S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 Forum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 S.H.A.P.E Store
 Other Websites
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Members: 0

Click To Show - Guests: 7

Last Seen

Patrick Sun 21:56
gpthelastrebel Sat 17:08
MatthewBlile Fri 15:50
Robray Wed 14:28
D. L. Garland Wed 18:09
Forums
Go to page   <<      
Moderators: gpthelastrebel, Patrick
Author Post
red house
Tue Aug 11 2009, 08:26PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40



It takes a lot to make me cry. I'm thinking maybe those Missourians should have stayed in Missourah, rather than trespass into Kansas to commit vote fraud (which happens to be a federal offense). Had those folks from Missouri minded their business and not interferred in the state referendum of the settlers in Kansas, then most likely those freedom loving Jayhawkers would have stayed out of Missouri and left them alone with their slaves and their "state's rights".

But that's the thing with Southerners in general - they can't leave "well-enough" alone. They have to go invading other people's territories and states and impose their own ways on others.... and then one thing leads to another - and next thing you know - folks are still fussin' and afeudin' about it some 155 years later.

Back to top
8milereb
Wed Aug 12 2009, 01:55PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1030
"But that's the thing with Southerners in general - they can't leave "well-enough" alone. They have to go invading other people's territories and states and impose their own ways on others"

.....ummmm well let's see here: You're either 1. Joking 2. Trying to start an argument that you will most certainly lose or 3. Extremely naïve, Now come on which is it? I think I know

[ Edited Wed Aug 12 2009, 01:56PM ]
Back to top
red house
Wed Aug 12 2009, 02:53PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
Well, admittedly I am the argumentative type — but only when there's some thing that's genuinely disagreeable and honestly worth arguing over. I don't shy away from disagreements, but neither do I disagree simply for the sake of doing so.


So, to answer your question of whether I'm "joking" — no, I am not joking, and neither am I naive to the facts (which are well documented). Surely you must know of the Southern designs on Cuba and the Caribbean and Latin America — the so-called "Golden Circle" of Mexican and Spanish held territory that the Southern states not only coveted, but made several illegal attempts to annex in the decades leading up to the Civil War? Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens — virtually the entire South, were eager for Empire — to grow and expand their “peculiar institution.” The Northern states as well as the lands that encircled the Caribbean were intended to become the South's Lebensraum for slavery.


And then, of course, there's the issue of federally enforced Fugitive Slave laws that the Northern states were held hostage to in the decade between the Compromise of 1850 (that kept the South from seceding) — and the actual secession that occurred once Lincoln was elected. The North's feckless politicians gave into the South's bullying demands that the Fugitive clause be upheld rigorously and without exception, and as a result hundreds of Federal troops were sent to safe havens like Boston to make sure runaways like Thomas Sims were captured and brought back to their plantations.


We also had our "state's rights" raped and our dignity violated; we had our people and their families abducted and shipped south into bondage. These are transgressions that are still commemorated outside of Faneuil hall to this day. These things haven't been forgotten by a great many people up here, have they been forgotten you?






[ Edited Wed Aug 12 2009, 03:03PM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Wed Aug 12 2009, 05:16PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
RedHouse,

I read your sources (not the first time I have read them) and true each and every one of them did in some way mention slavery and did in some way offer a compromise to the slaveholding states.

I believe that you will find that Mississippi is the only state that says "Our position is thoroughly associated _--" Notice Mississippi also says that no "care has been provided---" What were they supposed to do just kick the salves out? Where they to go North? Not likely the Black codes were in effect, West, no, slave and free blacks not welcome here. Why should the South be the only section to bear the financial loss? Shouldn’t the slave trading North be made to reimburse the slave-owners? They then could recover their money from the slave traders in Africa.

Think about this just for a minute, if the issue was nothing more than slavery, then why did the first six states leave the Union anyway? Don't give me the "they wanted more excuse" that won't hold water.

You are correct the discussion ahs gone full circle you are now repeating yourself as if this is going to prove your point. The historical facts still remain, slavery had nothing to do with the war, secession yes (only for Mississippi), the war no. Remember in one of your post your make the remark about free country? Where is the freedom of the South to leave the union and decide their destiny protected?

Yes you are correct the discussion ahs gone full circle I see you are repeating yourself. Now do you have any proof that the war was over slavery? I think by reading this board anyone can clearly see that Major Anderson and Lincoln clearly forced the war For Southern Independence on this country. Bottom line is if Lincoln had ordered Anderson back to Moultrie war may have been avoided. As it is that is the action that ignited the short fuse for both sides.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Wed Aug 12 2009, 05:27PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
red house wrote ...

Well, admittedly I am the argumentative type — but only when there's some thing that's genuinely disagreeable and honestly worth arguing over. I don't shy away from disagreements, but neither do I disagree simply for the sake of doing so.


