SpeakFreeForum Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
SpeakFreeForum > General Topics > History > Lincoln "unfreed" Slaves.....in Kentucky?

 Moderated by: Bilgerat Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Lincoln "unfreed" Slaves.....in Kentucky?  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Jul 5th, 2017 23:11
  PM Quote Reply
61st Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: Star of the North was fired upon by Carolina Militia long before Fort Sumter was fired upon, so your declaration that the firing upon Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war is fallacious, at best.  And to say that the Fort was not a threat, and supplying the Fort was not a threat, is also a fallacious argument, at best.Firing upon the Star of the North and turning it away was an excellent tactical move on the part of the Carolina Militia, by the way...Actually, that should be Star of the West...That ship was a civilian ship, leased by the government, not a US naval ship. The cadet from the Citadel who fire upon her barely nicked her but it was enough to convince her Captain to forego the mission.  It was the firing upon the fort and the taking of prisoners that was the match that set the fire. Nothing fallacious, just fact.  As for the Fort and resupplying, totally within their rights and yes, non threatening, except to those itching for a war.Yes, Cadets from the Citadel.

"Star of the West was an American civilian steamship, launched in 1852 and scuttled by Confederate forces in 1863. In January 1861, she was hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter, but was fired on by cadets from The Citadel, in what were effectively the first shots fired in the American Civil War."

article


Lincoln signed a declaration of war against the South.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 00:05
  PM Quote Reply
62nd Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: Star of the North was fired upon by Carolina Militia long before Fort Sumter was fired upon, so your declaration that the firing upon Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war is fallacious, at best.  And to say that the Fort was not a threat, and supplying the Fort was not a threat, is also a fallacious argument, at best.Firing upon the Star of the North and turning it away was an excellent tactical move on the part of the Carolina Militia, by the way...Actually, that should be Star of the West...That ship was a civilian ship, leased by the government, not a US naval ship. The cadet from the Citadel who fire upon her barely nicked her but it was enough to convince her Captain to forego the mission.  It was the firing upon the fort and the taking of prisoners that was the match that set the fire. Nothing fallacious, just fact.  As for the Fort and resupplying, totally within their rights and yes, non threatening, except to those itching for a war.Yes, Cadets from the Citadel.

"Star of the West was an American civilian steamship, launched in 1852 and scuttled by Confederate forces in 1863. In January 1861, she was hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter, but was fired on by cadets from The Citadel, in what were effectively the first shots fired in the American Civil War."

article


Lincoln signed a declaration of war against the South.

A. That is FALSE. You cannot find that statement anywhere in that piece.
B. "Effectively"? Not in reality as 3 months passed without further incident.
C. BOTH incidents (January, then April) prove SOUTHERN AGGRESSION.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 01:34
  PM Quote Reply
63rd Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: Star of the North was fired upon by Carolina Militia long before Fort Sumter was fired upon, so your declaration that the firing upon Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war is fallacious, at best.  And to say that the Fort was not a threat, and supplying the Fort was not a threat, is also a fallacious argument, at best.Firing upon the Star of the North and turning it away was an excellent tactical move on the part of the Carolina Militia, by the way...Actually, that should be Star of the West...That ship was a civilian ship, leased by the government, not a US naval ship. The cadet from the Citadel who fire upon her barely nicked her but it was enough to convince her Captain to forego the mission.  It was the firing upon the fort and the taking of prisoners that was the match that set the fire. Nothing fallacious, just fact.  As for the Fort and resupplying, totally within their rights and yes, non threatening, except to those itching for a war.Yes, Cadets from the Citadel.

"Star of the West was an American civilian steamship, launched in 1852 and scuttled by Confederate forces in 1863. In January 1861, she was hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter, but was fired on by cadets from The Citadel, in what were effectively the first shots fired in the American Civil War."

article


Lincoln signed a declaration of war against the South.

