Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with all of the names. I recently found out that aphillbilly is Tommy, and based on your post I've suspecting that Unionblue is Neil. Perhaps you can confirm this.
As to the Neil's 'bullet/gun' theory, I'd previously posted that I thought the person giving the bullets knowing they'd be used to kill was guilty, at least, as an accessory or conspirator. I didn't (and still don't) know if the person is guilty as a principal. I believe Unionblue (Neil?) posted his opinion that the person would be.
I fear that the 'bullet/gun' theory is a tangent on this thread and that, as a result, posts are getting lost. Maybe a new thread is in order?
Tommy is indeed Ahillbilly, and Neil is none other than Unionblue. My last posting to you was this:
"If the man with the bullets willingly hands them over knowing that they will be used to committ an act of murder, then my first moral reaction is that the "bullet man" is just as guilty as the man who pulls the trigger. I know that legally it is much more complicated than that but if intent can be proven, I would consider that a verdict of conspiracy or accessory would be too lenient...it's a fine line and a jury that I would not like to sit on."
I'm really curious to know what you think the verdict would be in the above scenario, and I'm all for starting a new thread on this, if you think it bears attention.
It came from where I said it came from. Want to bet? Let us put some money on it. Please. I could use the cold cash and I just loathe being called a liar. Even by implication.
-
Not calling you a liar, Tommy. It just doesn't sound like them. As you said, you used various sources for your posting. It would have been helpful to identify them at the time.
I originally said that your source was wrong and you said your source was Helper himself. I specified that paragraph, which to me obviously isn't Helper. Now you're saying it's from American Memory. I think you may be misremembering. That's not lying. Of course, I could very well be mistaken, but it doesn't sound like what I've read on American Memory.
So you are changing your tune, Cash? First you put emphasis on 'Southerners.' Indicating there, and other places, that I was claiming it was about northerners doing it in his book. But either way. The book itself, Helpers works AND the Republican advocation of his book was a direct attack on the South and Southern society. Their support, publication and distribution of it gave solid credence to the true purpose of their seeking power. I'm still waiting for Proof the the contrary.
-------
No, I'm not changing my tune. The whole reason you brought up Helper was that I said the natural rights of southerners were not being threatened. And they weren't. Helper advocates southern nonslaveholders bringing down slavery. Folks on the confederate side delight in telling us that slaveholders were a tiny minority of the southern population, so it seems to me that if that were true there wouldn't be much fuss. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for southerners, then, was not threatened by Helper's book. If Republicans endorsed it and distributed it in the North, what of it? The book didn't ask Northerners to go south to attack southerners, and neither did the Republicans.
I agree that bullet man is morally wrong. I also think that it's likely more complicated than that. First, I wouldn't underestimate the penalties for accessory or conspirator. I don't know what they are, but they could be as much as for a principal offender. OTOH, how could bullet man "know" what's in the other man's mind. Shooter man should have a mind of his own and could change it at anytime. We're probably discussing causation - that an intention alone is unpunishable unless there's more to 'cause' the result. Or perhaps we're, at least for conspiracy, back to some overt act requirement to further the result.
I do know that guilt for criminal offenses requires proof of commission of the 'elements' of an offense. What the essential elements are of any given crime are defined by the statute involved, which could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Then there are courts to interpret the statutes. It would not surprise me to learn that some jurisdiction somewhere found bullet man guilty as a principal, while another doesn't so provide.
It seems that Tommy is using the Helper book and the Republican endorsement to prove that Black Republicans intended to subjugate the south and its peculiar institiution. Abolition!
Actually, Helper is a rather benign voice in opposition of slavery. He posits that slavery hindered Southern development with some telling, if boring statistics. His thing is to convince Southerners to abandon slavery as an econimic principle. In essence, dump slavery and keep pace with northern growth. Makes sense.
That the "Black Republicans" endorsed his views is quite understandable. That the peculiar instituion did retard economical growth is virtually indisputable. Helper's view was simply: "For God's sake, dump this system and follow the northern pattern. No wonder he was banished from NC in disgrace.
He more or less proved that the South had suffered retrozip compared to the north. The idea that slavery was the retardant was paramount.
The book is maximally boring, but not without merit. I suspect the Republicans viewed it as a treatise on the failure of slavery and enthusiastically endorsed it.
Tommy; read it. Take it for what it says. It's not an inflamatory document. It's just another one of your spraying of quirks to try to resolve your mindset. Get real.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
