White Privilege

[Lees]

So, you don't have one? When South Carolina ceded the forts to the Federal government, that was done via legal contract. That legal contract specified the terms and conditions of the cession, those terms and conditions did not include secession. South Carolina would have had to find legal avenues to end the contract, because a contract can't just dissolve because one party "changed their mind" unless specified in the contract.

You're confused.

Here is the "Fugitive Slave Clause": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

Here is the "Fugitive Slave Act of 1850" also know as the "Fugitive Slave Law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

Here is the "Fugitive Slave Act of 1793": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793

You using these terms interchangeably, but they do not refer to the same thing. A "clause", in this context, is an outline detailing how certain laws should be followed, but it is not endorsing certain laws over other laws (considering the laws differed from state to state).

Again, you're missing the point. The majority of the framers wanted to see slavery gradually abolished at some point. They didn't want to put explicit language in the Constitution, because they wanted to keep it a "living document" that could mold with future societies where slavery no longer existed:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/founding-fathers-views-slavery

The Founding Fathers and Slavery | History, Impact & Legacy | Britannica

Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery.

www.britannica.com

No, plenty of monuments belong in public spaces, just not the Confederate ones.

No, you don't have one. All that is required for secession is to peaceably state the reason for secession. Which each State did. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connnecte them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal status to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitles them, a descent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which imple them to the separation."

All fugitive slave laws are based upon Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution. Why, because Article 4 Section 2 protects slavery. It is the Fugitive Slave Law.

So you and the NAACP and Hannah Nikole Jones and all other racist blacks say. Means Little.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Again, these are just more assumptions on your part.

We've gone over this: No where does it say that "America was founded by black people."

"AI Overview" is not a reliable source.

Projection. But no, my views are informed by data, not the other way around. Obviously, you were only willing to cite data when you mistakenly thought it was proving a point that it wasn't proving.

No, they are not assumptions.

(Education Next.org/1619 Project enters American classrooms) "The goal of the 1619 Project is to reframe American History by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nations birth year." Not when the Mayflower came over, but when blacks came over as slaves. The reframing of Ameircan History places the importance on the blacks. Not the Europeans who founded the country.

Of course not. It disagrees with you. You have presented many sources from wickipedia. Many consider that an unreliable source also.

Any source I have used has proved the point I was making.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@blur

I saw your message that you would be gone awhile. Have a good time and see you when you get back.

Lees

 

[blur]

Just because the quote was written by democrat Northerners as a response against Brown and his attack at Harpers Ferry doesn't mean what is said is not true. It is true.

Except the book you are quoting from (John Brown by David S. Reynolds) says it's not true. The author offers small excerpts from a few published articles following Harper's Ferry that accuse Republicans of working with Brown, and then assess whether or not the claims within those articles are true. The conclusion the author (Reynolds) of the book comes to, based on what those who worked alongside John Brown have said, was that those claims within those articles were not true. You leave the conclusion out. So, either you didn't read the full chapter, or you don't believe the book you are quoting from is a credible source (which would then beg the question: why do you keep quoting from it?).

Don't give me quotes without the page number. They mean nothing without the page number. I'm not going to waste time having to read the whole chapter to find your quotes. How disingenuous you are.

I'm using the Books app on Apple/IOS to access the book, so the page numbers will not be the same as the page numbers in the physical copy of the book (I was able to use internet archive to access some of the pages you referenced, but switched to the digital copy as the internet archive did not have all pages of the book available including page 358). So, in the digital version of the book, the quote you offered regarding Brown being a "paid hireling of the Republican Party" is on page 626 (page 358 in your copy). The quotes I offered where it states that these claims accusing the Republican Party of being complicit in Harper's Ferry are false, and then offers numerous quotes from people who worked with John Brown stating that he hated the Republican Party and that they didn't trust him, begin on page 629 through 631 (this might be in pages 360 through 364 in your copy but should start about 6 or 7 paragraphs after the paragraph that features the "hireling" quote for more specific reference).

