew that. What do you think "give me liberty or give me death" means? Win = freedom. Lose = gallows. All rebellions from a mother country are treasonous until they're successful, then to the rebels, their history is written as a revolution. The Brits teach the Am Rev as a *civil war* to this day.
5. If you go back and actually read secessionist sources and responses to it from the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, you'll see that the vast majority of southerners reject secession specifically because it meant violating the Constitution, which they viewed as a sacred legacy passes down from other *southerners* like GW, Madison, etc. And then when the war begins, Confederate authors put out tons of material justifying the rebellion as the Am Rev 2.0 and cloaking themselves in Revolutionary era rhetoric, but in that writing, they recognize that the Declaration amounted to high treason -- and simply believed that some treason was justified.
6. If you genuinely think Lincoln wanted the war, you've never actually read a word he wrote and there's nothing I can do for you. After federal property was occupied, he sat still to let things fizzle out as they always had since 1832 (Nullification issues).
7. You can make the case that rank and file men enlisted in the CSA army to protect home and hearth but it's much harder to extend that to CSA brass when virtually all of them had previously taken a federal oath and then went back on it. Lee *agonized* over what to do when offered command from Scott because he understood this in real-time. Many of the other West Pointers wrote about similar dilemmas.
8.Long story short: *after* the war a lot of work was done to remove treaaon from the act secession, but at the time, men undersrood what they were doing and did it anyway because they believed that such a course was justified. So, it's pretty ironic how many of you are lauding the creation of the Confederacy as a justified rebellion but don't believe it justified enough to be worth risking treason.
All that was needed to not fight the civil war was for the north to not attack. Fort Sumter was Lincoln forcing a war that he wanted.All the occupying forces (trespassers) had to do was leave South Carolina.The South did not invade the North.The North was occupying the South.Lincoln did it to start the war.
That's exactly right. The Union forces holding the fort were told to leave, they did not, and they were then forced to. Most of you people north of the Mason-Dixon line grew up believing all the lies you were told about the War Between the States..............about how the greatest president ever, the Bolshevik Lincoln, only wanted to "save the union," and how the war was over slavery, and how every Southerner owned slaves and beat them every day. The facts are out there concerning the real reason the North wanted to fight the South, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure them out.
Addendum question: how can you say you'd gladly go now, but viewed CHOP as illegal? The cause/motivation to secede would certainly be very different, but the legality wouldn't. Worth keeping in mind that all 11 CSA states had significant pockets of Unionism (as did MO and KY) and all of those people had private property ans families to protect... sort of like the law-abiding property owners trapped in the CHOP that many here wanted rights/protection for and that many hoped would sue the city?
(FWIW: I would've had CHAZ/CHOP cleared on day 1 and never abandoned the precinct. There's no such thing as an autonomous zone in the United States per the Constitution...)
Preface: yes, I realize the response this will generate and no, I'm not from California.
1. The Articles of Confederstion created an intentionally weak central government that had very little coercive power over member states (no taxes, etc.). This was by design after waging an improbably successful revolt against a tyrannical government.
2. The original Constitution of 1789 -- which had no 10th amendment -- specifically states that it continued the AOC with noted changes/upgrades. The continuation language is critically important because the full title of the AOC was actually "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."
3. You know what perpetual means, and so did the Founders. Patrick Henry specifically argues against ratification -- as did other prominent anti-Federalists (Warren, etc.) *because* once in, a state could not legally leave the Union. The Bill of Rights was added later to get ratification over the hump, but the 9th and 10th amendments did not supersede the original frame of the Union itself or its central government. Again: anti-Federalists knew this and didn't like it.
4. The American Revolution constituted high treason and its leaders knew that. What do you think "give me liberty or give me death" means? Win = freedom. Lose = gallows. All rebellions from a mother country are treasonous until they're successful, then to the rebels, their history is written as a revolution. The Brits teach the Am Rev as a *civil war* to this day.
5. If you go back and actually read secessionist sources and responses to it from the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, you'll see that the vast majority of southerners reject secession specifically because it meant violating the Constitution, which they viewed as a sacred legacy passes down from other *southerners* like GW, Madison, etc. And then when the war begins, Confederate authors put out tons of material justifying the rebellion as the Am Rev 2.0 and cloaking themselves in Revolutionary era rhetoric, but in that writing, they recognize that the Declaration amounted to high treason -- and simply believed that some treason was justified.
6. If you genuinely think Lincoln wanted the war, you've never actually read a word he wrote and there's nothing I can do for you. After federal property was occupied, he sat still to let things fizzle out as they always had since 1832 (Nullification issues).
