61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:36 pm
@Ionus,
Absent the issue of slavery, the following would NOT havehappened

These are not in any order :

1The Lincoln DOuglas debates

2Kansas Nebraska Act

3 The Wilmot Proviso

4 The "Compromise of 1850"

5 The Fugitive Slave ACTS (1798 and 1850)

6 Missouri Compromise

7 The ALabama Platform

8 The Abolitionist Unions

So, if these specific rulings and ACts and court findings Were not part of history,(all of which centered upon slavery), there probably would NOT have been seccession and a war. Slavery was the primary issue . States rights is just a code word for southern states to refuse abolition.

AS far as Indians, many fought for the North (non slave holding tribes) , and many fought for the SOuth because they were slave holders themselves. SInce Indians were looked on as Wards, there was never anything but a token use of terms that assumed sovereignty. One has only to see the events of our dealings with Indians to see that we NEVER considered the tribes and confederations as sovereign nations. Only a fool would believe that based upon all the evidence.
A seminal work of our dealings with Indian tribes from the late 1700's till the National Congress and Claims Settlement was by Francis Prucha.
American Indian Treaties,History of a Political Anomaly Also a work by David Hurst Thomas Peter Nabokov and Vine Delorias Son , Phillip, entitled:The Native Americans, an illustrated History This one is a primary source of material developed as a text written from the AMerind perspective.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:30 pm
@LionTamerX,
Quote:
Have you ever read any of the various constitutions of the indian nations ?
I havent read them all, but I am aware that they have recognised the supreme authority of the USA and that the term Nation to them means tribe. If they didnt, they would be starting the civil war all over again. The USA won, and the Indians lost is all it amounts to...it doesnt change the definition of Nation as used in treaties by the USA and other countries.
DrewDad
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:40 pm
It's kind of amazing to me, how many posts in the last few pages are "User ignored (view)".
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:46 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
It would be safe to say that the Indians were mistreated because they didn't have status as a nation.
Not so. They were mistreated because they were in the way. Earlier, entire legal colonies of long established nations were wiped out by other colonists from different nations. It had nothing to do with rights and everything to do with power.

Quote:
In the Gove Land Rights case of 1971 the high court asserted that Australia was terra nullius(no man's land) and therefore the native population had no rights to the land.
And it was in error to do so. Later this decision was over-turned as legally incorrect.

Quote:
1992: Mabo Case
The High Court found that Indigenous title to land was not wiped out by the European invasion of Australia. This case overturned the doctrine of terra nullius, and recognised native title.

1993: Native Title Act passed
The Native Title Act was passed by the Keating Labor Government to recognise the findings of the Mabo case in statute law and establish processes to deal with native title claims.


The English term Terra Nullis was to be applied where ever english people went and there were no inhabitants. This meant an Englishman could not be murdered without the law being in effect. It was applied to colonies like Australia and the North American continent. As both these continents were occupied by people who had territories, laws, customs and long traditions it was illegal in its application as its intent was for, say, a deserted island. So Terra Nullis never had any application in these instances and the 1992 case was correct in law.
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:14 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
[@LionTamerX,
Quote:

Have you ever read any of the various constitutions of the indian nations ?

I havent read them all, but I am aware that they have recognised the supreme authority of the USA and that the term Nation to them means tribe. If they didnt, they would be starting the civil war all over again. The USA won, and the Indians lost is all it amounts to...it doesnt change the definition of Nation as used in treaties by the USA and other countries./quote]

You should really read the constitution of the Lumbee nation, it will really open your eyes.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:17 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus started his rubbish about American Indians with[quote][/quote]
Quote:
So all those treaties where they refer to different Indian tribes as being a seperate Nation and are negotiated with by the USA as a seperate nation; what are those

To which I have continued to state that they were papers written to dispossess the Indians of tribal lands. We DID NOT recognize them as an equal nation because , (In LAW) we did not even recognize Indians As HUMANS. How do you exercise a treaty when going in you didnt even recognize the humanity of the other party?

