White Privilege

[Lees]

How does one support something that hasn’t existed for 160 years? Sounds like a waste of time.

Why do blacks keep begging to be nothing but slaves though it hasn't happened for 160 years? That is not a waste of time for them because that's how they keep milkng the cash cow.

The Southernor supports the truth of his history and not the damned lies that yankees and blacks love to preach.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

Why do blacks keep begging to be nothing but slaves though it hasn't happened for 160 years?

That isn't happening.

That is not a waste of time for them because that's how they keep milkng the cash cow.

The Southernor supports the truth of his history and not the damned lies that yankees and blacks love to preach.

Lees

Southernor?

What is a "Southernor"?

 

[blur]

Since when did the North give in to the demands of a Southern governor.

It's called diplomacy. The North wanted to maintain the Union. Buchanan, himself, empathized a lot with the South on many issues. Anti-slavery Northerners called him "doughface" which was a nickname given to northerners who favored Southern political positions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughface

It's not all as black and white as you're attempting to make it out.

Pay attention to the quote. "before U.S. troops caught him." (John Brown, Reynolds, p. 207) He was caught. The reference that a Colonel Cooke missed the arrest doesn't mean Brown wasn't caught. That part of the quote is given to identify the area where Brown was caught.

Here is the full context of that quote: "One heavy disappointment befell the colonel during the northward expedition. "I just missed the arrest of the notorious Osawatomie outlaw, Brown," he reported October 7th. "The night before, having ascertained that after dark he had stopped for the night at a house six miles from the camp, I sent a party, who found at twelve o'clock he had gone." Colonel Cooke was more successful in catching the latest overland immigrants": https://www.kancoll.org/books/spring/s_chap09.htm

Cooke isn't say that he missed seeing the arrest of Brown, but that he had sent troops to arrest Brown at a house they believed he was staying at and by the time they got there, Brown had left. So, he was unsuccessful at catching Brown.

The political North represented the people of the North. Both supported John Brown. Which is why he could meet with all those people in high places and not fear being arrested. John Brown was their man. Glory, glory, halleujah, John Brown is marching on.

In post #691, you had claimed that he was meeting with "leading politicians", and that the government was keeping him safe. You named one politician he met with, and I named multiple who openly condemned him. Not to mention that it was the US congress that identified him as the leading perpetuator of the Pottawatomie massacre, if they were trying to keep him "safe", they would not have done that. The political North was varied, they did not all have the same views. James Buchanan was a Northerner who would ultimately support the Union, he still did not represent the views of all Northerners as he himself was not an abolitionist, and was very critical of the movement. Again, not as black and white as you are presenting.

"The Kansas State Committee of Massachusetts, formed the previous year by a remarkable coalition of abolitionists, Republicans, and conservative businessmen, issued an appeal for funds to aid free-state settlers." (America In 1857, Kenneth Stampp, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 149)

Not all Republicans were/are politicians. And even if some politicians had been members of the Kansas State Committee of Massachusetts, that doesn't make the organization itself representative of the government. And the member Brown had been in contact with was not a politician.

Border Ruffians referred to any with pro-slavery sentiments. Were those who John Brown murdered, 'border ruffians'. Was John Brown a 'free-state settler'?

"Border ruffians were proslavery raiders who crossed into the Kansas Territory from Missouri during the mid-19th century to help ensure the territory entered the United States as a slave state. Their activities formed a major part of a series of violent civil confrontations known as "Bleeding Kansas", which peaked from 1854 to 1858. Crimes committed by border ruffians included electoral fraud, intimidation, assault, property damage and murder; many border ruffians took pride in their reputation as criminals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_ruffian

So, no, not every pro-slavery Southerner was considered a border-ruffian. And John Brown would have been known as a "Jayhawk."

I did prove it in post # (698). Because of the agreement action was taken against those who broke it. Because Buchanan broke his word in the pledge, his Secretary of State, Floyd, resigned. The pledge was known and actions were taken against any who broke it, until Anderson broke it.

Again, that was not proof. I already explained why it was not proof.

 

[blur]

Foster did it quietly because he knew of the pledge and tried to get guns into Forrt Moultrie under the radar.

