Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
132 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 126 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,901 Year: 1,013/6,534 Month: 1,013/682 Week: 66/182 Day: 11/29 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7149
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 136 of 193 (588721)
10-27-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 1:03 AM


Ever evidence
The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory. Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route.

Do you ever have any evidence for your assertions?
How could he have handled the war peacefully? The confederates opened fire first. He was supposed to allow the Confederate States to secede? How would that have been good for the states that remained?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 1:03 AM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7149
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 137 of 193 (588722)
10-27-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 8:45 AM


Wow you really have a hardon for me don't you
I got a little carried away, I think maybe 2 out of 21 posts he/she actually looked something up and posted his/her own thoughts. MOST of the time he/she is your echo.

Care to show evidence for this assertion?

he/she claims its all about a quote I used from the quote of the day thread.

Well that is what the OP says, and since I wrote the OP I should know what the thread is about.

BTW
Any evidence at all that Lee said what you claim?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 8:45 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 4:23 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 138 of 193 (588842)
10-28-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Theodoric
10-27-2010 5:51 PM


well i do like little bitches
Care to show evidence for this assertion?
yeah there are about 8 pages in this thread, why don't you go read it.

Well that is what the OP says, and since I wrote the OP I should know what the thread is about.

BTW
Any evidence at all that Lee said what you claim?

LOL @ the BTW different from the OP, I knew those posts would be moving soon.

from the OP:

quote:
He has shown no evidence this is a correct quote or anything to show Lee felt this way.

I have stated my reasoning for why Lee felt this way. the only response you can muster is "can you show evidence for your assertion?" and that is it, you are horrible at debating anything, its like talking to a droid. Its called History, look it up, I am not your TA.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

also from the OP:

quote:
Artie, can you back up your statements? I know you can't on the Lee quote, but maybe on the others?

I did, and since you knew i couldn't give you the impossible evidence you want for the Lee quote, I never even went there. I was talking about the states who left the union NOT because of slavery.

If you also take a look at your response, you'll see that you accepted the full scope proposed by Theodoric.

I just did, and you are incorrect. I quoted myself, and began to go into the individual states that I do not think left for slavery. I was immideated attacked by theo to answer his questions or else!?! like the popous tard that he/she is. this is a lenthy issue and not something that can be summed up in one post, Theo on the other hand just wants a chance to find one question that I did not get to immidiately and ask me about evidence. Yet if you look into his message 4. he/she tells me that I have done nothing to defend my point and then tells me what my point is and how i need to argue it (talk about a strawman). when I challenge him/her defend himself/herself and make a point, it is ignored and theo moves onto something else.

I stated my arguement and what I was going to cover, Theo just told me that what it wanted me to say and argue (sorry but hommie don't play dat).

Basically this is not a debate between me and Theo, because Theo has really not made any sort of issue other than to challenge everything I say. Like the kid on sesame street that answers every anser with a, why? It has been the same thing from him/her since my 1st post.

I am here debating Dr Adequate, and No Nukes and a couple other people here and there.

Theo writes:

I can more than stand my own on any historical debate.

can you show any evidence for this assertion, in 10 pages I have yet to see anything from you.

How about defending your original assertions?

I am and you can read about them in message 3.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:51 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:20 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2010 10:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 139 of 193 (588845)
10-28-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by NoNukes
10-27-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing particularly natural about the 1st Amendment. Further, most of the bill of rights protects us from the state government as well as the federal, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Clearly the 13, 14, and 15th amendments all protect citizens against state governments.

Oh my bad instead of saying bill of rights it seems I should have said, the 1st 10 amendments. 13, 14, & 15 are probably the worst passed amendments ever and I was not talking about them.


I'm not going into detail regarding your examples of aggrieved states, other than to say that you and I differ significantly on federalism. I don't find your examples the least bit compelling. My experience is that it is generally the state government that wants walk its jack boots into private places or all over individual rights. There are plenty of examples of the federal courts vindicating individual rights against states.

we definately disagree. I would not consider myself a federalist at all, I think more of an anti-federalist. Maybe you are more of a Washington Virginian, and I am more of a Jefferson Virginian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 12:01 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 5:56 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:04 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 140 of 193 (588856)
10-28-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Artemis Entreri
10-28-2010 4:35 PM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
13, 14, & 15 are probably the worst passed amendments ever and I was not talking about them.

