It wasn't

Post #347,343 by SpiceWare 9/4/11 6:00:27 PM Reply	It wasn't http://www.pbs.org/w...part4/4p2967.html To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. ... On January 1, 1863, he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. With it he officially freed all slaves within the states or parts of states that were in rebellion and not in Union hands. This left one million slaves in Union territory still in bondage. If it were about slavery the slaves in the northern states would have been freed, not just those in the confederate states. A recent issue of BBC Knowledge had an article about the civil war and covers this. I don't see it online, I'll post some extracts when I get back to Houston.
Post #347,349 by drook 9/4/11 7:20:53 PM Reply	And why were the confederate states trying to secede? -- Drew
Post #347,355 by boxley 9/4/11 9:32:40 PM Reply	why was the union stealing slaves then selling therm? see confiscated property link above you Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #347,426 by SpiceWare 9/7/11 12:04:00 AM Reply	I don't deny that slavery was a factor but as my prior post shows it was about establishing that once a member, always a member http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU
Post #347,431 by mmoffitt 9/7/11 8:36:34 AM Reply	Their Constitutional Rights were being violated by the North Article 4 Section 2. http://www.usconstit...const_A4Sec2.html HTH.
Post #347,474 by Ashton 9/7/11 6:53:47 PM Reply	A neat, bound copy for $5 ppd?! Order 300M of the suckers.
Post #347,478 by Another Scott 9/7/11 8:06:16 PM Reply	They lost the argument. Thankfully.
Post #347,504 by mmoffitt 9/8/11 11:00:45 AM Reply	What argument? No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. I'm not saying this was a "good thing" to be in the Constitution. But really, are you saying it didn't exist? Or that escaping slaves were being returned? Like it or not, the South did have the Law on their side.
Post #347,515 by Another Scott 9/8/11 1:02:13 PM Reply	If it's so clear cut, what was Dred Scott about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott Inquiring minds and all that. The law is rarely as clear as it might appear on reading just the original document. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,533 by mmoffitt 9/8/11 3:10:30 PM Reply	Huh? Nice try. If Dred Scott had been a suit over a slave owner's right to have their escaped slaves returned from a free state, then you'd be on point. But, you aren't. Dred Scott sued his owners for his freedom and, ultimately, the USSC said, essentially, he didn't even have standing to sue. The Dred Scott decision was consistent with the Constitution at the time. Which is exactly the point I made originally. This is the sort of thing that I can almost agree with Fat Tony Scalia about. The Constitution provides for alterations that are deemed unacceptable. That's how it is supposed to work. I'm not naive. If the 13th Amendment had passed prior to April, 1860, there almost certainly still would have been a Civil War as violent as it was in the absence of Amendment 13. But, it should have been done. If it had been, then the North would have truly had the moral, ethical upper hand. But, they didn't, so they don't. Instead Dubya the First (aka A. Lincoln) treated the Constitution as if it were a worthless rag, ignoring the parts that restricted his power and abusing the civil rights guaranteed the people within it. Only after the South lay in ashes did the North do the right thing. But the war was not fought over morality. Slavery was only tangentially involved. But, you Yankees can keep pretending that wonderful morally superior Christian Soldiers of the North marched southward and whipped up on the stupid, racist Southerners in order to free the slaves. It's a timeless children's fable I have no doubt will be repeated to my great-grandchildren. That is, if the Yankee government in DC lasts that long. ;0) Aside: The opinion was an overreach, obviously, in that the ruling barred the Congress from barring slavery. But, I did read something that I'm sure I knew once, but had forgotten. Ironically, Irene Emerson was remarried in 1850 to Calvin C. Chaffee, a northern congressman opposed to slavery. After the Supreme Court decision, Mrs. Chaffee turned Dred and Harriet Scott and their two daughters over to Dred's old friends, the Blows, who gave the Scotts their freedom in May 1857. On September 17, 1858, Dred Scott died of tuberculosis and was buried in St. Louis. http://americancivil...d/dred_scott.html
Post #347,538 by boxley 9/8/11 4:47:01 PM Reply	doffs cap in your direction Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #347,541 by Another Scott 9/8/11 6:13:05 PM Reply	We live in alternate universes apparently. :-/
Post #347,568 by Another Scott 9/9/11 9:10:30 PM Reply	Have you been reading "Disunion" in the NYTimes? I just glanced at it tonight. I don't think "Dubya the First" is quite the way I would characterize him. Your opinion might change as well after reading this: http://opinionator.b...nts-she-merrimac/ But, perhaps not... ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,657 by mmoffitt 9/12/11 8:44:05 AM 9/12/11 9:09:08 AM Reply	So, because he didn't do it until a year later, ... it doesn't count? Issuing proclamations that strike down parts of the Constitution without the consent of the governed and without Constitutional Amendments, the suspension of Habeus, are these things not Dubya-esque? Edit: grammar Edited by mmoffitt Sept. 12, 2011, 09:09:08 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #347,660 by boxley 9/12/11 9:06:29 AM Reply	dubya actually used lincum as precedent in his argument Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!