Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that because slavery existed in the North, before being abolished, it should not have been abolished in the South?
Point is quite simple - you repeatedly try to make it seem that slavery was practiced only within the southern states, making a blanket statement that the slaves in the south had different rights than those in the north:
Quote:
Yes, I am saying that there was no legally defined chattel slavery in the North,,, .
Liz took much effort and time to provide info that such existed in the north.
Point is quite simple - you repeatedly try to make it seem that slavery was practiced only within the southern states, making a blanket statement that the slaves in the south had different rights than those in the north: Liz took much effort and time to provide info that such existed in the north.
I did nothing of the kind. What things "seemed" like has nothing to do with it.
No culture except the American South legally codified chattel slavery.
Who said anything about the North prior to the war, or mentioned Lincoln (other than you)? Please explain how the phrase "seeking.....chattel" is in any way "pretentious." Was that or was that not one of the reuslts of the war?
And I don't care if you're impressed or not by actual history. It's obvious you don't know much about it.
I guess that will teach me not to reach out to folks in good faith.
Do you honestly think that slaves held in the Carribean, the border states, The North a few decades earlier or in South America gave two craps what their masters "legally declared them as"???
What difference does your contention make at all??? Slavery was bad. You seem to be on a mission to say, "Yeah, it was bad, but in the South it was way worse because they actually wrote a law.".
I think the point you are making is irrelevant.
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 10-02-2007 at 07:06 PM..
No culture except the American South legally codified chattel slavery.
.
I see.... You think because they actually put it on the books that it made a difference. Regardless, your original contention that the North somehow intervened in secession over this matter is false to the core....
Unless you were implying something else by this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Give me a government that "oversteps its bounds" by seeking to ban the definition of people as chattel, every time.
Perhaps it is you who needs to brush up a bit on history. The North didn't intervene EVER to ban any law in the South with regards to slavery as you imply until it became a strategic necessity during the war.
I never implied that the North was wrong to ban slavery in it's own territory. I only implied that it over-stepped it's bounds in the usurping of the South's arguable right to secede to which you responded with this snide remark with regard to slavery.
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 10-02-2007 at 07:11 PM..
Can you point me to some declaration of the "rights of slaves" that were on the books in the Northern States, or the Carribean or in South America???
I have repeatedly described the difference between slavery as traditionally defined vs. chattel slavery as defined in the South. I recommend that you do some research and come to your own conclusions, if you don't accept mine.
I see.... You think because they actually put it on the books that it made a difference. Regardless, your original contention that the North somehow intervened in secession over this matter is false to the core....
Unless you were implying something else by this
Perhaps it is you who needs to brush up a bit on history. The North didn't intervene EVER to ban any law in the South with regards to slavery as you imply until it became a strategic necessity during the war.
I never implied that the North was wrong to ban slavery in it's own territory. I only implied that it over-stepped it's bounds in the usurping of the South's arguable right to secede to which you responded with this snide remark with regard to slavery.
What I "imply" is rarely different from what I post. You are most creative in your interpretations of my thoughts, though.
But you "imply" that the north had no business restoring the union, in accordance with paragraph 10, of Section I of the Constitution. You may consider that "arguable", if you wish. But the argument is over.
And please look up the word "snide" in the dictionary. I have been nothing but respectful and (to the best of my ability) accurate in my posts on this topic.
I am fine with it.
However when you have it on your car you look like a hick.
Fact
Actually - that is your opinion. Neither wrong nor right, but opinion. I may agree with you about that, but that would still be nevertheless our beliefs.
Fact is that this particular flag is comprised of the colours red [4 triangles], blue [the cross], and white [13 stars], and was used during the War Between The States by the forces known as the Confederate States of America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