Yeah, we never should have outlawed slavery. (13th) And the country certainly went downhill when we gave dem darkies da vote. (15th)


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 4:35 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM subbie has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 193 (588861)
10-28-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Artemis Entreri
10-28-2010 4:35 PM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
Artemis writes:

Oh my bad instead of saying bill of rights it seems I should have said, the 1st 10 amendments. 13, 14, & 15 are probably the worst passed amendments ever and I was not talking about them.

No need to correct yourself here. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. However when I speak of protections for citizens under the constitution, I refer to all of the guarantees of individual rights.

I have no interest whatsoever in exploring your dislike for the 13th and 15th Amendments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 4:35 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 193 (588865)
10-28-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by NoNukes
10-27-2010 4:50 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states.

Why not?

The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections.

But this is a mere argument from consequences, and does not affect what the law is.

I think that people's rights were not well served by Prohibition, and are not now well served by the current prohibition of marijuana, but that is not an argument that this was/is not the law.

For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.

It is true that a state independent of the federal government could do bad things. But it is also true that the federal government could do bad things and impose them on unwilling member states. And indeed this has happened.

But this still has nothing to do with the legallity of such things.

A state might be said to have an extra-legal right to revolt or rebel against the union, but in that case, we get to judge the state's moral position. I believe that the seceding states utterly fail that examination.

Oh, quite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 4:50 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 193 (588866)
10-28-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Artemis Entreri
10-28-2010 4:23 PM


Re: well i do like little bitches
Mr. Entreri, I believe you are mistaken

Artemis writes:

I just did, and you are incorrect. I quoted myself, and began to go into the individual states that I do not think left for slavery.

And yet you now insist that challenging you on the reasons those states left is "moving the goalposts. Weren't you challenged to address your position on that in the original post? Theodoric quoted you as saying the following:

quote:
...its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

What did you think Theodoric meant by the following:

quote:
Artie, can you back up your statements? I know you can't on the Lee quote, but maybe on the others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 4:23 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 193 (588868)
10-28-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2010 7:19 PM


Legitimacy of secession?
Dr. A writes:

But this is a mere argument from consequences, and does not affect what the law is.

We don't have any pre-civil war statement of what the law is. I think arguing that your proposed statement has absurd and undesirable consequences is legitimate given that lack. Post war, we have a SC decision that session is illegal without the consent of the other states.

quote:
But it is also true that the federal government could do bad things and impose them on unwilling member states

The federal government has done bad things, and it has also prevented states from doing bad things and imposing them on individuals. States rights are not inherently a good thing. States rights must be taken in context with exactly what thing the state plans to do with those rights. In my opinion there are some individual rights that simply cannot or should not be removed by a simple majority vote at the state or federal level. The constitution is set up to prevent that very thing. Session by simple majority vote is an end run around that limitation.

Edited by NoNukes, : particularly stupid typo removed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 7:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 8:45 PM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33658
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 145 of 193 (588872)
10-28-2010 7:47 PM


Legality of secession.
Had the South won, it would have been legal.

But the legality of secession is not the issue. Slavery certainly was.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 11:46 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 193 (588883)
10-28-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
10-28-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Legitimacy of secession?
Post war, we have a SC decision that session is illegal without the consent of the other states.

I was not aware of that. Perhaps you could fill in this lacuna in my knowledge.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2010 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7149
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 147 of 193 (588900)
10-28-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Artemis Entreri
10-28-2010 4:23 PM


No evidence yet
I have stated my reasoning for why Lee felt this way. the only response you can muster is "can you show evidence for your assertion?" and that is it, you are horrible at debating anything, its like talking to a droid. Its called History, look it up, I am not your TA.

Yes you have stated your reasoning but you have not provided evidence that Lee felt the war was not about slavery. Your reasonings are not evidence. Have you looked at the historical evidence(with referneces) I have presented to show why your assertions have no factual basis? Can you at least attempt to address the evidence I have provided?

Ok lets look at the OP.

quote:
The first is a spurious quote from Robert E. Lee.
quote:
"This war is not about slavery."

He has shown no evidence this is a correct quote or anything to show Lee felt this way.

I take it that you concede that there is no evidence that Lee stated this. Now lets look at your evidence that Lee felt this way, even though he never said it.

Re: thanks (Message 5)
nothing
Re: Tennessee (Message 16)
but laced with obscenities
BACK, reply to many (Message 119)
nothing
Re: thanks (Message 123)
nothing
Re: WOW (Message 124)
Finally after you have been called on it many times you finally address Lee.