NOW, you are saying

Quote:
They were mistreated because they were in the way.
. SO now you agree with me .
What better way to implement Manifest Destiny than to con the tribes of their lands by giving a portion of it back to them while taking the largest portions.?

THEY were not recognized as humans, therefore their national status was not even an issue. As I said before, Indians were recognized as human beings as a result of the Standing Bear Case of 1879. The Indian Citizenship Act (in which only partial suffrage was recognized in a few states) wasnt till 1924. Full citizenship didnt occur till the 1960's and the land settlement Claims didnt even begin until 1970.

Your attempt at posing any kind of argumemt of "equal nation staus" is nonexistent in light of the actual history. Besides , its only you who is so saying and thats always dangerous in a debate. If said frequently enough it becomes almost self asserting.

I reject your view as merely defiant ignorance, inanity and wholly lacking in scholarship.



High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:56 am
@farmerman,
You and Ionus are arguing about the wording in treaties drafted in English, a language nobody in the Indian tribes could read at the time the treaties were signed, and very few could speak. A famous mathematician, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, writing in 1871, expressed the problem exactly:
Quote:
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Also in 1871 a rider inserted in the Indian Appropriation Act used lots more words to express the same idea:
Quote:
“That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe.”

So you and Ionus are both correct - your apparent disagreement is over nomenclature - but how is any of this related to the flag of the Confederacy?

High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:15 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
....THEY were not recognized as humans, therefore their national status was not even an issue. As I said before, Indians were recognized as human beings as a result of the Standing Bear Case of 1879....

They were certainly recognized as soldiers, having fought in Indian regiments organized by both the Union and the Confederacy. By all accounts I've seen - and I'm far from an Indian tribes expert - both groups acquitted themselves creditably. How can you have "non-human" soldiers fighting for you? Some other legal status must have applied. I know you're not a lawyer and I hope someone with legal expertise can clear that up.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:20 am
@High Seas,
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought"
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe


WHy just quote Humpty Dumpty?

I sort of hinted that the definition of "nations" was merely a ref to an ethnic or tribal identification but I kept getting returned posts that were increasingly loaded with some kind of certainty that treaties with Indians WERE drafted as if among sovereign nations. .

The point or relevance to this very thread was minor but it had to
do with "rights" to secede and sovereign nations at war. (It is ionus opinion that slavery was nit an issue of the war and that the North began the war by not evacuating Fort Sumter after SOuth Carolina left the Union. Its sort of how US got into WWII, we were attacked AND THEN germany declared war on US. SOuth Carolina opened fire and then declared war while the North attempted to resupply the fort. Yet ionus says (and several agree) that the North was the aggressor. Thats as simple mided as "States Rights" and "The War of Northern Aggression"
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:34 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
....In the way of analogy, like when U.S. Jews lament the Holocaust. Few tell them to shut-up; or tell them enough already. However, no one expects nice Gentiles to join in the lament. That is how I take the whole Confederate flag issue; it is a problem for African-Americans (and their progressive side-kicks). But, why make it an issue for so many Americans whose family was not even here during that time???