Nothing is out of context. The quote says nothing about the 40 rifles being approved, only that the order had been suspended by Colonel Gardner, and Foster revived it. This, as I said before, is why it says in another quote that he did it 'quietly'.

Colonel Gardner had been given the go ahead to gather muskets/ammunition from the United States Arsenal in Charleston (last paragraph here: https://discerninghistory.com/cause...orts-sumter-and-moultrie-by-abner-doubleday/1). Captain Seymour volunteered to fetch them, but there had been concerns about civilian mobs attacking them if they were to leave their forts, so they attempted to do so quietly. Mobs did show up, and Captain Seymour had to turn around without the muskets/ammunition. Colonel Gardner wrote to the mayor of Charleston about it, and the Mayor apologized and assured them they could go again and get them without being stopped (first paragraph here: https://discerninghistory.com/cause...orts-sumter-and-moultrie-by-abner-doubleday/2). Gardner never did (he didn't have faith that the mayor had control over the civilians), and by December Captain Foster had taken over, so Foster thought it would still be fine for him to fulfill the original order as it had only been about a month.

This is no assumption. The fact that the higher ups denied his first request, and then ordered him to return the arms the second time, is proof that the higher ups knew of the pledge.

The higher-up was John B. Floyd. The supposed "pledge" would have taken place between December 8th-10th (https://www.historians.org/teaching...-of-major-events-leading-to-secession-crisis/). The first request that Floyd denied happened on December 2nd. So, no, this was certainly not evidence that there was knowledge of a pledge, because the meeting the supposed pledge would have been made at hadn't occurred yet when Floyd denied Foster the first time.

 

[blur]

None of what Floyd was facing changes anything about the pledge. What Buchanan was facing, is why he was lying about the pledge.

This is an opinion without evidence.

The move to Sumter from Moultrie was an act of aggression as it was breaking the agreement.

The only agreement that could have been made would be that Buchanan and other higher-ups would not order their men to move forts, and that did not happen. Buchanan can't promise that one of his own wouldn't go rogue anymore than any other head of military can.

Soldiers at Moultrie could go to Charlston and get supplies if they needed.

Except they were getting attacked by mobs when they attempted to do so: https://discerninghistory.com/cause...orts-sumter-and-moultrie-by-abner-doubleday/2

And South Carolina would be more than willing to believe your last statement. Thus they gave Anderson and Buchanan the opportunity to remedy the situation by sending the men back. Which they didn't So, yes, the act of breaking the pledge, and the then refusal to correct that act, was an act of war.

Again, Buchanan stated that he could not send Anderson back because South Carolina had already taken over Fort Moultrie.

No, you don't have one. All that is required for secession is to peaceably state the reason for secession. Which each State did. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connnecte them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal status to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitles them, a descent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which imple them to the separation."

A state secedes, all state-level government buildings and entities go with it, sure. But it doesn't address property that belongs to another government.

All fugitive slave laws are based upon Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution. Why, because Article 4 Section 2 protects slavery. It is the Fugitive Slave Law.

Yes, fugitive slave law was based on Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution. No, Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution is not a law. It's a clause (which is why it's referred to as "clause 3"). Words have meaning, you can't just apply whatever definition you want when you feel like it.

(Education Next.org/1619 Project enters American classrooms) "The goal of the 1619 Project is to reframe American History by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nations birth year." Not when the Mayflower came over, but when blacks came over as slaves. The reframing of Ameircan History places the importance on the blacks. Not the Europeans who founded the country.

"By considering what it would mean" should be bolded. They are not claiming that 1619 is the nation's birth year, they are "considering" what it would mean. To "consider" something is simply to think about something, not to claim something outright.

Of course not. It disagrees with you. You have presented many sources from wickipedia. Many consider that an unreliable source also.

Wikipedia provides linked sources to the claims within its articles. But I can always offer alternative sources upon request.