Confederate War Aims

[leftyhunter]

North didn't want Blacks Free or Slave. So how congenital of them advocating some rights to a population they had no Intention of living with? 99% Lilly White, and couldn't get along with all those. Catholics and Jews moved to the South for Protection.

Talk about the Cancel Culture. Colonization, forcing Blacks back onto the plantations, Banning Asians. Race War with Native Americans and recruiting Nordic Replacements for them. I don't recall Grant advocating any Rights for the Native Americans or Chinese.

Don't recall Grant advocating Free Love with any of these groups either? Maybe @unionblue or @leftyhunter can help us out?

Many African Americans did emigrate outside the South. Many states never had Miscegenation Laws at any time such has NY. Yes many years after the ACW there were laws that limited Asian Immigration with no protest from Southern politicans or civic groups. Yes Indians were removed by force as they were in the South. No Southeners had any problems with that policy in the Nineteenth Century. If we critize Grant for not supporting a repeal of the racist Miscegenation Laws then to be fair we must also critize all states that had them including California although California got rid of it's Miscegenation Laws well before the South did and on its own accord something we say about the South.
Leftyhunter

You and others will never accept your state's or section's racism or bigotry. Even try to blame the South for it. Northern California and Oregon were majority settled by Northerners. Most of this stuff happened in those areas.

Just a Moral escape mechanism to discuss this stuff. Look at what you did. Can't compare it to what we did. Deny the rest. Entertaining.

Southeners are not in a position to critize anyone in regards to how they treated Indians as they themselves happily used violence to clear Indian's from their land. I have already documented that in my thread " the Confedracy was not nicer to the Indians". It's not a moral escape mechanism to point out the truth that the Confedracy was a white racist ideology and that Southern whites violated the constitutional rights of Southeners of color and it wasn't Southern whites who reversed racially discriminatory practices.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

North didn't want Blacks Free or Slave. So how congenital of them advocating some rights to a population they had no Intention of living with? 99% Lilly White, and couldn't get along with all those. Catholics and Jews moved to the South for Protection.

Talk about the Cancel Culture. Colonization, forcing Blacks back onto the plantations, Banning Asians. Race War with Native Americans and recruiting Nordic Replacements for them. I don't recall Grant advocating any Rights for the Native Americans or Chinese.

Don't recall Grant advocating Free Love with any of these groups either? Maybe @unionblue or @leftyhunter can help us out?

Many African Americans did emigrate outside the South. Many states never had Miscegenation Laws at any time such has NY. Yes many years after the ACW there were laws that limited Asian Immigration with no protest from Southern politicans or civic groups. Yes Indians were removed by force as they were in the South. No Southeners had any problems with that policy in the Nineteenth Century. If we critize Grant for not supporting a repeal of the racist Miscegenation Laws then to be fair we must also critize all states that had them including California although California got rid of it's Miscegenation Laws well before the South did and on its own accord something we say about the South.
Leftyhunter

You and others will never accept your state's or section's racism or bigotry. Even try to blame the South for it. Northern California and Oregon were majority settled by Northerners. Most of this stuff happened in those areas.

Just a Moral escape mechanism to discuss this stuff. Look at what you did. Can't compare it to what we did. Deny the rest. Entertaining.

Southeners are not in a position to critize anyone in regards to how they treated Indians as they themselves happily used violence to clear Indian's from their land. I have already documented that in my thread " the Confedracy was not nicer to the Indians". It's not a moral escape mechanism to point out the truth that the Confedracy was a white racist ideology and that Southern whites violated the constitutional rights of Southeners of color and it wasn't Southern whites who reversed racially discriminatory practices.
Leftyhunter

I reckon my question to you would be did any whites other than those of southern origin have a problem with, blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Chinese, or other people of color?

Yes but not worse then Southeners. Yes there was some lynching in California but nothing compared to the South.
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

Many African Americans did emigrate outside the South. Many states never had Miscegenation Laws at any time such has NY. Yes many years after the ACW there were laws that limited Asian Immigration with no protest from Southern politicans or civic groups. Yes Indians were removed by force as they were in the South. No Southeners had any problems with that policy in the Nineteenth Century. If we critize Grant for not supporting a repeal of the racist Miscegenation Laws then to be fair we must also critize all states that had them including California although California got rid of it's Miscegenation Laws well before the South did and on its own accord something we say about the South.
Leftyhunter

Southeners are not in a position to critize anyone in regards to how they treated Indians as they themselves happily used violence to clear Indian's from their land. I have already documented that in my thread " the Confedracy was not nicer to the Indians". It's not a moral escape mechanism to point out the truth that the Confedracy was a white racist ideology and that Southern whites violated the constitutional rights of Southeners of color and it wasn't Southern whites who reversed racially discriminatory practices.
Leftyhunter

Yes but not worse then Southeners. Yes there was some lynching in California but nothing compared to the South.
Leftyhunter

Numbers matter, Californians certainly didn't refrain from the few they had.

 

[uaskme]

Sorry, I don't do fantasy.

What do you call it? U B Facts?

