Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery

[exnihilo]

Harper’s Ferry eventually became part of West Virginia - which was the territory represented by the delegates at the Virginia Convention who refused to vote to secede.

Ah yes, West Virginia. According to the Constitution Article IV Section 3

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

That would seem to have been unconstitutional.

 

[bellasbane]

My mother managed all that in the late 40s and early 50s and raised 5 kids to boot

Good for her! My mother was a member of the International Ladies Garment Worker’s Union. She worked hard, but if it weren’t for Union and Social Security, we wouldn’t have made it when my dad died leaving her on her own to take care of three little kids.

P.S. I applaud your unwavering defense of life and intolerance of racism. Bravo!

 

[exnihilo]

Corrected: Schools in SOUTH Boston were brought under the bussing program. THey were not segregated, blacks just didn’t live in SOUTH Boston.

In case you didn’t know South Boston is very different than the rest of the Boston area. I worked there- I should know. The only racist comments I ever heard while living in Boston were in South Boston.

That changes nothing material. I guess South anywhere is racist and North anywhere is pure and holy is your point?

I’m sorry you have strong feelings about reconstruction. I’m sorry it wasn’t carried on further. I guess it’s too bad that slave masters property was taken eh. Too bad that SLAVES were given land eh?

Not a moral high road to spend years selling slaves to people and then get high and mighty about them owning those same slaves. Also not very impressive to constantly mock a region as being poor and stupid when your army burned towns and looted wealth.

Oh, I’ve met plenty of folks with your opinions down here in NC. My Mother in Law is one of them, flying their little flags of days gone by. . . . .

I’m just thankful my family will be moving to New York STate in a month, getting away from this drivel. You and those with your views are holding the South back. It is changing though- I hope my daughter never has to hear any of this when she grows up.

The South is being held back? In what way? I’m pretty sure most studies show the decay of the North and the exodus from it while the South is growing and prospering.

 

[exnihilo]

South Carolina ceded all right and title to the land Ft. Sumpter was build on to the Federal Government in 1837.

They had no legal or moral right to attempt to lay claim to it.

That is ridiculous. If you withdraw from a confederation you most certainly could reclaim property given to that confederation. And you most certainly would if that property was a fort that controlled access to a main harbor.

Yes, the US has Gitmo but what is Cuba going to do about that? There is no way the modern US would actually allow any other country to have a fort controlling a port city of their territory.

 

[bellasbane]

I’m not changing history it would seem you are redefining aggressive. It most certainly would be aggressive to attack a foreign country. It would be defensive to attack a foreign army who has occupied your territory and refuses to vacate. The issue hinges on whether the states were sovereign and whether the Declaration of Independence has any value in American government.

According to the Militia Act of 1795, Lincoln was within his rights to call upon the militia to recapture Federal property that had been seized by rebel forces. The Baltimore Riot of April 19th was an unprovoked attack upon the 6th Massachusetts Regiment who were passing through Baltimore on their way to Washington in response to Lincoln’s April 15th proclamation. It’s organizers hoped the conflict would drive Maryland out of the Union. So it was an attack by Southern rebels on Union troops in Union territory. I’d say the South struck the first (Fort Sumter), second (Harper’s Ferry) and third blow (Baltimore Riot) before the Union even had a chance to respond.

 

[bellasbane]

Ah yes, West Virginia. According to the Constitution Article IV Section 3

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The only valid part of the Virginia legislature that remained after all the other delegates became rebels did give their consent, so the creation of West Virginia was perfectly constitutional.

 

[gilliam]

Yes, remember what we know as the Confederate States of America officially did not exist as far as the US Constitution is concerned. That is why it is called a rebellion.

By the way the slavery clause has been removed from the marriage pact she signed.

 

[bbarrick8383]

But 40 million aborted is not enough of a cause to justify a state in seceding to end it, right?

Interesting to note that Lincoln didn’t want to go to war over slavery. He thought the idea of secession was worse than the idea of slavery.

Southern soldiers died over secession, not slavery.

Slavery was in many, many ways just like abortion. How many times do we here “Christians” say, “Well, I would never do it, but I wouldn’t tell someone else they can not do it.”

Am I not mistaken, that had the South not attempted secession, there never would have been a war?

So, abortions only worth a war if a state tried to secede to protect their right to abortion? Using that same logic, slavery was only worth a war because the states tried to leave the union.

We are so far gone from the mentality of those days that I don’t think many people(regardless of color) realize the huge difference in thinking from then and now. Where is all the talk of northern slavery? Did some of those who fought in the civil war against the south not own slaves at one time as well? We hear all the horrors of southern slavery, but none from the north. How many textbooks in the north talk about Sam Houston’s slaves taking his name once they were free?

One question I have for people. How much longer would the north have kept slavery alive and well had they not needed them to fight the British?

 

[gilliam]

Interesting to note that Lincoln didn’t want to go to war over slavery. He thought the idea of secession was worse than the idea of slavery.

