|View single post by calcav|
|Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 04:10 pm||
|I rarely respond but I just felt compelled to add my two cents.I apologize for the length of my response.
They want you to believe the Negros had it far better then slavery. While slavery was wrong and had to be eleminated former slaves never had it a good as the Northern history would have you think. – Even if the post-war conditions were not as rosy as some would have us believe, they were infinitely better than being in bondage.To even consider that someone’s life was better off as a slave is ludicrous. There is a plethora of written and oral histories left by former slaves. I have yet to find a single instance where an ex-slave longed for the good old days of bondage. I believe they were the only ones with the true prospective on this matter.
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus despite a ruling from Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that he did it illegally. – Article 1, Section 9.2 of the Constitution states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in the cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It is quite clear that the Constitution provides for the suspension despite what the pro-southern Taney stated. The times were desperate and called for desperate measures, which was why President Jefferson Davis also suspended the writ of habeas corpus when he felt it necessary.
John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law. Despite Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807), the Constitution does not say if this suspension is under the authority of the Executive, Legislative or the Judicial. As for President Lincoln ignoring the law then I guess President Davis is also so guilty.
The Great Emancipator never freed any slaves, the greatest of Yankee myths. It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. I do believe Lincoln was dead by that time. – I would venture to say that the Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for the freedom of millions. Wherever there was a Union presence in the southern states there were runaway slaves that flocked to their lines. Contraband camps, Freedman’s camps, whichever name you prefer, sprung up around the Confederacy and the moment these runaways entered the protection of the amry these people were free. Yes, Lincoln was dead when the 13th Amendment passed, brutally murdered in the most cowardly act performed in the name of the Confederacy.
Slavery as the main issue of the South cause of the war is another issue. The South clearly fought over states rights. – I prefer to let the states speak for themselves. The following is an excerpt from the Declaration of Secession from the State of Mississippi. I can’t find the words “States Rights” anywhere in the entire document; "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Lincoln did not care if the Union was all with or without slavery as long as the Union remained intact. I most heartily agree. The question of slavery in the country becomes moot if there is no longer a country. A conclusion that John Adams and Benjamin Franklin accepted when South Carolina threatened to vote against the resolution on Independence because of slavery. But this is not to say that Lincoln did not have deep feelings about slavery. A reading of his speeches and writings reveal what the man really thought.
The North would like to think they were the saviors of the slaves when in reality they had slaves, their military commander at Appomattox General Grant own three slave at the time, while the Confederate commander had none. Grant owned a single slave in his lifetime, a man named William Jones who was freed, not sold, in 1859 when Grant was still in financial trouble. The point can be argued about Julia’s slaves and that Lee did not free his until 1862. What is the point? These leaders that some go to such great lengths to demonize or canonize were just men, no more, no less. They were not demi-gods sitting on the right hand of the throne but merely men struggling under conditions we cannot possibly fathom.
I have always been amazed with the claim that the Northerners wrote the history of the war and the country has suffered under 140 years of lies and myths. Never in the history of the mankind or warfare has a conquered foe been given such a voice on the world stage. Every Confederate who chose to publish his version of events, his memoirs, diaries, letters, etc. had an eager audience, from both north and south. There are literally tens of thousands of books written from and about the southern prospective, not to mention the endless articles in Confederate Veteran, The Southern Historical Society Papers, Southern Bivouac, Battles and Leaders, etc. Despite this mountain of information coming up from the south there have always been, and always will, those that claim the south has been muzzled. We hear what we choose to hear.
The truth is out there but can only be found by one with an open mind and an open heart and a desire to learn what really happened.