 

[uaskme]

Many African Americans did emigrate outside the South. Many states never had Miscegenation Laws at any time such has NY. Yes many years after the ACW there were laws that limited Asian Immigration with no protest from Southern politicans or civic groups. Yes Indians were removed by force as they were in the South. No Southeners had any problems with that policy in the Nineteenth Century. If we critize Grant for not supporting a repeal of the racist Miscegenation Laws then to be fair we must also critize all states that had them including California although California got rid of it's Miscegenation Laws well before the South did and on its own accord something we say about the South.
Leftyhunter

Southeners are not in a position to critize anyone in regards to how they treated Indians as they themselves happily used violence to clear Indian's from their land. I have already documented that in my thread " the Confedracy was not nicer to the Indians". It's not a moral escape mechanism to point out the truth that the Confedracy was a white racist ideology and that Southern whites violated the constitutional rights of Southeners of color and it wasn't Southern whites who reversed racially discriminatory practices.
Leftyhunter

Yes but not worse then Southeners. Yes there was some lynching in California but nothing compared to the South.
Leftyhunter

I read a lot of Yes and Yes buts. Some times we should just stop digging. Pit was pretty deep to begin with. LOL

 

[uaskme]

The "we" in your above post gives the idea you were there or are taking personally the events that took place over 150 years ago.

That's a bad place to be and your reply above to that observation tends to lead to the idea you enjoy staying there.

So be it, you want to take history personal and are tired of it being disputed with the version you are comfortable with.

"Spew" doesn't even come close to what you have decided is worth discussing about on this forum,.

All about "we"?

What about "is" and "them"? Another thread I guess?

 

[unionblue]

What do you call it? U B Facts?

All about "we"?

What about "is" and "them"? Another thread I guess?

What I call it is anger.

 

[uaskme]

What I call it is anger.

Education is answer for Anger and Fantasy.

Study these Issues and they might not be so Foreign to you?

 

[unionblue]

Education is answer for Anger and Fantasy.

Study these Issues and they might not be so Foreign to you?

I have studied these and other issues and they are in no way foreign to me.

These issues have been long ago decided over a failed rebellion that attempted to keep human bondage.

Believe me when I say, my education on those issues were never considered foreign to me, just the sad realization that some of my ancestors considered freedom and equality so foreign to them.

 

[Piedone]

I deem it quite impossible that anyone today could deem upkeeping of human bondage acceptable or positive.

But members of a certain class in the South who were shaped by their environment and family had obviously (and understandably) a completely different look on that - especially as they knew (or at least inkled) what the end of slavery would mean for the economy of the South (the effects are clearly visible now when looking at the long time poverty of the South since the war... ).

I´d ask what WE would have done or thought when walking in THEIR shoes...
Was there any possibility to abolition slavery in the South without damaging her economy (nearly) beyond repair?

Especially I am curious if anybody in (or before) 1860 developed an idea how this could be achieved.
I mean...the problem that slavery could not be upheld was pretty obvious then...
Wasn´t there anyone who thought about a solution how to manage such a transition???

 

[atlantis]

I deem it quite impossible that anyone today could deem upkeeping of human bondage acceptable or positive.

But members of a certain class in the South who were shaped by their environment and family had obviously (and understandably) a completely different look on that - especially as they knew (or at least inkled) what the end of slavery would mean for the economy of the South (the effects are clearly visible now when looking at the long time poverty of the South since the war... ).

I´d ask what WE would have done or thought when walking in THEIR shoes...
Was there any possibility to abolition slavery in the South without damaging her economy (nearly) beyond repair?

Especially I am curious if anybody in (or before) 1860 developed an idea how this could be achieved.
I mean...the problem that slavery could not be upheld was pretty obvious then...
Wasn´t there anyone who thought about a solution how to manage such a transition???

A good question and the answer is only by limiting land ownership to 500 acres of land.

 

[Joshua Cude]

I have always been under the impression that the south did not want to appear to be strictly a "military state". Establishing relationships with other countries would be easier if the south could separate from the north in a more peaceful way than crushing them. At the outset of the Maryland Campaign, Lee, in communications to President Davis, requested that a peace proposal be prepared and sent to Washington. This was an interesting idea. For one, Lee felt it would give the south even more stately credence with England and France, who had been friendly to the south, but not willing to "ally" with the south. It would show that while Lee's army was moving into Maryland and in striking distance of Washington, Richmond was still seeking a peaceful avenue, provided that the south remain separated. Also, Lincoln had never recognized the south as a separate nation, he took the stance that the people of the south were in rebellion. With an army at his door, and a peace proposal on his desk, Lincoln may agree to talk terms with the south. If he did that, it was as good as admitting the South was a separate nation. Lee had never planned attacking Washington in the Maryland campaign, but no one outside of the army's top brass, and the Confederate government would know that. Many countries (including the United States) necessarily began in war. But Conquering the U.S. was never the objective of the south.