This is again you making an assumption without providing any evidence. If Anderson didn't know (he was higher rank), then Foster definitely didn't know. You would have to display that these men were actually told about an agreement, and you're just assuming that they were told.

But Buchanan lied. And Buchanan wasn't man enough to admit it. The new administration of Lincoln was coming in and the anger of the North scared him to make the right decision. Floyd, as Secretary of War knew of the pledge and what was agreed to.

How do you know Buchanan lied and not Floyd?

Floyd was Secretary of War. He could move arms where he wanted to. None of which changes the fact that a pledge was made and both sides agreed.

Why would he move them to multiple unfinished unmanned forts?

I have no idea what you mean. "Buchanan would not order Andersn to move forts"

Meaning that the only thing Buchanan could agree to would be that he himself would not order Anderson to move forts, he would not have control over one of his men going rogue (which is what Anderson did).

Because when you secede all goes with you. You asked about Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and I said the same. Just because the U.S. declares secession illegal means nothing. It was legal.

Show me a piece of legal writing that says when a territory secedes, federal property goes with you.

What it means is that Article 4 Section 2 is what is known as the Fugitave slave law. It was Constitutional protection for slavery in the U.S.

No. Article 4 Section 2 is multiple clauses. You're thinking of Clause 3 in Article 4, Section 2. A clause is not the same as a law. You're confusing
the "fugitive slave clause" with the "fugitive slave acts", which are not the same thing.

Well, yes, which puts slavery once again in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 2.

While avoiding any explicit language pertaining to slavery to black people, which was on purpose.

Birds of a feather flock together. Association correctness....NAACP, 1619 Project, reframing America, tearing down Southern history flags and monuments. Birds of a feather.

So, all you have are fallacies.

No, slavery belongs in a museum.

Agreed, the Confederacy and slavery both belong in museums....and history books.

Tha'ts a lie. Reframing is replacing. To who it is being taught, you are replacing one with the other.

Again, the 1619 Project is not meant to replace standard History curriculum. Students are still required to learn history out of their textbooks (or whatever the digital equivalent is) that the district designated to their schools. The 1619 Project is meant to be supplemental, not to replace anything.

I already showed you, why do you ask again.

You didn't.

I don't believe tests of literacy are the same from country to country. I cited the article that said literacy rate was declining in South Africa. You asked for one and I gave you one. You then wanted to compare literacy rates in America with Afriacan countries which is not the same thing.

The literacy rates from country to country are measured by the same organization: Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC).

You stated that literacy rates were declining in South Africa, and I asked you to cite your source, and then you provided the source. Why would you make the claim that literacy rates in South Africa are declining if you don't believe any statistics or data are reliable to begin with?

 

[butterfly]

Why do blacks keep begging to be nothing but slaves though it hasn't happened for 160 years? That is not a waste of time for them because that's how they keep milkng the cash cow.

The Southernor supports the truth of his history and not the damned lies that yankees and blacks love to preach.

Lees

I pray this isn't the voice of America's conservatives generally. If so, Lord help us all.

 

[FaithB]

Yes, I am pro-racist for whites

And how is that working out for you?

The black race, as a whole, has brought nothing but grief to the U.S.

The Black race brought the existence of the USA. It's not easy but they are surviving the USA better than you are capable of

 

[FaithB]

Blacks don't go after that Lincoln monument....do they? Why not? Lincoln didn't care for the blacks. Lincoln was a white racist.

He still won the war

 

[Lees]

It's called diplomacy. The North wanted to maintain the Union. Buchanan, himself, empathized a lot with the South on many issues. Anti-slavery Northerners called him "doughface" which was a nickname given to northerners who favored Southern political positions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughface

It's not all as black and white as you're attempting to make it out.

Here is the full context of that quote: "One heavy disappointment befell the colonel during the northward expedition. "I just missed the arrest of the notorious Osawatomie outlaw, Brown," he reported October 7th. "The night before, having ascertained that after dark he had stopped for the night at a house six miles from the camp, I sent a party, who found at twelve o'clock he had gone." Colonel Cooke was more successful in catching the latest overland immigrants": https://www.kancoll.org/books/spring/s_chap09.htm

Cooke isn't say that he missed seeing the arrest of Brown, but that he had sent troops to arrest Brown at a house they believed he was staying at and by the time they got there, Brown had left. So, he was unsuccessful at catching Brown.