A. That is FALSE. You cannot find that statement anywhere in that piece.
B. "Effectively"? Not in reality as 3 months passed without further incident.
C. BOTH incidents (January, then April) prove SOUTHERN AGGRESSION.
 Almost forgot...thanks for FINALLY admitting that the South was the aggressor.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 04:03
  PM Quote Reply
64th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: Star of the North was fired upon by Carolina Militia long before Fort Sumter was fired upon, so your declaration that the firing upon Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war is fallacious, at best.  And to say that the Fort was not a threat, and supplying the Fort was not a threat, is also a fallacious argument, at best.Firing upon the Star of the North and turning it away was an excellent tactical move on the part of the Carolina Militia, by the way...Actually, that should be Star of the West...That ship was a civilian ship, leased by the government, not a US naval ship. The cadet from the Citadel who fire upon her barely nicked her but it was enough to convince her Captain to forego the mission.  It was the firing upon the fort and the taking of prisoners that was the match that set the fire. Nothing fallacious, just fact.  As for the Fort and resupplying, totally within their rights and yes, non threatening, except to those itching for a war.Yes, Cadets from the Citadel.

"Star of the West was an American civilian steamship, launched in 1852 and scuttled by Confederate forces in 1863. In January 1861, she was hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter, but was fired on by cadets from The Citadel, in what were effectively the first shots fired in the American Civil War."

article


Lincoln signed a declaration of war against the South.

A. That is FALSE. You cannot find that statement anywhere in that piece.
B. "Effectively"? Not in reality as 3 months passed without further incident.
C. BOTH incidents (January, then April) prove SOUTHERN AGGRESSION.
 Almost forgot...thanks for FINALLY admitting that the South was the aggressor.
Only in your wildest hallucinations!

"The April 27, 1861 edition of Harper's Weekly features a biography and picture of President Abraham Lincoln, and an incredible description of Mr. Lincoln's declaration of war on the south."

article

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 05:34
  PM Quote Reply
65th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Neo wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: Star of the North was fired upon by Carolina Militia long before Fort Sumter was fired upon, so your declaration that the firing upon Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war is fallacious, at best.  And to say that the Fort was not a threat, and supplying the Fort was not a threat, is also a fallacious argument, at best.Firing upon the Star of the North and turning it away was an excellent tactical move on the part of the Carolina Militia, by the way...Actually, that should be Star of the West...That ship was a civilian ship, leased by the government, not a US naval ship. The cadet from the Citadel who fire upon her barely nicked her but it was enough to convince her Captain to forego the mission.  It was the firing upon the fort and the taking of prisoners that was the match that set the fire. Nothing fallacious, just fact.  As for the Fort and resupplying, totally within their rights and yes, non threatening, except to those itching for a war.Yes, Cadets from the Citadel.

"Star of the West was an American civilian steamship, launched in 1852 and scuttled by Confederate forces in 1863. In January 1861, she was hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter, but was fired on by cadets from The Citadel, in what were effectively the first shots fired in the American Civil War."

article


Lincoln signed a declaration of war against the South.

A. That is FALSE. You cannot find that statement anywhere in that piece.
B. "Effectively"? Not in reality as 3 months passed without further incident.
C. BOTH incidents (January, then April) prove SOUTHERN AGGRESSION.
 Almost forgot...thanks for FINALLY admitting that the South was the aggressor.
Only in your wildest hallucinations!

"The April 27, 1861 edition of Harper's Weekly features a biography and picture of President Abraham Lincoln, and an incredible description of Mr. Lincoln's declaration of war on the south."

article

You stated he declared war after the January 5 incident, which he did not as he wasn't sworn in yet.
After the attack on Sumter, he had no other option.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 08:24
  PM Quote Reply
66th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: indago wrote: Star of the North was fired upon by Carolina Militia long before Fort Sumter was fired upon, so your declaration that the firing upon Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war is fallacious, at best.  And to say that the Fort was not a threat, and supplying the Fort was not a threat, is also a fallacious argument, at best.Firing upon the Star of the North and turning it away was an excellent tactical move on the part of the Carolina Militia, by the way...Actually, that should be Star of the West...That ship was a civilian ship, leased by the government, not a US naval ship. The cadet from the Citadel who fire upon her barely nicked her but it was enough to convince her Captain to forego the mission.  It was the firing upon the fort and the taking of prisoners that was the match that set the fire. Nothing fallacious, just fact.  As for the Fort and resupplying, totally within their rights and yes, non threatening, except to those itching for a war.Yes, Cadets from the Citadel.

