The Confederacy was About Slavery

One of the first techy books I read re paleoanthropology was Wendt's "In Search of Adam. I read it in English when I was 11 and then in German as a smester report in college and I was really pissed at how theEnglish translation was work by a committee. Wendt's original view of Neanderthals was that they could walk along a street and not scare the kids. In fact (these are my words)-they probably wouldnt look any weirder tha some WWE wresteler all facially reconstructed by "juicing". The ENglish translation made a committee decision to go its own way and translate whole phrases that would accentuate the differencess between cro magnon and Neanderthals.
. Even the Title of the book "Ich suchte Adam" doesnt mean the infinative "In search of Adam" it means "I searched for Adam". I shoulda known it would be a fuckin copout.

There was a very interesting Israeli archaeological find several years back where they found evidence of an early modern human site into which neanderthals moved after the early modern humans were established. Comparing the middens at each site, they discoverd that the principle difference between the two groups was that the early modern humans made use of a much wider range of forage plants. There was no evidence of violence between the two groups, and eventually, the neanderthals disappeared. It seemed to indicate that the neanderthals were less well able to compete for resources because they relied too heavily on hunting, and missed the opportunity provided by assiduous and varied gathering.

Oy, Im kvetching at all the hunting and gathering, followed by yet more hunting and gathering. It was a bitch being "alter goyem". (Picture that said in a Mel Brooks accent)

May I quote from you ? You have failed to show how this (the Cave Bear Clan) is relevant to the issue of slavery in the Confederate States .

Is it your hope that if you dribble on enough you will bury your mistake to anyone who comes late and reads the last couple of posts ? Neanderthals ? You must be joking.....

IS it that you do not read or are you just dumb to the bone? Youve been given data that clearly dropped a wtertank all over your "states rights"crap. (And the fact that slavery went on in England and its colonies until it was outlawed by PArlaiment (1807 and 1833 rulings) also clearly debunks your opinion).WHICH, by the way has been mostly fact free. Even your clips dont support anything you contend.

Continue playing the town idiot or join the converstaion, as an adult, admit that you were misinformed and get on with life. You are not fooling anyone. When alter added his own data, all you did was slash out at him, you werent even civil with him as a newcomer.

I have a feeling that you believe there is a vast conspiracy against ANUS. There aint, you hardly matter. Its just because you incessantly post as a contrarian without any backup, many people merely want to help you better understand.
They dont deserve to be yelled at. If you wanna take it out on me, thats ok, Im used to your outbursts of insanity and misinformation.

Youve got a 100% streak of poor contributions.
HAve you been right anywhere??

In his own mind, no doubt.

Documents. For instance in the London Metropolitan Archives. Or Westminster Archives. Or ...

Or simply knowing what "subject" meant ... every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British (resp. English) Crown was a natural-born subject under English law.

Will you be citing a reference or do we take you at your word ? You are way off the mark if you think blacks were Englishmen .

That is totally incorrect . How many subjects had voting rights ? Even under the Feudal System a serf could rise up to be a Lord of the Manor, knight or Titled Noble . No one had the right to sell a serf .

The ability to sell an Englishman in England was banned by the Normans under pressure from the Church .

Try to post when you are at least sobring up before starting again .

Did the Normans move to ban slavery under pressure for the Archbishop of Canterbury, yes or no ?

Within a short period of time, was it banned to sell an Englishman under slavery in England, yes or no ?

You mindlessly rave on about what happened hundreds of years later, trying to wipe out any history you are not aware of....it doesnt work that way .

Prove it . You are full of bullshit you cant prove . You just make up this crap as you go along .

Spain enacted the first European law abolishing colonial slavery in 1542 . Can you read the word COLONIAL ? Abolitionism in the West was preceded by the New Laws of the Indies in 1542, in which Emperor Charles V declared free all Native American slaves, abolishing slavery of these races, and declaring them citizens of the Empire with full rights. The move was inspired by writings of the Spanish monk Bartolome de las Casas and the School of Salamanca. Spanish settlers replaced the Native American slaves with enslaved laborers brought from Africa and thus did not abolish slavery altogether.

The Somersett's case in 1772 that emancipated slaves in England meant it was illegal for an Englishman to own a slave in England .

Pennsylvania passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780.

Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later, while slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Try educating yourself rather than guessing and then lying to cover up having to say you were wrong .



Gomer the Turd must seek help .