So, to answer your question of whether I'm "joking" — no, I am not joking, and neither am I naive to the facts (which are well documented). Surely you must know of the Southern designs on Cuba and the Caribbean and Latin America — the so-called "Golden Circle" of Mexican and Spanish held territory that the Southern states not only coveted, but made several illegal attempts to annex in the decades leading up to the Civil War? Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens — virtually the entire South, were eager for Empire — to grow and expand their “peculiar institution.” The Northern states as well as the lands that encircled the Caribbean were intended to become the South's Lebensraum for slavery.


And then, of course, there's the issue of federally enforced Fugitive Slave laws that the Northern states were held hostage to in the decade between the Compromise of 1850 (that kept the South from seceding) — and the actual secession that occurred once Lincoln was elected. The North's feckless politicians gave into the South's bullying demands that the Fugitive clause be upheld rigorously and without exception, and as a result hundreds of Federal troops were sent to safe havens like Boston to make sure runaways like Thomas Sims were captured and brought back to their plantations.


We also had our "state's rights" raped and our dignity violated; we had our people and their families abducted and shipped south into bondage. These are transgressions that are still commemorated outside of Faneuil hall to this day. These things haven't been forgotten by a great many people up here, have they been forgotten you?







So the Federal government had no problem taking the Indian lands, they had no problem forcing states that wished to leave to remain in with the Union. Do you think the Confederacy could have fought on another front, what about today; the US has several territories from the Spanish settlements. In fact most of the Gulf States were Spanish territories .So what is your point?

So you are telling us that it is OK to disobey a law? Does this include the murder of men who are sent to retrieve the escaped slaves? I think in the one of the "Causes" this was mentioned.

In this case who is we???? I don't think you can at all realistically compare this to what happened in the South to all races.


GP
Back to top
red house
Wed Aug 12 2009, 09:10PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40


“So the Federal government had no problem taking the Indian lands,”


Apparently not.




“they had no problem forcing states that wished to leave to remain in with the Union.”


States that seceded were not 'forcibly' prevented from doing so; the federal government neither acknowledged nor denied that the seven states had seceded from the Union. The matter was left rather ambiguous in a diplomatically disputed sort of way, until the Federal fort was fired on — at which time all diplomatic disputing ceased and the matter became one of unambiguous war rather than an issue over their right to secession. That “cannon diplomacy” was a very bad bit of maneuvering on the part of the South, a rather ill-advised move I think.




“Do you think the Confederacy could have fought on another front,”



No, in my opinion, once they waged war on the North - it was all over. They could have probably very easily conquered Cuba and Mexico, but only if they had avoided war with the North.





“So you are telling us that it is OK to disobey a law?”



Yes, of course. Obviously unjust laws should not be obeyed.




“Does this include the murder of men who are sent to retrieve the escaped slaves?”


Yes, of course. Bounty hunters who hunted down slaves deserved nothing better. I would do the same to anyone who was trying to abduct and enslave my friend or compatriot simply because they are of a certain creed or color. I think you probably would too, or at least I'd hope so.

Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Aug 14 2009, 07:10PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
red house wrote ...



“So the Federal government had no problem taking the Indian lands,”


Apparently not.




“they had no problem forcing states that wished to leave to remain in with the Union.”


States that seceded were not 'forcibly' prevented from doing so; the federal government neither acknowledged nor denied that the seven states had seceded from the Union. The matter was left rather ambiguous in a diplomatically disputed sort of way, until the Federal fort was fired on — at which time all diplomatic disputing ceased and the matter became one of unambiguous war rather than an issue over their right to secession. That “cannon diplomacy” was a very bad bit of maneuvering on the part of the South, a rather ill-advised move I think.




“Do you think the Confederacy could have fought on another front,”



No, in my opinion, once they waged war on the North - it was all over. They could have probably very easily conquered Cuba and Mexico, but only if they had avoided war with the North.





“So you are telling us that it is OK to disobey a law?”



Yes, of course. Obviously unjust laws should not be obeyed.




“Does this include the murder of men who are sent to retrieve the escaped slaves?”


Yes, of course. Bounty hunters who hunted down slaves deserved nothing better. I would do the same to anyone who was trying to abduct and enslave my friend or compatriot simply because they are of a certain creed or color. I think you probably would too, or at least I'd hope so.





Good so that address the question of imperialism.


True to some degree, but we can find quotes where Lincoln was urged to force these states back into the Union, end result but Lincoln did start a armed armada to either Pensacola or Charleston, which resulted in a war.

Agreed!!! The fighting sprit and the leaders was all that kept the South in the war. Note I put leaders 2nd.

Really and who is to decide these laws are unjust? If you feel the need to rape or murder should I respect your desire to do so? I am sure we have thousands of men locked up today screaming it is unfair and unjust. This is why we have judges and courts. If the abolitionist didn't like the Fugitive Slave law they should have petitioned the courts to have it changed. As it is they were lawbreakers themselves.

And then you would be nothing more than a murder. Actually I am not sure an escaped slave would have any kin to the North, so that rules that out. As far as an officer of the law obeying the law taking someone of my creed or color, heck I have no problem with that either. Happens all the time.

GP
Back to top
Go to page   <<       

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System