Taft2016
Verified User
Now they don't, then they did.
It was all sadly 100% legal and affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
It was corrected via Constitutional Amendment, the old fashioned way, the way such things are supposed to be done.
Good News
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
Now they don't, then they did.
It was all sadly 100% legal and affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
It was corrected via Constitutional Amendment, the old fashioned way, the way such things are supposed to be done.
It was corrected by a nice war, the old fashioned way.
Taft2016
Verified User
Your argument is akin to saying Eisenhower started World War II.
He *LED* the fighting in Europe... but the war was declared by the President and Congress.
Taft2016
Verified User
No. Slavery was still legal until the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Slave states not in rebellion against the US were not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation, which included Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Taft2016
Verified User
No, it was a demonstration of how clinging to one side only in a complex discussion looks idiotic.
Why do you ignore the story of Lee freeing all of his slaves... the one he apprenticed to a blacksmith in Pennsylvania, and to whom he returned his brother without fee?
Why you refuse to accept the duality in one man, which was reflective of a great deal of the south?
Your argument is weak and ignores the actual history.
The President of the Confederacy was a largely weak and ineffectual fluffery title, like the UN Secretary-General. The war powers were held in the States under their constitution (like, again, the UN which has no executive authority).
Lee was the head of the snake, not Jefferson, it was his defeat that sucked the spirit from the South. Jefferson was a figurehead, not "the leader".
Taft2016
Verified User
Was Lee an elected official in any state legislature that voted for secession? No.
Was he the governor of any state that endorsed secession? No.
Was a significant figure in the Confederate military when the war began? No.
No, no, no.
He was a soldier doing his duty. The politicians led the rebellion.
What he was, was the spirit of the south in that war. His flaunting his supremacy within marching distance of the capital (he spent nearly the entire war less than 50 miles from DC), and his military leadership were what extended that war.
When he surrendered the South lost its will and the war effectively ended. Jefferson Davis was just the "Secretary General"... A useless figurehead.
And you again forget, Lee didn't fight for the Confederacy. He fought for Virginia. Jefferson Davis wasn't his leader, he didn't fight for or because of the Confederacy.
The reality is you are mistaking the Confederate Constitution for the US Constitution. The Confederacy was far more loosely bound and the Confederate government held no power.
Taft2016
Verified User
And yet Davis was imprisoned and Lee was not.
What you suppose you think you know that the US Gov't didn't?
Taft2016
Verified User
And yet Davis was imprisoned and Lee was not.
Davis was president when the war began. Lee was a war department administrator riding a desk in Richmond.
You still want to say all of those men enlisted for Lee?
It tells me that you don't know your history. The Amnesty covered those who fought, leadership included. Those who didn't lead the war were not provided his Amnesty.
You continue to argue as if the President of the Confederacy held some power that he didn't.
The leadership of that war was not that of Jefferson Davis.
Taft2016
Verified User
Duuuuuuuuuh. And that was because the soldiers didn't lead the rebellion. They fought it.
It would have not have been ratified without the war.
As I said you don't know your history....
The States led it, with Lee at the head. You are again mistaking the powers of the President of the Confederacy. Their constitution held that power with the States, not the Presidency. Jefferson Davis had his Amnesty as well, as did all citizens per Lincoln's Amnesty, but he was later caught up in the arrests relating to the conspiracy to kill President Lincoln.
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/jefferson_davis_s_imprisonment
Union cavalrymen arrested former Confederate president Jefferson Davis near Irwinville, Georgia, on May 10, 1865. Davis was taken into custody as a suspect in the assassination of United States president Abraham Lincoln, but his arrest and two-year imprisonment at Fort Monroe in Virginia raised significant questions about the political course of Reconstruction (1865–1877).
Taft2016
Verified User
I read the link, you asked why he was imprisoned while Lee was not. Lee was not suspected in the death of President Lincoln while Jefferson Davis was. That they kept him imprisoned as a figurehead and somebody they could use to symbolically punish the South for a time (before he received the same pardon from Johnson as everybody else) doesn't change what was.
It was Lee's defeat and subsequent surrender which ended the war, Jefferson Davis had almost nothing to do with it and never had the power from that office to "lead" the war, the Confederacy Presidency didn't have the same power as the US Presidency and you mistake who could and did lead.
The defeat of Lee effectively ended the war, not the arrest of Jefferson Davis, that was made only after the assassination of Lincoln, not even at the end of the war. He wasn't even arrested for Treason, he was arrested as a suspect in a murder. Politicos could make much of his imprisonment, but had Lincoln not been assassinated, JD would never have gone to jail.
How did I defend an act of theft?
You really look idiotic clinging to this notion that slave owners were really philanthropists.
I don't much care about Lee but that one act does not redeem him. He's a pos and history will surely remember him that way with your and Tom's help.
Taft2016
Verified User
So why the assumption that the President of the Confederacy was involved in the assassination of Lincoln, but not the *LEADER* of the rebellion?
Stop it. You're not making a licking of sense.