7. You can make the case that rank and file men enlisted in the CSA army to protect home and hearth but it's much harder to extend that to CSA brass when virtually all of them had previously taken a federal oath and then went back on it. Lee *agonized* over what to do when offered command from Scott because he understood this in real-time. Many of the other West Pointers wrote about similar dilemmas.
8.Long story short: *after* the war a lot of work was done to remove treaaon from the act secession, but at the time, men undersrood what they were doing and did it anyway because they believed that such a course was justified. So, it's pretty ironic how many of you are lauding the creation of the Confederacy as a justified rebellion but don't believe it justified enough to be worth risking treason.
I've got my fire-proof suit on now...
Do you really think 900,000 men fought a war to help the 1% that owned slaves. Just like when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor everyone enlisted to fight the Japs.When the North attacked everyone joined to fight the Yankees.Men who believed in slavery fighting side by side with men who did not believe in slavery.The reason is they were fighting to protect their home from invaders. 900,000 will join to protect their home.
Quite a bit more than 1% of the adult population owned slaves. (Though far fewer would be considered "large planters.") Slavery ensured that even the poorest whites would never be the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. So yes, lots of non-slaveholders fight to preserve it. That said, have you actually read the secession ordinances? They were basically each state's declaration if independence from the Union before joining the CSA... they are explicit -- as in, they literally come right out and say it -- about the main motivation for secession: to protect interest/property in slavery.
Either way, that really has nothing to do with whether or not secession was legally treasonous based on the shift from the AOC to the Constitution and how legal scholars in the 1780s and 1860s understood the bond of Union to work.
Again, I realize this isn't a popular take... so if you don't want my word for it go read the *actual historical documents* and you can find it for yourself.
Quite a bit more than 1% of the adult population owned slaves. (Though far fewer would be considered "large planters.") Slavery ensured that even the poorest whites would never be the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. So yes, lots of non-slaveholders fight to preserve it. That said, have you actually read the secession ordinances? They were basically each state's declaration if independence from the Union before joining the CSA... they are explicit -- as in, they literally come right out and say it -- about the main motivation for secession: to protect interest/property in slavery.
Either way, that really has nothing to do with whether or not secession was legally treasonous based on the shift from the AOC to the Constitution and how legal scholars in the 1780s and 1860s understood the bond of Union to work.
Again, I realize this isn't a popular take... so if you don't want my word for it go read the *actual historical documents* and you can find it for yourself.
They did not discriminate about who could own slaves.Are you going to pretend that black people did not own slaves?
Quite a bit more than 1% of the adult population owned slaves. (Though far fewer would be considered "large planters.") Slavery ensured that even the poorest whites would never be the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder.
Actually, Irishmen were the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Irishmen could be replaced for nothing, but a slave was an expensive asset.
Secession was certainly legal though perhaps not desirable.
The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time.
After the war, Jefferson Davis was held without being charged with anything for four years. Or tried for anything. He wanted to be tried for treason. The federal government didn't want to try him. Both he and they felt he would be acquitted based on the (fairly obvious) provision in the Constitution that a state could do anything not prohibited to it. And secession was not prohibited or even mentioned.
That said, a lot had changed between 1789 and 1861. Lincoln realized--correctly--that letting the South secede would lead to the destruction of the United States. What if New England wanted to secede sometime? What if Texas seceded from the Confederacy? In 1860 California came close to seceding (not to join the Confederacy but to be independent from both North and South).
Lincoln realized that letting the South go would lead to the piecemeal conquest of the various states by foreign powers. He was willing to break the law to save the union, as he himself said.
You can accuse the South of many things but treason is not among them.
"The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time."
This is entirely false. No such thing as conditional ratification. The document is ratified as passed or not. No middle.
Also, the Irish could not be sold as property. If there's a lower form of life than being property, that's news to me.
Secession was certainly legal though perhaps not desirable.
The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time.
After the war, Jefferson Davis was held without being charged with anything for four years. Or tried for anything. He wanted to be tried for treason. The federal government didn't want to try him. Both he and they felt he would be acquitted based on the (fairly obvious) provision in the Constitution that a state could do anything not prohibited to it. And secession was not prohibited or even mentioned.
That said, a lot had changed between 1789 and 1861. Lincoln realized--correctly--that letting the South secede would lead to the destruction of the United States. What if New England wanted to secede sometime? What if Texas seceded from the Confederacy? In 1860 California came close to seceding (not to join the Confederacy but to be independent from both North and South).
Lincoln realized that letting the South go would lead to the piecemeal conquest of the various states by foreign powers. He was willing to break the law to save the union, as he himself said.
You can accuse the South of many things but treason is not among them.
Davis was released to promote reunion. Read the actual documents. Legally, he and other high ranking Confederate could have been hanged had Lincoln wished (or Johnson). Neither did. Losing the war was punishment enough.