The Jews have the excuse that this latest round of extermination took place within living memory - the blacks (and the sidekicks you mention) have no excuse at all. I've no connection to the Confederacy, never owned a hoop skirt, and can't stand the sight of grits, but I'm so annoyed by Snood et al attempting to dictate what color makeup is PC for me to use or what flags I can fly on my own property that I plan to buy the battle flag of the Confederacy and fly it alongside the Stars and Stripes on July 4th. Enough already with these contemptible attempts at blackmail!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Battle_flag_of_the_US_Confederacy.svg/200px-Battle_flag_of_the_US_Confederacy.svg.png
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:40 am
@farmerman,
I still wish you would explain what you meant by the term "not human" as applied to members of the Indian tribes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:41 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
How can you have "non-human" soldiers fighting for you?
The SOuth and North both had black squads too. You must be kidding? Weve done the "flag of convenience" thing for all our history. We dealt with Indians in a paternalistic manner in which the concept of "termination" was developed and was quite commonly enforced until it began to be phased out after the Indian Citizenship ACt. WE first had to OFFICIALLY recognize Indians equivalents to citizens of The US. This was accomplished in the Standing Bear trials. Official Citizenship still had to wait another 35 years.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:43 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
It's kind of amazing to me
Too many drugs - you are easily amazed.
Quote:
how many posts in the last few pages are "User ignored (view)".
With great pride this fool acknowledges being a bigot.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:50 am
@LionTamerX,
I note the preamble, the Territory and Jurisdiction with its First Amendment but I am not sure of your point..
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:51 am
@farmerman,
Yes, black troops as well as Indians fought on both sides of the Civil War. Blacks were definitely considered "human"; though at the time the war started they were constitutionally limited to 3/5 of a person (in both North and South) when you count soldiers you count heads, not legalese. So you use the term "not human" to mean "not full citizen"? Maybe you should clarify that meaning of the term and avoid the emotional loading.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 05:59 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Ionus started his rubbish
Poor diddims..it must be horrible for you.
Quote:
We DID NOT recognize them as an equal nation because , (In LAW) we did not even recognize Indians As HUMANS.
Your argument is circular. You did recognise them as seperate nations, therefore they were human, but you treated them as though neither was true.
Quote:
Quote:
They were mistreated because they were in the way..
SO now you agree with me .
You imagine all sorts of things. Where did I say the Indians werent mistreated ? Where did you get the delusion that I thought they were well treated ?
Quote:
THEY were not recognized as humans, therefore their national status was not even an issue.
AS usual, you are confused. Their rights in the USA has nothing to do with their nation having official recognition.
Quote:
I reject your view as merely defiant ignorance, inanity and wholly lacking in scholarship.
And I reject your view as circular, largely irrelevant and based on feelings rather than a true legal understanding of the terms used in agreements. The whole basis of your argument is they were mistreated. How is that relevant ?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 06:00 am
@High Seas,
Youre being circular HS. You can easily cruise the web and find many docs that cover the concept of "subhuman" (Im not gonna be pushed into implying that I defend a race base biology nor do I accept the ealry policies of termination) However if you want some better "understanding" REad about the race based class of humans from Johann Blumenbach . We are talking about a segment of history in which "savage" and "sub human" were common ways of thinking. After White did his marvelous sketches of the Powhatan, our depiction of the Indian wasnt exactly complementary (at least until the closer works of Catlin or Rodgers)
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 06:03 am
@farmerman,
And you're being evasive as well as circular and emotional. "Not full citizen" isn't the same as "not human" so maybe you should drop that usage.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 06:12 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I sort of hinted that the definition of "nations" was merely a ref to an ethnic or tribal identification
Hinted ? You went on about how they were treated. There is no such thing as the incorrect word in a legal document. Ref's are spelt out very clearly.
Quote:
It is ionus opinion that slavery was nit an issue of the war
My opinion is that it WAS an issue but the main drive behind the Civil War was power and the protection and expansion of the "one continent one nation" idea.
Quote:
Yet ionus says (and several agree) that the North was the aggressor.
See if you can pick up a trend here...the Revolutionary War was about power, the Civil War was about power, the Indian wars were about power, all wars are about power. There are minor reasons involved and slavery is one of them. Why didnt the north let them secede if it wasnt about power ?

Quote:
Also in 1871 a rider inserted in the Indian Appropriation Act used lots more words to express the same idea:

Quote:
Quote:
“That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe.”
As High Seas points out, why did they have to declare they werent a nation anymore if they hadnt been one before ? Even then they stipulate WITHIN THE USA, so they can still contract by treaty with those outside the USA.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 06:24 am
It's like the religion/evolution threads all over again. No end in sight now or ever.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 03:04:44