In post #691, you had claimed that he was meeting with "leading politicians", and that the government was keeping him safe. You named one politician he met with, and I named multiple who openly condemned him. Not to mention that it was the US congress that identified him as the leading perpetuator of the Pottawatomie massacre, if they were trying to keep him "safe", they would not have done that. The political North was varied, they did not all have the same views. James Buchanan was a Northerner who would ultimately support the Union, he still did not represent the views of all Northerners as he himself was not an abolitionist, and was very critical of the movement. Again, not as black and white as you are presenting.

Not all Republicans were/are politicians. And even if some politicians had been members of the Kansas State Committee of Massachusetts, that doesn't make the organization itself representative of the government. And the member Brown had been in contact with was not a politician.

"Border ruffians were proslavery raiders who crossed into the Kansas Territory from Missouri during the mid-19th century to help ensure the territory entered the United States as a slave state. Their activities formed a major part of a series of violent civil confrontations known as "Bleeding Kansas", which peaked from 1854 to 1858. Crimes committed by border ruffians included electoral fraud, intimidation, assault, property damage and murder; many border ruffians took pride in their reputation as criminals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_ruffian

So, no, not every pro-slavery Southerner was considered a border-ruffian. And John Brown would have been known as a "Jayhawk."

Again, that was not proof. I already explained why it was not proof.

No, it's called bs. The Federal government should have hanged Brown. They were glad to let Virginia do it because Brown was doing their bidding.

I checked your reference . It doesn't appear to be dealing with the same incident. I did not see the quote you gave. Perhaps I missed it. Chapter 9 is quite long. It is numbered in certain sections for easy access. Please give the number where your quote is located. You fail to recognize the quote I gave. "U.S. troops caught him". (John Brown, Reynolds, p. 207)

Just because some in the Noth had different poltical views means nothing. John Brown was allowed to roam free throughout the North and meet with all kinds of high up people to gain support for his terroristic attack on Virginia. Why? Becasue John Brown was their man. It is black and white. Brown had no fear of being arrested no matter who he met with in the North.

Concerning Brown being supported by politicians: "In Kansas, Brown had been a 'paid hireling of the New England Republicans', who supported his murderous campaign there." And the support broadened: After his boasts that pro-slavery men had met their death with his own hands, he visited New England, was received with open arms by leading Republican politicians...was generally approved by the leaders in the Republican party, who then began looking out for another field of labor, finding it in Harpers Ferry." (John Brown, David S. Reynolds, p. 358)

Where do you find reference to John Brown being a jayhawk?

Yes it was proof. Your explanation didn't disprove it.

Lees

 

[Lees]

This is again you making an assumption without providing any evidence. If Anderson didn't know (he was higher rank), then Foster definitely didn't know. You would have to display that these men were actually told about an agreement, and you're just assuming that they were told.

How do you know Buchanan lied and not Floyd?

Why would he move them to multiple unfinished unmanned forts?

Meaning that the only thing Buchanan could agree to would be that he himself would not order Anderson to move forts, he would not have control over one of his men going rogue (which is what Anderson did).

Show me a piece of legal writing that says when a territory secedes, federal property goes with you.

Concerning Foster, he definitely knew it was against orders to bring in arms to Moultrie. He had tried it before by request and was denied. "Captain Foster had tried n December 2 to obtain a hundred muskets for training the workmen in Sumter and Castle Pinckney. Floyd deferred the request...On the 17th Forster revived an order of November 1 for forty muskets that had been suspended by Colonel Gardner, got them from the arsenal, and put them in Sumter and Castle Pinckney. the next day he was told...the guns must be returned at once...." Foster knew it was against orders. And was rebuked for it. Having the arms returned is proof that the pledge was known and was acted on by those in higher authority.