California didn't almost secede.
Jones County DID try to secede from Confederate Mississippi. Local CSA officials fought to block it.
Again, if you look at actual archival documents, you'll see that David exercised far more dictatorial powers -- down to bread distribution -- to hold a crumbling CSA government together than Lincoln could've dreamed of. Even Davis's southern critics, former Confederates, conceded this after the war.
Im all for the few southern states to be kicked out of the US.. enough taxpayer money gets funneled into those backwards states.
Might want to research your facts a little better. All the High Paying Jobs have fled or in the process of fleeing the North. These Backward states handled the Covid response better then your stupid Northern states without exception.
Endless caravans from NY escaping to the south is priceless.
Im all for the few southern states to be kicked out of the US.. enough taxpayer money gets funneled into those backwards states.
Might want to research your facts a little better. All the High Paying Jobs have fled or in the process of fleeing the North. These Backward states handled the Covid response better then your stupid Northern states without exception.
Endless caravans from NY escaping to the south is priceless.
Seattle, LA, and the Bay Area too. Bleeding businesses that can afford to get out.
Pretty telling that a modern general does not hesitate to call men who simply wanted to take their states out of the union treasonous, but refuses to even mildly criticize Marxist agitators who expressly wish to overthrow the established governmental order and impose their demented system upon the entire country.
Whatever you think of the Confederacy and it’s cause, in the end it chose to try and leave instead of imposing its will on the rest of the country.
All I know is that in the early 90’s the Ranger Battalions and Airborne Infantry units were absolutely full of boys from the south. They made excellent soldiers and I was proud to serve with them. When I was discharged, over half my platoon was from the south. The rest was pretty well midwestern kids or farmboys. We had four Mexicans and one black kid. They all did their jobs and nobody mistreated them in any way whatsoever. The south has sent her sons to fight and die in every war we have had since the 1860’s. For Milley to even bring up the subject shows he is no better than Powell, Mattis or any of the others. Like another post said, they just need to shut up and do their job. The people from the south are my countrymen just like someone from Maine or Nevada. You would be hard pressed to find nicer people anywhere than down in ol’ Dixie.
home being Northern Virginia, when I was young, the number of remenents of the Civil War were left all over the place.. in almost every grove of trees, were what was left of artillery positions from 1861 to 1865....finding musket balls was like finding pennies in a parking lot... even then, you could tell if they were built by Confederate Troops or Northern Troops, based on what direction was where the most damage was... if it was facing north bound, it was a Confederate Emplacement.. if it was facing South it was a Northern Emplacement...
Growing up around that you understood what the south fought for... defense of homeland...invaded because Washington was right across the Potomac River.. people fought to defend their home land, out numbered heavily.. yet it held the Union back for 4 years of heavy fighting... the remains, you could tell it wasn't about Slavery... because of the number of men that left their homes, families, farms and loved ones to fight for their state....and none of these people owned slaves.. it wasn't slave owners out there putting their asses on the line...for the rich folks and their money....helll there never was many plantations in Northern VA ever...
these men were not traitors to their nation.. they were loyal to their home state...and the Union invaded it...and started destroying everything in Arlington and Fairfax Counties.. until they were stopped in Prince William at a little place called Manassas...
when I was a kid growing up and living in Manassas, at the Centennial in 1961 and 1962, its population was about 2500 people... exactly what it had been 100 yrs earlier in 1861 and 1862.. that is why so much damage and remains of the Civil War was quite obvious 100 years after the fact....
it was the Union who were traitors to the Southern States....
John,
In 1860 only about 25% of southerners owned slaves, the primary reason was the cost of owning a slave in 1860 was about $2,000 or $30,000 today. A southern family was most likely to invest in a "Slave" than any other investment, the slave could be used in their own home or farm or as in Richmond, Va at the time rented out for family income. Virginia in 1860 had the highest population of slaves in the south....over 500,000 and very few cotton plantations, the predominate crop in Virginia in 1860 was wheat and tobacco. The largest mills in the United States in 1860 were in Richmond, Virginia....operated by slaves. After 160 years there are still a Yankee and Southern versions to the War between the States, I doubt it will ever be settled.
it aint what you know, but what you know that aint so.
Originally Posted by clockwork_7mm_gator
Nope. A very small demographic of black slaveholsers existed. More importantly, they *did* discriminate concerning who *could* be enslaved.
if you mean that eventually laws were passed prohibiting blacks from owning white slaves, sure, you're correct. but that implies a littel something most folk have been trained to overlook...
Originally Posted by clockwork_7mm_gator
"The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time."
This is entirely false. No such thing as conditional ratification. The document is ratified as passed or not. No middle.