Your best contribution to date...original, correct and to the point . But will you be making any serious contributions to the argument or just nipping at the heels of the big dogs ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Pity you dont bother to read your own posts, though I can understand the boredom they induce .... Incidentally, Wikipedia is wrong . Serfdom was not ruled illegal .

Heres an example where someone might think they had made a point that slavery was ended 1000 years ago in England. It appears that the TRADE in slavery within a CITY in ENGLAND had made an ordinace . One must not confuse geography. See london was a small village in th country called ENGLAND, and they made an ordinance to ban the sale of slaves within the city limits. In London, according to CArlisle, it was possible for slaves to even own property.
In the US, as an analogy, abolition of slaves began in several colonies well before the 19th century, pLaces like Rhode ISland and Massachussets banned slavery and freed slaves. However, it wasnt until the EMancipation proclomation and , more importantly, the 13th AMendment to our Constitution, that the institution of slavery was ended.

Even George washington owned slaves, Also, I dont think Tom Jefferson did all that gardening by himslef. (In fact I dont think he did anything physical at all)
___________________________________________________________

Well, it wasn't the town/city council but a church council (consilium).
And slave trade was indeed forbidden then .... outside London and to non-Christian countries.

But since Ionus admitted that his Latin isn't so good, he might have skipped those passages in the document.

And before Ionus asks me again: writings by Eadmer deal about it - in Henry Wharton's Anglia Sacra, part II (1691), you can find a list of most most of his writings.

sounds like their own version of the EMancipation Proclamation which outlawed slaves in territories that the US was at war with. What a deal!

But what do you think it says on the subject of slavery being banned in England by the Normans ?

Back to the topic......

There was no precedence in English common law for owning slaves, it having been banned by the Normans and the tendency to own slaves had been damaged by less rights for free men, it would have to be legalised by a formal law...no such law existed .



Therefore the Confederacy was no more about slavery then it was about any other illegal activity . We might as well say the USA of today is about marijuana smoking . Sells it a bit short, dont you think ?

Then why did the Crittenden Compromise and The Wshington DC Peace Conference of 1861 even have to be taken under consideration.
Why was there a Dred Scott/
A Kansas Nebraska Act,?
Why was there a Missouri Compromise?
Why was there a series of "fugitive Slave Acts"

Why then, a year after the Emancipation Proclamation did Congress adopt and ratify the 13th amendment (which was the first time our constitution actually banned slavery)

All these and several more, if you were correct in your assessment, would have been totally unnecessary no? Why, if we all agreed that slavery was kaput in the US, were all these acts(most all before the Civil War except for the Emancipation Proc and the 13th AMendment) even written down in history books? are we being lied to?

Like Panzade said, pobably noone was actually out in the battlefield fighting for or against slavery. They were fighting as most other wars are fought--to win. Soldiers dont usually fight to win a cause, they fight to not let their buddies down.

Howver Its BECAUSE of slavery that all this happened. I think thats a clear and correct underpin of the basis of the Confederacy and the Civil war. It was all BECAUSE of slavery. No matter what high toned words are used by deniers of slavery (we are coming to terms with it in the US apparently much better than are folks in other countries), the facts remain that all the rules the laws the last minute attempts to coddle the states that didnt secede yet and perhaps to woo back those that did, the proclamations and Acts were undeniably written about slavery.

How else would you decipher the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act" which began a riot in Pennsylavania in1851, or why was a human being declared as "property" by the US supreme Court? Why was a slave calculated to be 3/5 of a "human being".

As we draw closer to our sesquicentennial of this war, it was the Washington Post that hoped that we ( as a nation)would address the core issue of the Confederacy and the Civil War (slavery) as we HAD NOT DONE in ourCentennial "Celebration". I think weve grown in the last 50 years and we can handle our warts. Again, as a nation,We will STop denying the facts.
Now Im sure several others (Pan, set, Georgeob CI , GEorge, Dys, and several other Civil War "bluffs" can shed waay more light and reason onto this issue than i can).
I love to grab and rassle over the very issue but we must recognize that there are historical documents out there that point the finger at this root cause and all it takes is some reading.

Ive postede several of the key slavery issues ACts and Supeme court decisions and acts of Congress and even a presidential proclamation. You can easily find them on many sites and Im willing to listen to any arguemnt that you find that these documenst dont deal with slavery as the underlying cause of the Confederacy and the War,

That's a stretch. Slavery was not illegal in the South. Period. End of discussion.

I don't care what the Virginia State Constitution says.

Nothing, as you certainly have read yourself, by now.

So the Normans left written documents in England from which you can quote?