Why was Buchanan lying?...to protect his ass. His administration was coming apart due to his failure to act. Many were resigning. He was attacked by the North for being weak. And new administration was going to come in and Lincolon said that if Sumter surrender then Buchanan should be hanged. When the pledge came to light, he looked like a traitor. Floyd had sent Anderson a message, "You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression....you are not without eviden and immediate necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. But you are to holod possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity." (Demon Of Unrest, Erik Larson, p. 108-109)

When Buchanan's cabinet met, composed of many new appointees, due to resignations, they all disagreed with Floyd about Andersons actions and said Anderson should remain in Sumter. And the cited the orders that Floyd had sent to Anderson, but they emphasized 'the last extremity'. As though that meant Anderson was obeying the order. Except it ignored 'if attacked'. Because Anderson was not attacked. Thus it is clear, Buchanan has surrounded himself with new men willing to do his bidding no matter what.

It doesn't matter to this discussion why Floyd moved arms to various forts.

Who is talking about 'moving forts'? And if Anderson went rogue as you say, that is an act of war. And if it was a mistake, all they had to do was order them to return. Problem solved.

South Carolina was a State, not a territory. Show me a piece of legal writing that says when a State secedes all government property remains with the government.

Lees

 

[Lees]

No. Article 4 Section 2 is multiple clauses. You're thinking of Clause 3 in Article 4, Section 2. A clause is not the same as a law. You're confusing
the "fugitive slave clause" with the "fugitive slave acts", which are not the same thing.

While avoiding any explicit language pertaining to slavery to black people, which was on purpose.

So, all you have are fallacies.

Agreed, the Confederacy and slavery both belong in museums....and history books.

Again, the 1619 Project is not meant to replace standard History curriculum. Students are still required to learn history out of their textbooks (or whatever the digital equivalent is) that the district designated to their schools. The 1619 Project is meant to be supplemental, not to replace anything.

You didn't.

The literacy rates from country to country are measured by the same organization: Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC).

You stated that literacy rates were declining in South Africa, and I asked you to cite your source, and then you provided the source. Why would you make the claim that literacy rates in South Africa are declining if you don't believe any statistics or data are reliable to begin with?

Yet Article 4 Section 2 contains the Fugitive slave law. Any fugitive slave act or law is based on Article 4 Section 2. The Fugitive slave law is Constitutional. Slavery is protected by the Constitution.

It doesn't need to specify 'black people'. It protects slavery.

Article 1 Section 2 didn't need to specify 'black people'.

No, I have association correctness. The NAACP is black racism. 1619 Project is black racism. The NAACP supports the 1619 Project. Hannah Nikole Jones (founder of 1619 Project) supports the NAACP. The NAACP actively removes Confederate Statues and flags etc. Hannah Nikole Jones supports the removal of Confederate Statues, flags, etc. The 1619 Project wants to 'reframe American history'. To refrain American history, you have to remove what has already been taught as American history. You have to change it. Black racist groups working together to 'reframe America'. Birds of a feather flock together.

I didn't agree with you. You act like a statue should only be in a museum. Statues are for the purpose of the people the country represents. Same as with flags. By your statement, we should remove all statues everywhere. I would start first with MLK. Put him in a museum somewhere...way in the back in some unkonwn corner. Do you agree with me to that?

Oh please. In our discussions I can see the 'history' you would be teaching. It's all bs. And your statement, 'still required to learn history out of their textbooks' proves nothing. The teacher will make the emphasis what is important. And your 1619 Project replaces Ameircan history with Black American History.

Yes I did. See again, 'Education Next.org. 1619 Project Enters American Classrooms'

No they are not. Just google 'Are literacy rates from other countries measured by the same organization?'

It shows how you only present the data you agreee with. It shows how Mark Twain was right. Data and Statistics are just the third method of lying.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@blur concerning my post # (734)

In the first paragragph concerning 'Foster' I forgot to give the reference. Here it is.

(Days of Defiance, Maury Klein, Alfred A. Knopf Pub., 1997, p. 153)

Lees

 

[FaithB]

It took them nearly 100 years after losing the Civil War to start putting up Confederate monuments.

 

[FaithB]

Hannah Nikole Jones (founder of 1619 Project) supports the NAACP. The NAACP actively removes Confederate Statues and flags etc.

As they should be removed. This country waited 100 years to put up those monuments and adopt that ugly ass eyesore flag that burns my retinas
Should have won the war if they wanted their playdoh statues to stay up

The 1619 Project wants to 'reframe American history'.