Also, the Irish could not be sold as property. If there's a lower form of life than being property, that's news to me.
news: irish were sold as property in north america. usually at 1/4 the cost of black slaves for several reasons.
The irish were sold as property in n america. As were teh scottish and the english and some other euros. from the tip of florida up through canada. Roughly 2X the number of whites were sold into slavery relative to blacks until the end of the cw.
you have to seek out primary source material as the ruling class has deemed factual history unhelpful and has instead imposed new & improved & helpful (to the ruling class) narrative. to include myths such as blacks were the only sorts held in bondage/as chattel in na.
james lafond, though lacking in academic sophistication, has accumulated a rather large trove of primary source material. if you have an interest in this topic, lafond has written about 10 books on it of various structure: primary source narrative with commentary, nigh stright-up primary source material published in a book for the first time, Q&A, etc.
Plantation America Bookstore Plantation America is an exploration of the early history of the United States of America, which were not often called colonies at the time, but plantations. They were plantations of unfree people from Britain, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. These slaves and servants were bought and sold at auction, beaten and cruelly used, and then their history was erased. James LaFond is working to restore a part of it here.
The reading order perhaps depends on your motive for reading it. Assuming a desire for general learning, I will make a reading order list with an exception out to the side:
#1 [volume 2]: American in Chains places Caucasian slavery in context with a chronology of slave ages and slavery events going back to the middle ages, and numerous reviews of African American slavery narratives. This is very accessible to someone who has not read a lot of history. This is the first volume an African American should read.
#2 [volume 3]: Into Wicked Company is the shortest and easiest to read and I would recommend it to people who find reading a burden. It provides more context for Stillbirth of a Nation and would be the first volume I'd give to a teenager or person who likes verse.
#3 [volume 1]: Stillbirth of a nation is the saga of thrice abducted Peter Williamson, and would be my first choice for a military man to read.
#4 [volume 4]: A Bright Shining lie at Dusk was an attempt to bundle a mess of errata on Plantation America and put it out as a companion to readers of volumes 1-3 in an attempt to wash my hands of the series. If you buy Crackerboy or The Greatest Lie Ever Sold on the site I'll send this to you for free. If you ask for it, I'll send it. I'm emailing you a copy. It is just a companion to the better-formed volumes.
#5 [volume 7] The Lies That Bind Us lays out the foundations for Plantation America via a study of The Magna Carta and is otherwise a mass of support material like A Bright Shining Lie at Dusk.
#6 [Volume 9] The Greatest Lie Ever Sold makes the case that American history is a lie stemming from the abdication of the English king at the signing of the Magna Carta. It is the op-ed companion to the annoatted litany of Crackerboy.
#7 [Volume 8]: Cracker-Boy is the one volume that needs to be read by anyone who would argue against the narrative mainstream in America which claims that only Africans can be owned as human property. If you only buy one Plantation America book, this is the one.
#8 [Volume 5] So Her Master May Have Her Again is the first read I recommend for women, looking at the specific economics of being a runaway broad in Plantation America.
#9 [volume 6] So His Master May Have Him Again is the one book you should give to a working class liberal ghost man and is all about the economics of being a broke-ass cracker-boy in the land of the wee and the home of the knave. Note: Paleface, the white Indian history, will not be written. Rather each of the following books will have a paleface section on white Indians, who were very often escaped slaves.
#10: [volume 10]: American Spartacus is about the over 400 acts of slave revolt I have documented, along with various reviews of primary sources sketching the conditions and histories of some non-slave uprisings in the United States and earlier Plantations. It will be 2 volumes at about 1,000 pages and will probably replace Cracker-Boy as the best single source.
#11 [volume 11]: The Thirteenth Tribe is about religiously sanctioned slavery in America and focuses on Pennsylvania and New England the myth of the Christian abolitionist movement and the reality that every slave in America, no matter his race, was held in bondage according to Judeo-Christian law. This will be the most heavily weighted volume towards piracy and the white Indian situation.
#12 [volume 12] Plantation America: A history Denied will serve as an overview, an index, a list of corrections to mistakes in earlier volumes and will take the story of the runaway white boy into the realm of the mixed race runaway, as virtually every extant slave narrative by a runaway African American" was the story of a man who was at least half European.
Fiction: the novel Sold is complete and the sequel Bound is just started. I recommend Sold to anyone at any time in tis reading who would like more immediate texture and to anyone who just can't get through a history text. It is the real story of Thomas Hellier and two fictional composite characters patterned on Peter Williamson and other targets of the soul-drivers who staffed Plantation America in its misery with the toiling souls of the doomed and forgotten.
it aint what you know, but what you know that aint so.
