so a hypocrite much like Marshy - and by the way - read the articles of secession - -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 10/11/13, Mike Dixon <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Correction on the Confederacy To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, October 11, 2013, 10:03 PM BTW , Thomas Jefferson, the author of those famous words, was a slave owner. From: Mike Dixon <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Correction on the Confederacy Bingo! From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 8:02 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Correction on the Confederacy On the slavery issue I've always wondered how one could say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and then not automatically ban slavery. I'm guessing that the shyster lawyers of the day argued something along the lines that the Declaration set out the rights of *citizens* of the republic. As slaves were property and not citizens in the full sense the words didn't apply in their case; just as a foreigner couldn't be President. ---In [email protected], <mdixon.6569@...> wrote: Ahem.... Michael, slavery was a *states right* issue. It was written into the constitution that there would be certain states that would allow slavery, the *slave states*. Georgia was the one slave state that didn't want the issue in the constitution but Massachusetts would not ratify it without it being included. So, Georgia gave in. Boston Massachusetts was the home port for the slave industry. Most American slave ships sailed from Boston. Slavery could never had been stricken had the slave states not seceded because it would have taken a constitutional amendment to remove it and there weren't enough votes to ratify such an amendment. Only after the War of Northern Aggression and the South was *subjugated* could such an amendment be ratified by state legislatures, comprised of many former slaves, promised *40 acres and a mule* for their votes by, wait a minute.... Republicans, carpet baggers and scalawags. From: Michael Jackson <mjackson74@...> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Correction on the Confederacy Here is a damn good answer to that question:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24396390 On Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:51 PM, "doctordumbass@..." <doctordumbass@...> wrote: That would be a pretty hard economic "bonus" to give up. Can you imagine the profit margins from slavery? Capitalism constantly drives the wedge between morality and economics, between community and making money. The social question is: How much can a person detest themselves, or distract themselves, and still exploit others, purely to make a fortune? ---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote: I recall that someone posted here a time or two the idea that the Confederate States seceded over the issue of "states rights" - as a citizen of the original seceding state, South Carolina, I have disagreed with that and for anyone who cares to read it, here is one of the historical documents that show the Confederate States were actually invoking their constitutional rights as slave holding states, rights identified by Congress and set forth in the US Constitution. It is clear from reading the entire document that the issue, the only issue was the right to practice slavery. Pure and simple. The document is called: Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