As it should be reframed from the perspective of the slaves and (some of) the slave descendants.

The Confederate leaders should have been executed. 100 years later, the entire USA putting up Confederate monuments in the North and on military bases, when slavery is incorrectly taught to be a Southern belief system.

That 100 year gap is exactly why reframing is needed

The NAACP is black racism. 1619 Project is black racism.

And we need more of it

 

[blur]

@Lees, I'll be going away for the next week, so there will be a bit of a delay in my future replies.

No, it's called bs. The Federal government should have hanged Brown. They were glad to let Virginia do it because Brown was doing their bidding.

You do this a lot, you claim to know the "true intentions" of people, even if their words and actions suggest otherwise. You believing something is "bs" is not the same as evidence. The bottom line is: Virginia demanded that they be the ones to handle Brown, and they said they would not take "no" for an answer. Buchanan was not a big fan of John Brown (and Brown wasn't a big fan of him) or the abolitionists., so the idea that he was trying to avoid being in charge of punishing Brown is unfounded. When Buchanan allowed Virginia to do it, many Northerners accused him of trying to cozy up with the South (https://lancasteronline.com/opinion...cle_b448daf3-7974-5209-974d-c52302c5cc75.html).

I checked your reference . It doesn't appear to be dealing with the same incident. I did not see the quote you gave. Perhaps I missed it. Chapter 9 is quite long. It is numbered in certain sections for easy access. Please give the number where your quote is located. You fail to recognize the quote I gave. "U.S. troops caught him". (John Brown, Reynolds, p. 207)

The reference I offered is not from the Reynolds book, it's from the linked source ("Kansas: The Prelude to the War for the Union" by Leverett Wilson Spring). But the Reynolds book and the source I linked are referencing the same letter from Cooke (they both begin with the same sentence: "I just missed the arrest of the notorious Osawatomie outlaw, Brown"), and they both refer to the same incident (Brown escaping from Kansas to Nebraska before the troops could get to him) that took place on October 7th (hence why they both mention the same date).

The quote "U.S. troops caught him" does not appear on page 207 of the Reynolds book, and from what I can gather, is not stated at all in the book unless referencing his capture following the Harper's Ferry raid.

Just because some in the Noth had different poltical views means nothing. John Brown was allowed to roam free throughout the North and meet with all kinds of high up people to gain support for his terroristic attack on Virginia. Why? Becasue John Brown was their man. It is black and white. Brown had no fear of being arrested no matter who he met with in the North.

"Brown was cast as both a murderer and a thief. President Buchanan even offered a $250 reward for John Brown’s capture. Brown mockingly responded by offering $2.50 for the arrest of Buchanan.

There were few abolitionists Brown could look to for support. Although there was a general consensus on the evils of slavery, there were great divisions over the best way to end it. Few advocated the taking of life." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/brown-missouri-raid/

 

[blur]

Concerning Brown being supported by politicians: "In Kansas, Brown had been a 'paid hireling of the New England Republicans', who supported his murderous campaign there." And the support broadened: After his boasts that pro-slavery men had met their death with his own hands, he visited New England, was received with open arms by leading Republican politicians...was generally approved by the leaders in the Republican party, who then began looking out for another field of labor, finding it in Harpers Ferry." (John Brown, David S. Reynolds, p. 358)

You're taking the passage out of context. The book is quoting a "smear campaign" that had been published at the time against the Republican Party by those affiliated with the Democratic Party following Harper's Ferry that attempted to link Brown to the Republican Party. If you read the full chapter, the book goes on to explain why these claims were actually false.

Here's are some quotes from the same chapter, "Pilloried, Prosecuted, and Praised":

"Actually, there was a great distance between John Brown and the Republicans, as those who knew him well pointed out. James Redpath, the Northern journalist who had befriended Brown in Kansas, was stunned by the reports of an alleged Republican connection. "He despised the Republican party," Redpath wrote in the Liberator. "He had as little sympathy with Garrison as Seward."

Indeed, Redpath had learned from Brown himself that the Virginia invasion was an anti-Republican move. Brown had told Redpath that if the Republicans gained office, the American people would grow complacent, assuming slavery would disappear peacefully. "The Republicans," Brown had said, "would become as conservative of slavery as the Democrats themselves....Aрa-thy to the welfare of the slave would follow; hence it was necessary to strike a blow at once.