Originally Posted by clockwork_7mm_gator
Nope. A very small demographic of black slaveholsers existed. More importantly, they *did* discriminate concerning who *could* be enslaved.
if you mean that eventually laws were passed prohibiting blacks from owning white slaves, sure, you're correct. but that implies a littel something most folk have been trained to overlook...
Originally Posted by clockwork_7mm_gator
"The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time."
This is entirely false. No such thing as conditional ratification. The document is ratified as passed or not. No middle.
Also, the Irish could not be sold as property. If there's a lower form of life than being property, that's news to me.
news: irish were sold as property in north america. usually at 1/4 the cost of black slaves for several reasons.
The irish were sold as property in n america. As were teh scottish and the english and some other euros. from the tip of florida up through canada. Roughly 2X the number of whites were sold into slavery relative to blacks until the end of the cw.
you have to seek out primary source material as the ruling class has deemed factual history unhelpful and has instead imposed new & improved & helpful (to the ruling class) narrative. to include myths such as blacks were the only sorts held in bondage/as chattel in na.
james lafond, though lacking in academic sophistication, has accumulated a rather large trove of primary source material. if you have an interest in this topic, lafond has written about 10 books on it of various structure: primary source narrative with commentary, nigh stright-up primary source material published in a book for the first time, Q&A, etc.
Plantation America Bookstore Plantation America is an exploration of the early history of the United States of America, which were not often called colonies at the time, but plantations. They were plantations of unfree people from Britain, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. These slaves and servants were bought and sold at auction, beaten and cruelly used, and then their history was erased. James LaFond is working to restore a part of it here.
The reading order perhaps depends on your motive for reading it. Assuming a desire for general learning, I will make a reading order list with an exception out to the side:
#1 [volume 2]: American in Chains places Caucasian slavery in context with a chronology of slave ages and slavery events going back to the middle ages, and numerous reviews of African American slavery narratives. This is very accessible to someone who has not read a lot of history. This is the first volume an African American should read.
#2 [volume 3]: Into Wicked Company is the shortest and easiest to read and I would recommend it to people who find reading a burden. It provides more context for Stillbirth of a Nation and would be the first volume I'd give to a teenager or person who likes verse.
#3 [volume 1]: Stillbirth of a nation is the saga of thrice abducted Peter Williamson, and would be my first choice for a military man to read.
#4 [volume 4]: A Bright Shining lie at Dusk was an attempt to bundle a mess of errata on Plantation America and put it out as a companion to readers of volumes 1-3 in an attempt to wash my hands of the series. If you buy Crackerboy or The Greatest Lie Ever Sold on the site I'll send this to you for free. If you ask for it, I'll send it. I'm emailing you a copy. It is just a companion to the better-formed volumes.
#5 [volume 7] The Lies That Bind Us lays out the foundations for Plantation America via a study of The Magna Carta and is otherwise a mass of support material like A Bright Shining Lie at Dusk.
#6 [Volume 9] The Greatest Lie Ever Sold makes the case that American history is a lie stemming from the abdication of the English king at the signing of the Magna Carta. It is the op-ed companion to the annoatted litany of Crackerboy.
#7 [Volume 8]: Cracker-Boy is the one volume that needs to be read by anyone who would argue against the narrative mainstream in America which claims that only Africans can be owned as human property. If you only buy one Plantation America book, this is the one.
#8 [Volume 5] So Her Master May Have Her Again is the first read I recommend for women, looking at the specific economics of being a runaway broad in Plantation America.
#9 [volume 6] So His Master May Have Him Again is the one book you should give to a working class liberal ghost man and is all about the economics of being a broke-ass cracker-boy in the land of the wee and the home of the knave. Note: Paleface, the white Indian history, will not be written. Rather each of the following books will have a paleface section on white Indians, who were very often escaped slaves.
#10: [volume 10]: American Spartacus is about the over 400 acts of slave revolt I have documented, along with various reviews of primary sources sketching the conditions and histories of some non-slave uprisings in the United States and earlier Plantations. It will be 2 volumes at about 1,000 pages and will probably replace Cracker-Boy as the best single source.
#11 [volume 11]: The Thirteenth Tribe is about religiously sanctioned slavery in America and focuses on Pennsylvania and New England the myth of the Christian abolitionist movement and the reality that every slave in America, no matter his race, was held in bondage according to Judeo-Christian law. This will be the most heavily weighted volume towards piracy and the white Indian situation.
#12 [volume 12] Plantation America: A history Denied will serve as an overview, an index, a list of corrections to mistakes in earlier volumes and will take the story of the runaway white boy into the realm of the mixed race runaway, as virtually every extant slave narrative by a runaway African American" was the story of a man who was at least half European.