"Star of the West was an American civilian steamship, launched in 1852 and scuttled by Confederate forces in 1863. In January 1861, she was hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter, but was fired on by cadets from The Citadel, in what were effectively the first shots fired in the American Civil War."

article


Lincoln signed a declaration of war against the South.

A. That is FALSE. You cannot find that statement anywhere in that piece.
B. "Effectively"? Not in reality as 3 months passed without further incident.
C. BOTH incidents (January, then April) prove SOUTHERN AGGRESSION.
 Almost forgot...thanks for FINALLY admitting that the South was the aggressor.
Only in your wildest hallucinations!

"The April 27, 1861 edition of Harper's Weekly features a biography and picture of President Abraham Lincoln, and an incredible description of Mr. Lincoln's declaration of war on the south."

article

You stated he declared war after the January 5 incident, which he did not as he wasn't sworn in yet.
After the attack on Sumter, he had no other option.
"You stated he declared war after the January 5 incident..."

I related two separate incidents, both of which are facts.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 08:35
  PM Quote Reply
67th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2017 21:51
  PM Quote Reply
68th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2017 08:45
  PM Quote Reply
69th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2017 22:58
  PM Quote Reply
70th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.


Article 4 guarantees a Republican form of government and protection from invasion.  They had representation in the Congress and nobody had invaded.
The Fugitive Slave Act of  1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 sufficiently addressed their concerns of having their runaway slaves returned.
Again, cite the violations and the part of the Constitution allowing for secession.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jul 8th, 2017 03:51
  PM Quote Reply
71st Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.


Article 4 guarantees a Republican form of government and protection from invasion.  They had representation in the Congress and nobody had invaded.
The Fugitive Slave Act of  1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 sufficiently addressed their concerns of having their runaway slaves returned.
Again, cite the violations and the part of the Constitution allowing for secession.
"The actions of the northern states nullifying the law, ignoring the law, and engaging in civil disobedience directly disobeying the law rendered the Fugitive Slave Laws ineffective."

source


The Constitutional requirement of Article Four of the Constitution being ignored, the South saw no reason to recognize the Constitution as a binding agreement, and, therefore, removed themselves from it.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2017 19:24
  PM Quote Reply
72nd Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.


Article 4 guarantees a Republican form of government and protection from invasion.  They had representation in the Congress and nobody had invaded.
The Fugitive Slave Act of  1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 sufficiently addressed their concerns of having their runaway slaves returned.
Again, cite the violations and the part of the Constitution allowing for secession.
"The actions of the northern states nullifying the law, ignoring the law, and engaging in civil disobedience directly disobeying the law rendered the Fugitive Slave Laws ineffective."

source


The Constitutional requirement of Article Four of the Constitution being ignored, the South saw no reason to recognize the Constitution as a binding agreement, and, therefore, removed themselves from it.

It also states that abolitionists were arrested for aiding runaways and that Federal troops protected slave catchers. This indicates that the Feds were not ignoring the law. Any port in a storm, right? 
They left the Union illegally.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2017 21:00
  PM Quote Reply
73rd Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.


Article 4 guarantees a Republican form of government and protection from invasion.  They had representation in the Congress and nobody had invaded.
The Fugitive Slave Act of  1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 sufficiently addressed their concerns of having their runaway slaves returned.
Again, cite the violations and the part of the Constitution allowing for secession.
"The actions of the northern states nullifying the law, ignoring the law, and engaging in civil disobedience directly disobeying the law rendered the Fugitive Slave Laws ineffective."

source


The Constitutional requirement of Article Four of the Constitution being ignored, the South saw no reason to recognize the Constitution as a binding agreement, and, therefore, removed themselves from it.