Others close to Brown made similar points. Brown's Kansas associate Richard Hinton characterized the effort to link Brown with the Republicans as "ridiculous enough to breed Homeric laughter." Hinton had once addressed the issue at length with Brown's right-hand man, Kagi, who "stated that no politician, in the Republican or any other party, knew of their plans, and but few of the Abolitionists. It was no use talking, he said, of anti-slavery action to non-resistant agitators." Richard Realf, who had been an officer of Brown's provisional government, wrote a public letter to Greeley's Tribune calling the Republican conspiracy idea
'wholly and altogether untrue.'"

"Brown and his followers had no faith in the American political system, which they believed was corrupted by compromises with slavery. "Not one of Brown's original party voted," Realf recalled. "We opposed the action of the [Republican] party in every possible way, by speeches, and in every available manner."

"Not only did Brown hate the Republicans; they mistrusted him, too."

"The Republicans presented themselves as peaceful antislavery activists who wanted to stop the spread of slavery but were willing to let it stand where it currently existed. They opposed the Garrisonian Abolitionists because they shied away from disunion. Nor could they tolerate Brown's violence, which they considered a threat to the Union. They prized the political process and criticized any anarchistic action that might tear the national fabric. Like most Americans of the day-and unlike Brown-they had conservative attitudes on race."

 

[blur]

Where do you find reference to John Brown being a jayhawk?

The Jayhawk in History and Legend

union.ku.edu

Concerning Foster, he definitely knew it was against orders to bring in arms to Moultrie. He had tried it before by request and was denied. "Captain Foster had tried n December 2 to obtain a hundred muskets for training the workmen in Sumter and Castle Pinckney. Floyd deferred the request...On the 17th Forster revived an order of November 1 for forty muskets that had been suspended by Colonel Gardner, got them from the arsenal, and put them in Sumter and Castle Pinckney. the next day he was told...the guns must be returned at once...." Foster knew it was against orders. And was rebuked for it. Having the arms returned is proof that the pledge was known and was acted on by those in higher authority.

Again, you're taking the quote out of context. Let's break this down, here's the full quote:
"Captain Foster had tried on December 2 to obtain a hundred muskets for training the workmen in Sumter and Castle Pinckney. Floyd deferred the request, and Foster soon concluded that the loyalty of the workers was too unreliable to entrust them with arms."

Foster made a request, the request was denied, Foster complied.

"On the 17th Foster revived an order of November 1 for forty muskets that had been suspended by Colonel Gardner, got them from the arsenal, and put them in Sumter and Castle Pinckney."

This order had been previously approved, but never fulfilled. Foster thought it was be fine to go ahead and fulfill, because it had been approved.

"The next day he was told that the transfer had caused an uproar in the city and that the guns must be returned at once because Major Huger had pledged that no arms would be removed from the arsenal."

Foster was furious and refused to budge until he received orders directly from Washington. He did not know that a telegram had already gone to Trescot, who took it at once to Floyd. From his sickbed Floyd ordered the muskets returned to the arsenal. The whole situation at the arsenal was strange. State troops had been posted there since November 9, ostensibly to prevent any mob attack but also to certify any movement of arms from the stores. Mindful of the absurdity that the garrison could not even obtain arms to defend itself from the government's own storehouse, Foster complied sullenly with Floyd's order. On the day he agreed to return the muskets, South Carolina passed its secession ordinance, and the game took on a new twist."

Why was Buchanan lying?...to protect his ass.

But you don't have proof, you have assumptions. Floyd could have also be lying to protect himself.

His administration was coming apart due to his failure to act. Many were resigning. He was attacked by the North for being weak. And new administration was going to come in and Lincolon said that if Sumter surrender then Buchanan should be hanged. When the pledge came to light, he looked like a traitor.

Floyd was facing attacks from the press accusing him of being a traitor, an investigation, and numerous calls to resign.