Fiction: the novel Sold is complete and the sequel Bound is just started. I recommend Sold to anyone at any time in tis reading who would like more immediate texture and to anyone who just can't get through a history text. It is the real story of Thomas Hellier and two fictional composite characters patterned on Peter Williamson and other targets of the soul-drivers who staffed Plantation America in its misery with the toiling souls of the doomed and forgotten.
Sorry, but this is totally bogus. There is a huge body of actual scholarship about the slave trade and this ain't part of it. Were whites indentured in America before slavery became entrenched? Absolutely. Were they frequently treated poorly or scammed? Yes. Were they legally and culturally distinguished from slaves. Absolutely. Were Irishmen sold as slaves in North America and owned as chattel? Hard no. Think it through: if you're willing to cross the color line and enslave the Irish, the English have no reason to make the triangle trade a triangle. You'd just ship the Irish to the New World in chains and seize the land. But they didn't. Because they weren't interested in setting up a slippery slope of which white people weren't above slavery.
That's not to say the Irish were treated well, but crummy urban conditions and enslavement aren't remotely the same thing.
There were black slaveholders up to the point of emancipation in places like Louisiana and many Indian tribes also adopted race-based slavery to become "whiter" in southern society. None of this is really new...
I would argue that we are at the point now where it is the only viable peaceable solution to the present problems we are experiencing. It’s headed for a similar end as last time If we don’t, only this time it will be much messier because there are no clear geographical lines to separate the opposing sides.
"The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time."
This is entirely false. No such thing as conditional ratification. The document is ratified as passed or not. No middle.
Also, the Irish could not be sold as property. If there's a lower form of life than being property, that's news to me.
Apparently you have never heard of an indentured servant One my family tree had the nerve to tell a petty ill Brit his land was his.the fine upstanding Lord saw to it he died in newgate .his wife was pressed into service at the manor house his son sold as a indentured servant to a brother in the new country .Ireland's youngest were shipped out to see to the fact that the British would not have resistance in the future.a slave by any name is a slave.by the way that Irish man fought with Washington, one of his grandsons died at Gettysburg(southern side) .we lost 1in Spanish American war,2 in ww1,3 ww2,1korea.3 Vietnam.I myself have served and my daughter does now.my family may have started out in this country in slavery but that has never been our story nor shall it ever be .that is for people who don't value freedom enough to die for it
What is your definition off slave buddy.a child forced to leave his mother put on a ship sent to another country and forced to work or be beaten!!that don't count !
What is your definition off slave buddy.a child forced to leave his mother put on a ship sent to another country and forced to work or be beaten!!that don't count !
This shouldn't have devolved into an argument about slavery. Slavery was legal in the US when the South seceded and slavery remained legal through the end of the war. Yes Lincoln abolished it in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation but he had no more authority there than he had on the moon.
Your right and I'm guilty.what I often wonder , do any of the politicians up in d.c remember that at one time in this country a very large group stood up an fought the government.the terrible loss of life ,brother against brother.family fighting family.I was allways told Mac who died at Gettysburg fought with the South not about slavery witch he hated because of our story but because he felt that the government in D.C had forgotten who the country belongs to.
it aint what you know, but what you know that aint so.
Originally Posted by clockwork_7mm_gator
Nope. A very small demographic of black slaveholsers existed. More importantly, they *did* discriminate concerning who *could* be enslaved.
if you mean that eventually laws were passed prohibiting blacks from owning white slaves, sure, you're correct. but that implies a littel something most folk have been trained to overlook...
Originally Posted by clockwork_7mm_gator
"The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time."
This is entirely false. No such thing as conditional ratification. The document is ratified as passed or not. No middle.
Also, the Irish could not be sold as property. If there's a lower form of life than being property, that's news to me.
news: irish were sold as property in north america. usually at 1/4 the cost of black slaves for several reasons.
The irish were sold as property in n america. As were teh scottish and the english and some other euros. from the tip of florida up through canada. Roughly 2X the number of whites were sold into slavery relative to blacks until the end of the cw.
you have to seek out primary source material as the ruling class has deemed factual history unhelpful and has instead imposed new & improved & helpful (to the ruling class) narrative. to include myths such as blacks were the only sorts held in bondage/as chattel in na.
james lafond, though lacking in academic sophistication, has accumulated a rather large trove of primary source material. if you have an interest in this topic, lafond has written about 10 books on it of various structure: primary source narrative with commentary, nigh stright-up primary source material published in a book for the first time, Q&A, etc.
Plantation America Bookstore Plantation America is an exploration of the early history of the United States of America, which were not often called colonies at the time, but plantations. They were plantations of unfree people from Britain, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. These slaves and servants were bought and sold at auction, beaten and cruelly used, and then their history was erased. James LaFond is working to restore a part of it here.
