Whereas the Government of the United States,

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OldDude49, Jul 2, 2017.


  1. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    I different view of the Civil War... which it is claimed... is much closer to the truth... lookin more and more like it was NOT just about slavery...


    Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions.

    Presumably, Missouri took issue with the general government sending armed troops into their State and enacting a hostile and bloody occupation which led to the “murdering with fiendish malignity” of her citizens. Had Mr. Reeves looked deeper into the nature of the union he would have found that Missouri’s stance in this regard was perfectly in keeping with the premise under which the union was formed.

    Alexander Hamilton, in the New York ratifying convention, stated that “to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?”

    Hamilton goes on to say that “Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming perhaps a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself!” He asks “Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?”

    Missouri was prompted towards secession by a preceding federal invasion and overthrow of her governmental institutions. There’s no mention of slavery as a cause, and the first act of hostility leveled between Missourians and the general government was undertaken by U.S. troops. Reeves doesn’t mention this, presumably because it would detract from the narrative of “modern scholarship” that it was all about “slavery.”

    The AP gets it wrong... again - Personal Liberty®
     
    Oltymer, Legion489, duane and 3 others like this.
  2. techsar

    techsar Monkey+++

    Good catch...akin to the emancipation proclamation freeing slaves - but only in the Southern States, not the union.

    Put all of the "historical" discrepancies together and you find a federal power grab, and not much else.
     
  3. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    Reference emancipation, yes, exactly. I would go so far to say that throughout all my school years I never heard that the "Emancipation Proclamation" only freed the slaves in the South. It makes one wonder...The victors get to write history as they see it or want it to be seen...not how it truly was. Here is a simple and yet quite good write up:

    "...Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion...Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union."
     
  4. Big Ron

    Big Ron Monkey++

    The winners write the history. Taxes are never talked about. The idea that many southerners were Christians and were against slavery is never brought up. I wonder what the feds would do about California trying to succeed.People don't learn from History.
     
    oldman11 likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7