Lincoln felt his duty as president was to honor the oath he took to defend the Constitution. That answered the slavery question since the law of the land and the Constitution at the time allowed slavery in some states. The law did not allow for succession. That is why he felt he had the power to send the US Army after the rebels.

He felt, and he was correct, that he did not have the constitutional power to unilaterally declare an end to slavery. His job, as he saw it, was to defend the constitution and keep the country together.

However, there is no real doubt that Lincoln and the Repubican Party were anti-slavery. The south definitely thought so and that is one reason they rebelled right after Lincoln was elected president.

One question I have for people. How much longer would the north have kept slavery alive and well had they not needed them to fight the British?

The north had a different type of economy, one that did not yield well to slavery. The north had industry that required a semi-literate work force.

The reason why slavery lasted so long in the US south is because plantations required menial labor utilizing many hands to accomplish the planting and harvesting of vast quantities of cotton and tobacco and that fit well with chattel slavery.

So to answer your question: there was no real motivation to continue slavery in the north.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t know what men’s underwear has to do with any of this, but I must disagree with this part of your post.

This has everything to do with the declaration of the OP actually.

The welfare state had to ensure eligibility of the single mother to receive her benefits when it was first set up. That meant that she ought not be married or otherwise the couple would be gaming the system. So there would be stories of the welfare workers going through the drawers making sure that their wasn’t a guy living off her dole on the sly.

Ergo, two parent family didn’t really pay in the social welfare system that always thinks in terms of rationalizing costs. The woman could get higher pay for another baby, but having a man around and she was no longer eligible.

If it weren’t for the woman’s right movement and progressive policies that characterized the 70s, there is no way I would have ever made it to college. Instead I can proudly put the letters Ph.D. after my name. This is only because I was fortunate to grow up before big money Republicans managed to undermine the progressive movement and destroy the economy as well.

Well that was a fairly partisan statement.
But that is understandable. With all the advanced degrees how could you even have a different point of view than the leftist one? via

The women’s movement freed women from men and babies too via advocating abortion and making the point that actually needing a man was a sign of weakness. That has always .been the main Catholic criticism of the movement here.

Progressive policies work. The problem with this country are people who follow the “Gospel of Ayn Rand” rather than the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”. I hear her arguments in your post and in those of so many others on this forum. I know where those talking points come from.

Well, looking strictly at the numbers, black families at the eve of the civil rights, two parent families were the norm. Now they are nowhere near that. Restricting eligilbility in the years of Clinton and a Republican congress had the effect of actually improving the economic condition of many formerly poor. Having to find work actually allowed some people to get ahead.

 

[Darryl1958]

Here’s a good example of what I mean: blogs.forbes.com/objectivist/2011/07/12/whats-missing-from-the-budget-debate/ - Apparently, compassion is a weakness.

equality

Ayn Rand was an atheist who manage to escape the economic oppression of the Soviet system. Whether or not her philosophy is an example of an overcompensation against the utter stupidity and inhuman cruelty of a system based on equality, she has very followlers from the Christian or Catholic right. Her following is almost exclusively atheists from the secular right.

The conservative right in general emphasizes private charity as more an example of Christian charity than passing the buck off to government to do it for us. The numbers will show that American conservatives are in general bigger givers to charity than liberal are, who generally regard taxes as their charity.

Compassion on the right emphasizes it is better for people to eat more from a bigger pie, rather than for everybody to be equally hungry eating from the smaller one that results from leftist policies,

 

[Brendan]

When South Carolina declared its separation from the United States, all contracts with the federal government are considered null and void. That land went back to ownership of the state.

This wasn’t a contract, it was a transfer of title to the property.

Any right to the land that S.C. had, it transfered to the Federal Government. This wasn’t a ‘contract’ between two legal persons, it was legislation passed by a Soverign entity (the State of S.C) transfering title to land. Go back and read the legislation that I posted.

To take your point to it’s logical conclusion, you would have to claim that if Massachusetts seperated from the Unitied States, that it would have legal claim to all of Maine ( which was once’s it’s territory that it ceded to the Federal Government.)

Is that what you are trying to claim?

Or, if you prefer to view it in contractual terms, if I sold someone a house and granted them title to it, and then I left the US, would I still be able to claim ownership of the house?

 

[Brendan]

That is ridiculous. If you withdraw from a confederation you most certainly could reclaim property given to that confederation.

No, go back and read what S.C. gave to the Federal Government ( all right and title).

[qiuote]
And you most certainly would if that property was a fort that controlled access to a main

Yes, the US has Gitmo but what is Cuba going to do about that? There is no way the modern US would actually allow any other country to have a fort controlling a port city of their territory.

If it gave that property away, then us it would, either that or attack the fort. But the attack would be a direct attack on a legitimately controlled military installation.

The South, in attacking Ft. Sumpter, was an attack on US property on US soil.