The reading order perhaps depends on your motive for reading it. Assuming a desire for general learning, I will make a reading order list with an exception out to the side:
#1 [volume 2]: American in Chains places Caucasian slavery in context with a chronology of slave ages and slavery events going back to the middle ages, and numerous reviews of African American slavery narratives. This is very accessible to someone who has not read a lot of history. This is the first volume an African American should read.
#2 [volume 3]: Into Wicked Company is the shortest and easiest to read and I would recommend it to people who find reading a burden. It provides more context for Stillbirth of a Nation and would be the first volume I'd give to a teenager or person who likes verse.
#3 [volume 1]: Stillbirth of a nation is the saga of thrice abducted Peter Williamson, and would be my first choice for a military man to read.
#4 [volume 4]: A Bright Shining lie at Dusk was an attempt to bundle a mess of errata on Plantation America and put it out as a companion to readers of volumes 1-3 in an attempt to wash my hands of the series. If you buy Crackerboy or The Greatest Lie Ever Sold on the site I'll send this to you for free. If you ask for it, I'll send it. I'm emailing you a copy. It is just a companion to the better-formed volumes.
#5 [volume 7] The Lies That Bind Us lays out the foundations for Plantation America via a study of The Magna Carta and is otherwise a mass of support material like A Bright Shining Lie at Dusk.
#6 [Volume 9] The Greatest Lie Ever Sold makes the case that American history is a lie stemming from the abdication of the English king at the signing of the Magna Carta. It is the op-ed companion to the annoatted litany of Crackerboy.
#7 [Volume 8]: Cracker-Boy is the one volume that needs to be read by anyone who would argue against the narrative mainstream in America which claims that only Africans can be owned as human property. If you only buy one Plantation America book, this is the one.
#8 [Volume 5] So Her Master May Have Her Again is the first read I recommend for women, looking at the specific economics of being a runaway broad in Plantation America.
#9 [volume 6] So His Master May Have Him Again is the one book you should give to a working class liberal ghost man and is all about the economics of being a broke-ass cracker-boy in the land of the wee and the home of the knave. Note: Paleface, the white Indian history, will not be written. Rather each of the following books will have a paleface section on white Indians, who were very often escaped slaves.
#10: [volume 10]: American Spartacus is about the over 400 acts of slave revolt I have documented, along with various reviews of primary sources sketching the conditions and histories of some non-slave uprisings in the United States and earlier Plantations. It will be 2 volumes at about 1,000 pages and will probably replace Cracker-Boy as the best single source.
#11 [volume 11]: The Thirteenth Tribe is about religiously sanctioned slavery in America and focuses on Pennsylvania and New England the myth of the Christian abolitionist movement and the reality that every slave in America, no matter his race, was held in bondage according to Judeo-Christian law. This will be the most heavily weighted volume towards piracy and the white Indian situation.
#12 [volume 12] Plantation America: A history Denied will serve as an overview, an index, a list of corrections to mistakes in earlier volumes and will take the story of the runaway white boy into the realm of the mixed race runaway, as virtually every extant slave narrative by a runaway African American" was the story of a man who was at least half European.
Fiction: the novel Sold is complete and the sequel Bound is just started. I recommend Sold to anyone at any time in tis reading who would like more immediate texture and to anyone who just can't get through a history text. It is the real story of Thomas Hellier and two fictional composite characters patterned on Peter Williamson and other targets of the soul-drivers who staffed Plantation America in its misery with the toiling souls of the doomed and forgotten.
Sorry, but this is totally bogus. There is a huge body of actual scholarship about the slave trade and this ain't part of it. Were whites indentured in America before slavery became entrenched? Absolutely. Were they frequently treated poorly or scammed? Yes. Were they legally and culturally distinguished from slaves. Absolutely. Were Irishmen sold as slaves in North America and owned as chattel? Hard no. Think it through: if you're willing to cross the color line and enslave the Irish, the English have no reason to make the triangle trade a triangle. You'd just ship the Irish to the New World in chains and seize the land. But they didn't. Because they weren't interested in setting up a slippery slope of which white people weren't above slavery.
That's not to say the Irish were treated well, but crummy urban conditions and enslavement aren't remotely the same thing.
There were black slaveholders up to the point of emancipation in places like Louisiana and many Indian tribes also adopted race-based slavery to become "whiter" in southern society. None of this is really new...
Take your mouth off the narrative cock long enough to focus on some primary docs. They stretch back to the 16th century and plow over this ground, back and forth. Some of the enslaved whites were or ended up literate and left behind their memoirs. The govts left behind laws dealing with the reality of white slaves. Commercial publications charged owners of white slaves to print runaway slave notices in their papers.
Preface: yes, I realize the response this will generate and no, I'm not from California.