It also states that abolitionists were arrested for aiding runaways and that Federal troops protected slave catchers. This indicates that the Feds were not ignoring the law. Any port in a storm, right? 
They left the Union illegally.
Are you in denial, then, that the Constitutional requirements and laws were being ignored?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2017 22:30
  PM Quote Reply
74th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.


Article 4 guarantees a Republican form of government and protection from invasion.  They had representation in the Congress and nobody had invaded.
The Fugitive Slave Act of  1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 sufficiently addressed their concerns of having their runaway slaves returned.
Again, cite the violations and the part of the Constitution allowing for secession.
"The actions of the northern states nullifying the law, ignoring the law, and engaging in civil disobedience directly disobeying the law rendered the Fugitive Slave Laws ineffective."

source


The Constitutional requirement of Article Four of the Constitution being ignored, the South saw no reason to recognize the Constitution as a binding agreement, and, therefore, removed themselves from it.

It also states that abolitionists were arrested for aiding runaways and that Federal troops protected slave catchers. This indicates that the Feds were not ignoring the law. Any port in a storm, right? 
They left the Union illegally.
Are you in denial, then, that the Constitutional requirements and laws were being ignored?

You're the one who provided the source that clearly states what I posted directly above. It seems more than obvious that attempts were made to enforce the laws, individual citizens were the violators, not the Federal government.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2017 04:24
  PM Quote Reply
75th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: The North, being in continued violation of the Compact, South Carolina withdrew from the Compact in December 1860, as was their right.  The North continued intervention into the South, therefore, being the aggressor.
Name these so called violations, as well as the "continued violations"?
Also, the Constitution was not a "compact". It was a blueprint of governance of a united Republic and there were no provisions for succession, period. They had no right based on law.  If so, cite the legal mechanism that allowed it lawfully.
I submit that you cannot as no such mechanism existed then or now.
South Carolina cited Article Four of the Constitution, having been violated by Northern interests, that they no longer had an obligation to paricipate in the Union of States, and, therefore, seceded from this Union.

“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

The claim was that persons "held to service or labor" in Southern States were encouraged to migrate North by the Northern interests, in violation of the Constitution, and the new government would only increase these violations, as they had indicated they would do.


Article 4 guarantees a Republican form of government and protection from invasion.  They had representation in the Congress and nobody had invaded.
The Fugitive Slave Act of  1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 sufficiently addressed their concerns of having their runaway slaves returned.
Again, cite the violations and the part of the Constitution allowing for secession.
"The actions of the northern states nullifying the law, ignoring the law, and engaging in civil disobedience directly disobeying the law rendered the Fugitive Slave Laws ineffective."

source


The Constitutional requirement of Article Four of the Constitution being ignored, the South saw no reason to recognize the Constitution as a binding agreement, and, therefore, removed themselves from it.

It also states that abolitionists were arrested for aiding runaways and that Federal troops protected slave catchers. This indicates that the Feds were not ignoring the law. Any port in a storm, right? 
They left the Union illegally.
Are you in denial, then, that the Constitutional requirements and laws were being ignored?

You're the one who provided the source that clearly states what I posted directly above. It seems more than obvious that attempts were made to enforce the laws, individual citizens were the violators, not the Federal government.
Northern States, acting on their own, passed Personal Liberty Laws, refusing to participate in upholding the Fugitive Slave Acts, and the Constitutional requirements, regardless federal invocations to the contrary.  This being the case, Carolina, then, acting on its own, absolved itself from the compact with other states.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 18:55 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4     
SpeakFreeForum > General Topics > History > Lincoln "unfreed" Slaves.....in Kentucky? Top



Lead Theme By: Di @ UltraBB
UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2322 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 37 queries executed.