 

[exnihilo]

According to the Militia Act of 1795, Lincoln was within his rights to call upon the militia to recapture Federal property that had been seized by rebel forces. The Baltimore Riot of April 19th was an unprovoked attack upon the 6th Massachusetts Regiment who were passing through Baltimore on their way to Washington in response to Lincoln’s April 15th proclamation. It’s organizers hoped the conflict would drive Maryland out of the Union. So it was an attack by Southern rebels on Union troops in Union territory. I’d say the South struck the first (Fort Sumter), second (Harper’s Ferry) and third blow (Baltimore Riot) before the Union even had a chance to respond.

So the seceded states are responsible for the actions of people outside of them? Is this based on a theory that if you hold the same ideals then you are responsible for the actions of anyone who holds those same ideals? That would be a very dangerous theory to hold to.

SC seceded in December. These acts were 4 months later. How long was SC supposed to allow a foreign army to occupy a fort controlling access to a vital harbor?

 

[exnihilo]

The only valid part of the Virginia legislature that remained after all the other delegates became rebels did give their consent, so the creation of West Virginia was perfectly constitutional.

And just what made the rest of Virginia invalid? Voting to leave a confederation you voted to join would in no way invalidate a government. In fact they never brought treason charges against confederates because everyone knew what they did was not treason since, according to the Declaration of Independence, a people have the right to reform government.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes, remember what we know as the Confederate States of America officially did not exist as far as the US Constitution is concerned. That is why it is called a rebellion.

There was nothing in the US Constitution which prohibited states from leaving the confederation. There is certainly the right of secession in US law. In fact that is at the heart of US law. If it were not so then the US could not have seceded from the British Empire, by means of war.

And as far as the Pope was concerned the CSA was a government. In fact the Pope was the only sovereign to actually recognized the CSA:

It should be noted that he (Pius IX) was the only European prince of the day to recognize — at least in a de facto way — the Southern nation, the Confederate States of America.

catholicism.org/catholicism-south.html

 

[exnihilo]

If it gave that property away, then us it would, either that or attack the fort. But the attack would be a direct attack on a legitimately controlled military installation.

The South, in attacking Ft. Sumpter, was an attack on US property on US soil.

No, SC gave ownership to the property to the US. But it was still SC property. It is no different than any other title given to land. Title is ownership but all property is under the control of the sovereign. While SC was part of the Union it recognized the federal government, but once that relationship ended so did any agreements between them.

The UN in NYC is considered extra-territorial. If the UN was hostile to the US and maintained in that building weapons do you not think the US would order them evacuate and surrender their territory? Of course they would. The argument you are making is based not on any reasonable principle.

 

[estesbob]

I dont know by what authority then he’d have the power to free a slave in any state. In fact you’d have to say that Lincoln only had the power to free slaves in counties in rebellion since that is the level he worked at. That is to the say the least a very odd theory.

And that is a problem. You don’t know what the basis of the Emancipation Proclamation is which is why you would find it to be an odd theory. Lincoln freed the slaves as" contraband areas that were not at war with the United States is contrabands of war

I would hope you’d focus on the specifics of the debate rather than some topic that has not even been broached. I for one dont have any interest in a debate where the subject constantly changes.

. It is you and Scott the decided to turn this into a discussion about a noble South being attacked by an evil North when all they were trying to do was keep blacks happy and assert their God-given property rights. . And of course the problem is people wander into this thread and think that you and Scott’s views are mainstream conservative views not the logical extension of radical libertarianism.

I dont know what the day and age has to do with anything. I guess in this day of moral perfection, what with all the abortion, divorce, out of wedlock births and such, we can make grand pronouncements about the terrible past. There were in fact some happy slaves. I dont know what percentage they were of the whole, nor do you. But if you cant accept a documented fact then there is really no point in debate.

Oh my-the happy slave defense again. . I guess they’re happy until their master sold them or decided that his wife was cute and raped her repeatedly.

 

[estesbob]

The only valid part of the Virginia legislature that remained after all the other delegates became rebels did give their consent, so the creation of West Virginia was perfectly constitutional.

I think the formation of West Virginia was problematic given the Union stance against secession , but not as problematic as southern apologists complaining about its formation while aggressively defending the right of the southern states to do the same.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The north had a different type of economy, one that did not yield well to slavery. The north had industry that required a semi-literate work force.

The reason why slavery lasted so long in the US south is because plantations required menial labor utilizing many hands to accomplish the planting and harvesting of vast quantities of cotton and tobacco and that fit well with chattel slavery.

So to answer your question: there was no real motivation to continue slavery in the north.

So the north did not feel the slaves were smart enough to become semi literate slaves to work in their economy? The north also lost a considerable amount of their slave population fighting the British did they not?

I just don’t like the attitude towards the South as if they were a bunch of evil people doing something the North never did. And I highly doubt the North abolished slavery out of the goodness of their heart. The smugness I sense in people today makes me feel like I just freed my slaves yesterday.