 

[edfranksphd]

At the time we didn't even have a concept of citizenship. Nobody was a US citizen per se, they were either native born or not. and being native born or not had nothing to do with whether you could vote, in many cases. Late in the war many Northern Democrats still fought, but as a percent of the able bodied population, that % was likely very low, which is why, by Jan 65, the million man Yankee army was about only 40% native born whites, with another 20% germans off the boat and into uniforms, 20% irish off the boat and into uniforms, and the rest blacks, freeborn and contraband. Northern Whites had long since volunteering for the slaughter, esp after the Overland Campaign.

Sorry for typo in last sentence. Should have said, "Northern Whites had long since STOPPED volunteering for the slaughter, esp after the Overland Campaign."

 

[edfranksphd]

This is incorrect. As early as 1795 the SCOTUS ruled on a citizenship case. The August 22, 1795 case of Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 was basically about a Virginia citizen, William Talbot, who renounced his state citizenship but not his U.S. citizenship, became a citizen of France who in turn acting under the authority of the French Republic, captured a Dutch vessel off of Savannah, Georgia and brought it in to an American port for adjudication in a prize court. Justice William Paterson wrote the majority opinion and ruled that just because he renounced his Virginia citizenship and became a citizen of another country, he still was a citizen of the United States and owed loyalty to this country and that in effect he was an American citizen that had captured a ship that was not an enemy to the United States.

Not clear on how this shows my claim to be incorrect. My point was that there was no criteria for US citizenship, per se, esp when it came to voting. In 1795, what were the criteria for US citizenship? The court doesn't say. It only says, it seems, that this native born guy was still a US citizen, I guess b/c he was native born? Was there a law ever passed by Congress before the end of the Civil War that stipulated the criteria for US citizenship. I don't think so. Can you send me a link for this case? Thank you.

 

[edfranksphd]

An interesting factoid.

Sorry for typo in my last sentence. I gather u saw that I meant that Northern Dems had long since QUIT volunteering for the war, esp after Grant's fiasco of the Overland Campaign, which convince Lincoln his goose was cooked for re-election in Nov, despite whatever schemes Stanton had up his sleeve (and he had many).

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Not clear on how this shows my claim to be incorrect. My point was that there was no criteria for US citizenship, per se, esp when it came to voting. In 1795, what were the criteria for US citizenship? The court doesn't say. It only says, it seems, that this native born guy was still a US citizen, I guess b/c he was native born? Was there a law ever passed by Congress before the end of the Civil War that stipulated the criteria for US citizenship. I don't think so. Can you send me a link for this case? Thank you.

It shows that your comment that I responded to, which had nothing to do with voting, is incorrect. I responded to your comment that "[a]t the time we didn't even have a concept of citizenship. Nobody was a US citizen per se, they were either native born or not." The 1795 SCOTUS case of Talbot v. Janson clearly shows that was not true.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Can you send me a link for this case? Thank you.

Talbot v. Janson

Talbot v. Janson

www.law.cornell.edu

You're welcome.

 

[edfranksphd]

It shows that your comment that I responded to, which had nothing to do with voting, is incorrect. I responded to your comment that "[a]t the time we didn't even have a concept of citizenship. Nobody was a US citizen per se, they were either native born or not." The 1795 SCOTUS case of Talbot v. Janson clearly shows that was not true.

I disagree. The 1795 ruling only showed that this person was considered to be a US citizen, but w/o specifying any criteria, and it certainly doesn't require, based on this finding, that all residents in the US were clear on the definition of who was and who was not a citizen. I citizen even found in the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights? I'm not sure, but I don't think so, b/c it wasn't an issue until "non-desirables" became prospective voters and/or residents (Blacks, Asians, Indians, etc). Again, a citation would be appreciated.

 

[edfranksphd]

Talbot v. Janson

Talbot v. Janson

www.law.cornell.edu

You're welcome.

Oh, sorry, the citation was posted for me just above your first response, so I missed it. Sorry to miss it. I'll check it out. Thank you. And "thanks" for the advice on how to improve my character/wisdom or whatever the point was. I didn't realize I was demonstrating an unwillingness to consider new, definitive, information, which you've yet to provide, imho. I'm sure we can all stand to improve in this arena. As far as being willing to change my mind, which alludes no doubt to whether I have an open mind, let alone wisdom, I'm feeling pretty smug lately that I qualify, since I decided, after more than 40 yrs as a GOP'er, to flee the DEMS (which makes me likely the most conservative Dem in history), after being appalled by the entire presidency of Trump, and his campaign prior to that. So, given that such a conversion from GOP to DEM is about as rare as converting from an atheist to a card-carrying Jesus freak, I'd say I get the prize for "wisdom." I have no agenda other than to tear down the incessant barrage of tropes that afflict the study of history. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do have most of them!? I am, btw, the most humble person I know. Over and out.

 

[edfranksphd]

Talbot v. Janson

Talbot v. Janson

www.law.cornell.edu

You're welcome.

OMG, I can guarantee that I'm not going to read all 27 pages of this "finding" as it would kill me. I'm busy trudging thru 400 yr old docs of dense Reformed Theology so I will confess up front the best I can do is to zoom thru the syllabus. I don't even remember at this point what the argument is about, but I presume it will come back to me. In the meantime, is "citizen" mentioned in the Constitution + Bill of Rights, let alone defined? I shall return, wiser...