-Caveat Lector-
I think you missed my earlier post. I'm not against the idea of states
leaving the Union...per se.
In the case of the Civil War, as in most wars, the issues were confused
and complex. But I think on the issue of slavery there was no compromise.
Mr. Davis, what appears to be "logical" or "illogical" depends upon your
point of view, the criteria one uses to frame a particular discussion.
For example, if you were a white male southerner at the time who owned
slaves, you would be interested in protecting your "property," and you
would not be too enthusiastic about the Federal government's plan to
free your slaves. However, for the sake of argument, I was the slave
owner ...and you were MY slave. You might have a completely different
perspective on the issue of what exactly IS property and what ISN'T.
If I decided to take your children from you and sell them to my neighbor,
you wouldn't be able to complain, because the law had defined you to be
chattel. Or, perhaps,if I decided to enjoy the sexual favors of your
wife.
Again, you would have nothing to say in the matter because I would be the
absolute lord and master over the Davis family. Your wife, your children,
your lives would be held in my tender hands. Now, being a thinking and
reasonable person, I just might make a reasonable assumption that YOU
would object to this state of affairs. In fact, it might not be a legal
or logical issue to you...it might be an emotional and intensely personal
issue to you, would you agree? Of course, I could trot out my Holy Book
and explain to your sorry ass that you are chattel...and I could explain
the Constitution to your untutored ears.....and explain the finer points
of the noble English Common Law tradition.... It would not surprise me
that you might be unimpressed with the wisdom of my philsophy. Perhaps,
you might even be emotional about it.
Regards,
Wm
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Howard R. Davis III wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
> >
> > -Caveat Lector-
> >
> > Davis and the other southern commanders had taken oaths as soldiers and as
> > politicians to serve and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
> > They were bound by that oath not to work against the best interests of the
> > nation.
>
> ***
> Yes, and they understood that the Constitution allowed states to seceed
> from the union. They had also taken an oath to their state govenments
> which governments preceeded the forming of the union. Lee, for instance,
> would have been working against the best interests of his country
> (Virginia) if he had taken command of the federal forces as had been
> offered.
>
> ***
>
>
> By taking up arms against their country, they were committing an
> > act of treason.. Sorry if that offends some of you but that is a fact.
>
>
> ****
> Why should it offend me? I had no ancestor in the war except perhaps in
> the federal army. I have lived in the south for many years, but people
> still say I don't have an accent. I don't even like football. I just
> have studied the history and have tried to understand the situation at
> the time on the basis of law. I don't believe that you have. You are
> just argueing from an emotional basis and not on any basis of law. My
> understanding of law has lead me to believe that the southern states had
> the legal right to leave the union and that they did so lawfully. As I
> stated, the Supreme Court of the time was probably in agreement with
> this position. It was Lincoln and others in the northern states who
> ignored their oathes to the Constitution. That is my opinion from
> studying the facts. If you have a rational arguement to disprove my
> opinion, I am open to being corrected, but what you have provided so far
> has not dealt with the issue in anything but a purely emotional manner.
>
> best wishes, Howard Davis
>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
> and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
> frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
