CSA vs. USA Constitution

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I know how the man died. And yes, it is my contention that 'you' and others are dead. In a historical, debatable, forced-unionist sort-of-way.

Out the door now,
Unionblue

Neil,
Then I guess there is no reason for us to be here.

[hawglips]

Neil: I just still wonder how 'nice' it would have been for those 4,000,000 souls who had no representation in it and how their descendants, who would have been forever locked into the institution of slavery, would have liked all those improvements.

Is this a trick statement? For the sake of stimulating discussion, I'll go along and give a response.

I'm sure being a slave in the CSA (2,312,352 of them) would have been no different than being one in the USA (1,641,344). Those "nice improvements" referred to would be totally meaningless to all 4,000,000 of them, I'm sure.

But Neil, don't you find it interesting that the only significant change to the CSA constitution regarding slavery, was actually no change at all, since the USA's highest court had already ruled that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories under the USA's Constitution either?

Hal

[mobile_96]

Hal,
Where did you get your slave totals from.
The numbers I find are:
CSA-seceded states at 3,521,110 slaves
US north-free states at 64 slaves
Border states at 423,586 slaves
for a total/per the census of 1860/ of 3,953,696 slaves in the country.
Even if you add all the free blacks of the northern and border states you only get 787,866.
Chuck in Il.

[thea_447]

Neil: "It's just hard for me to let this little thing slip from my mind."

Tsk,tsk....You've been smelling too much of that sanctimonious incense from your Lincoln/Sherman shrine again, Neil. It amazes me that you can condemn with every fiber of your being the entire South for slavery but are entirely capable of over-looking children working in factories up North to put food on the table for their families, working untold hours for a pittance. Somehow this apparently is condoned because you can always say, "Well, look what the SOUTH was doing!" Hmm...too bad there wasn't a Harriet Beecher Stowe to speak up for the factory workers.

But never mind, that little thing I suppose, slipped your mind.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Put down the mint julip and think the reverse. How does conditions in the North in the factories over-look an institution that let its workers toil with the idea of no family ties lasting, no consideration, whippings, death, all for the profit of their masters with NO say in the matter at all? Too bad no one like Harriet Beecher Stowe could freely express their views in the South for fear of retaliation.

But never mind, that little item must have slipped your consideration.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Tommy,

As to your post above, "Then I guess there is no reason for us to be here." Nonsense!

I look upon this board and it's opposing members (to my own viewpoints) somewhat like diamond cutters. Your arguments and postings are like the grinding wheel, your biting research and comments like blows from a chisel and hammer. You help pound and shape my own viewpoints into sharp relief and polish them into something I find quite pleased and comfortable with.

If the hammer were a bit more forceful or the grinding a bit harsher or longer, it just might shatter this jewel of conclusion I have come to and force me to shape something else. So far, all it has done is add to the shine of it.

Convictions, faith, whatever you like to call it, are like diamonds, are some of the hardest, toughest materials in the universe.

But it is a big universe, ain't it?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 29, 2004)

Ok, That is twice Stowe has been mentioned. Head on over and check out the "'Take a deep breath, sugar, you're living in Dixie'" thread on the Gazzette.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Yes, we know, Stowe was not perfect. Neither was Jackson, Lee, Davis, Lincoln, Grant nor the Confederate Constitution.

But pointing that out tends to overlook some of the more significant things that Thea and I were discussing, does it not? And let's not forget that the main thrust of the article you refer to about Stowe was not the main thrust of that article, was it?

Or is it that we can only pull at one thread at a time?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 30, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 30, 2004)

Neil,
I just mentioned it for contrast to your declaration "Too bad no one like Harriet Beecher Stowe could freely express their views in the South for fear of retaliation. "
When she did have that voice in the South she did what all the carpetbaggers did. Take advantage for personal gain. Self interest has been such an overused weapon to beat Southrons too.

Besides, all over the North. The highest death tolls of riots came from the Republican goverment sending in troops to kill people who tried to exercise free speech, to speak out on labor issues. That is a fact. It happened time after time. All After the war.

But if you want to have me launch into a full court press on the equal or superior evils of the northern labor system I will do so I suppose. I am a past master on this topic. There is no more a defence for it than slavery and it WAS equally evil. Everything you said, "no family ties lasting, no consideration, whippings, death, all for the profit of their masters with NO say in the matter at all?" All untrue in the most foul way. So much so my gorge must rise. Because every bit of that and more happened in the Northern labor systen. Seriously, I would recommend looking beyond the pale rhetoric of the free labor system that was actually in place to what it really was before I started making comparisons like that my friend. It might work on those who think in theory but those like me who actually know the facts, know better. Rarely do I ever say I know something or my education in anything is worth mentioning. But this I know about.







(Message edited by aphillbilly on September 30, 2004)