You have a quote from a website that has no references for its assertions. Anyone that knows anything about historical research knows that without sources assertions are worthless. Who wrote this info? What is their source for this info?

Then this.

And being the son of a Revolutionary Calvalryman, and Marrying into George Washinton's Family, and living across the Potomac from D.C. He was an american military man at heart, a Patriot.

Smoke and mirrors. None of this has anything to do with Lee and his feeling about slavery. I on the other hand have provided first hand evidence about Lee's views of slavery and his actions as a slave owner.

He did not want to fight a war against Americans, and against the people in his home state. So he resigned from duty and went to serve with the Virginians. He was not into politics and had no say on whether Virginia would stay or leave the Union. He knew what would happen and he wasn't going to be the cause of it, especially against Virginians.

How does this lead to your assertion of him believing the civil was was not about slavery? I have provided extensive evidence that Lee was an active and hands on landowner.

Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?!
who would believe that? seriously?

I showed how this is not a valid argument in Re: WOW (Message 135).

Re: thanks (Message 126)
nothing
Re: WOW (Message 130)
nothing
Re: Goose v. Gander? (Message 131)
nothing
well i do like little bitches (Message 138)
nothing
Re: Goose v. Gander? (Message 139)
nothing

You keep claiming the goal posts are moved, but you haven't even attempted a kick. I have looked at every one of your posts and you have not presented anything to support that Lee said anything like you claimed or any evidence that he felt that way. You have presented nothing at all about his feelings about slavery, except on unsourced unreferenced website and all that site said was "He entertained no special sympathy for slavery." Nothing at all about how he felt about the war and slavery.

So show me, show all of us how the goal posts have moved. As I have stated before. You might want to try with evidence as a start.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

This is as lameass as it gets in a debate. Therefore, you can make any assertion and no one can question it. I can just as well say that this is a quote from Lee.

Robert E. Lee writes:

The Civil war was totally about slavery


In your reasoning you have to accept this as true because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Since I have evidence he was a vigorous, hands on slave owner it must be true.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 4:23 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 193 (588909)
10-28-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jar
10-28-2010 7:47 PM


Re: Legality of secession.
jar writes:

Had the South won, it would have been legal.

I can't argue with that. A whole lot of really unpalatable things would probably be legal here in VA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 7:47 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 193 (588911)
10-29-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2010 8:45 PM


Re: Legitimacy of secession?
Dr. Adequate writes:

Perhaps you could fill in this lacuna in my knowledge.

See Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)

quote:
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

As jar has pointed out, post civil war cases are suspect as being mere codification of the winner's position.

Also, Justice Scalia has expressed his opinion that there is no right of secession.

http://blogs.wsj.com/...on-state-secession-penned-to-one-man

quote:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 8:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3012 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 150 of 193 (588912)
10-29-2010 12:23 AM


Robert E Lee on slavery
Here's the best match I have found

Lee writes:

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.


http://www.sonofthesouth.net/...n/Notable%20Lee%20Quotes.htm

After the war was over, of course.

Here's a bit from well before, which also seems relevant.

Lee writes:

These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.


http://www.sonofthesouth.net/...ation/Lee%20on%20Slavery.htm

Judging from these, I would say that there seems to be a cross up between "what the war was about" and "what Lee was fighting for". See the difference?

But corroboration or critique of these quotes would be greatly appreciated. The form looks genuine to me, but the source seems questionable.

. . .

Oh but then there's also this.

Lee's second-hand slave writes:

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.


http://radgeek.com/...-lee-owned-slaves-and-defended-slavery

These guys go on to slap at the paperwork a bit

Custis actually gave freedom to his slaves without qualification in his will; the matter of the five years was supposed to be time for Custis’s executors to do the legal paperwork for emancipation in such manner as may to [them] seem most expedient and proper. There’s good reason to read the clause as intending for the five years to serve as an upper bound on settling the legal details, not as five more years for driving the slaves for whatever last bits of forced labor could be gotten. Lee, however, did not see it that way, and set the slaves to for his own profit for as long as he could. We have already seen that some of the slaves disagreed with Lee on this point of legal interpretation, and how he treated those who acted on their legal theory by seceding from his plantation.

Of course, Lee never was very big on secession at all. Those who love to haul out the Confederacy — Lee included — as heros for secessionist self-determination tend to neglect comments such as this one:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

—Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861

Edited by Iblis, : John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave


Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2010 11:58 AM Iblis has not yet responded
 Message 163 by REL, posted 07-10-2012 7:34 PM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022