1. The Articles of Confederstion created an intentionally weak central government that had very little coercive power over member states (no taxes, etc.). This was by design after waging an improbably successful revolt against a tyrannical government.
2. The original Constitution of 1789 -- which had no 10th amendment -- specifically states that it continued the AOC with noted changes/upgrades. The continuation language is critically important because the full title of the AOC was actually "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."
3. You know what perpetual means, and so did the Founders. Patrick Henry specifically argues against ratification -- as did other prominent anti-Federalists (Warren, etc.) *because* once in, a state could not legally leave the Union. The Bill of Rights was added later to get ratification over the hump, but the 9th and 10th amendments did not supersede the original frame of the Union itself or its central government. Again: anti-Federalists knew this and didn't like it.
4. The American Revolution constituted high treason and its leaders knew that. What do you think "give me liberty or give me death" means? Win = freedom. Lose = gallows. All rebellions from a mother country are treasonous until they're successful, then to the rebels, their history is written as a revolution. The Brits teach the Am Rev as a *civil war* to this day.
5. If you go back and actually read secessionist sources and responses to it from the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, you'll see that the vast majority of southerners reject secession specifically because it meant violating the Constitution, which they viewed as a sacred legacy passes down from other *southerners* like GW, Madison, etc. And then when the war begins, Confederate authors put out tons of material justifying the rebellion as the Am Rev 2.0 and cloaking themselves in Revolutionary era rhetoric, but in that writing, they recognize that the Declaration amounted to high treason -- and simply believed that some treason was justified.
6. If you genuinely think Lincoln wanted the war, you've never actually read a word he wrote and there's nothing I can do for you. After federal property was occupied, he sat still to let things fizzle out as they always had since 1832 (Nullification issues).
7. You can make the case that rank and file men enlisted in the CSA army to protect home and hearth but it's much harder to extend that to CSA brass when virtually all of them had previously taken a federal oath and then went back on it. Lee *agonized* over what to do when offered command from Scott because he understood this in real-time. Many of the other West Pointers wrote about similar dilemmas.
8.Long story short: *after* the war a lot of work was done to remove treaaon from the act secession, but at the time, men undersrood what they were doing and did it anyway because they believed that such a course was justified. So, it's pretty ironic how many of you are lauding the creation of the Confederacy as a justified rebellion but don't believe it justified enough to be worth risking treason.
I've got my fire-proof suit on now...
Most accurate factual and legal analysis of the issue posted on this thread...and I agree with it. Treason can is justified against an unjust government.
" ... Endless caravans from NY escaping to the south is priceless.
Yes, except most of them are bringing their convoluted left wing ideology with them so they can "convert" the conservative "hicks" in the red states to destroy their way of life.
"The Constitution was originally said to be in effect after a certain number of the original states ratified it. At least two of those states--New York and New Jersey ratified it conditionally, the condition being they would be allowed to secede at any time."
This is entirely false. No such thing as conditional ratification. The document is ratified as passed or not. No middle.
Also, the Irish could not be sold as property. If there's a lower form of life than being property, that's news to me.
Except your opinion in 2020 was not the opinion of New York or New Jersey n 1789.
Not so. At the time there was considerable sentiment in California to let the other guys fight. Many Californians didn't think they had a dog in that fight. After all, it took months to even travel to the United States.
This sentiment was defused by Mrs. John C. Fremont who imported a famous preacher to give speeches supporting union up and down the state.
" ... Endless caravans from NY escaping to the south is priceless.
Yes, except most of them are bringing their convoluted left wing ideology with them so they can "convert" the conservative "hicks" in the red states to destroy their way of life.
L.W.
Yup. They're not fleeing the politics they're just fleeing the weather
South Carolina was a United State. Part of... The United States. Fort Sumpter was a United States of America fort. Owned and occupied by the United States of America. The State, didn't want to be in the union. How does that make Fort Sumpter not Union.
Or is it like Chaos. They just wanted to take it because it and they were there?
Honestly, this was the century before the last. I just don't get the BS and people acting like they are personally invested.
Also, how do you thump your patriotic chest, While loving on a failed revolt, And continually hating that which you proclaim to live?
History? I love it. Heritage, mines German, from the century before the big American feud. I don't identify as German. Or my ancestors.
Not so. At the time there was considerable sentiment in California to let the other guys fight. Many Californians didn't think they had a dog in that fight. After all, it took months to even travel to the United States.
This sentiment was defused by Mrs. John C. Fremont who imported a famous preacher to give speeches supporting union up and down the state.
CA *was* the United States (since 1850)... and no, it was never in real danger of seceding. Both from a political demographic standpoint and the large # of regular, pro-Union army stationed there.