 

[blur]

Floyd had sent Anderson a message, "You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression....you are not without eviden and immediate necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. But you are to holod possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity." (Demon Of Unrest, Erik Larson, p. 108-109)

Here is the quote in full:

"You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and, for that reason, you are not, without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude; but you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and, if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts; but an attack on, or attempt to take possession of either of them, will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper, to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act." https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/scconven/corresp.html

That final sentence is key. Anderson was not only empowered to act when attacked, but also when he had reason to believe that a hostile act was being "designed". The quote I offer below from "Days of Defiance" highlights Anderson's justification for moving forts.

Thus it is clear, Buchanan has surrounded himself with new men willing to do his bidding no matter what.

What "bidding" exactly?

It doesn't matter to this discussion why Floyd moved arms to various forts.

It matters to whether or not the initial demand from the South was reasonable. Telling garrisons that they can't move forts, and they can't have any reinforcements is essentially holding them hostage.

"No orders. No clear policy other than to avoid a collision that might bring on war. No one willing to take a stand or make a tough decision in Washington while the tide of events swept South Carolina ever closer to securing the forts by force. Anderson knew of the departure of the commissioners on the 24th and concluded that his fate rested in their hands. But he had no feel for what was going on in Washington, no sense even of what options were being explored. All he knew was that he had issued repeated urgent requests and received no response or even a signal that one would be forthcoming. Someone had to make a decision, had to deal with the reality confronting him. If no one else would, he concluded grudgingly, then he must.

If the object was to avoid a confrontation, only one plan made sense to him. It had been there all along, talked about repeatedly. But every time his officers had urged him to move the command to Sumter, Anderson reminded them that he had been assigned to Moultrie and could not vacate it without orders. Now he realized that no orders would be forthcoming and that Moultrie would be even more helpless if state troops seized Sumter and turned its guns on him. With an energy and decisiveness that surprised perhaps even himself, Anderson perfected his plan. He hoped to make his move on Christmas, while the city was preoccupied, but rain forced him to wait until the next day." (Days of Defiance, Maury Klein, Alfred A. Knopf Pub., 1997, p. 154)

Who is talking about 'moving forts'? And if Anderson went rogue as you say, that is an act of war. And if it was a mistake, all they had to do was order them to return. Problem solved.

No, one army officer going rogue is not considered an "act of war", because his actions did not represent his government (hence the "rogue" part).

 

[blur]

South Carolina was a State, not a territory. Show me a piece of legal writing that says when a State secedes all government property remains with the government.

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.

Yet Article 4 Section 2 contains the Fugitive slave law. Any fugitive slave act or law is based on Article 4 Section 2. The Fugitive slave law is Constitutional. Slavery is protected by the Constitution.

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).

It doesn't need to specify 'black people'. It protects slavery.

Article 1 Section 2 didn't need to specify 'black people'.

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

I didn't agree with you. You act like a statue should only be in a museum. Statues are for the purpose of the people the country represents. Same as with flags. By your statement, we should remove all statues everywhere. I would start first with MLK. Put him in a museum somewhere...way in the back in some unkonwn corner. Do you agree with me to that?

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

 

[blur]

Oh please. In our discussions I can see the 'history' you would be teaching. It's all bs. And your statement, 'still required to learn history out of their textbooks' proves nothing. The teacher will make the emphasis what is important. And your 1619 Project replaces Ameircan history with Black American History.

Again, these are just more assumptions on your part.

Yes I did. See again, 'Education Next.org. 1619 Project Enters American Classrooms'

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

No they are not. Just google 'Are literacy rates from other countries measured by the same organization?'

"AI Overview" is not a reliable source.

It shows how you only present the data you agreee with. It shows how Mark Twain was right. Data and Statistics are just the third method of lying.

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.

 

[Lees]

@Lees, I'll be going away for the next week, so there will be a bit of a delay in my future replies.

You do this a lot, you claim to know the "true intentions" of people, even if their words and actions suggest otherwise. You believing something is "bs" is not the same as evidence. The bottom line is: Virginia demanded that they be the ones to handle Brown, and they said they would not take "no" for an answer. Buchanan was not a big fan of John Brown (and Brown wasn't a big fan of him) or the abolitionists., so the idea that he was trying to avoid being in charge of punishing Brown is unfounded. When Buchanan allowed Virginia to do it, many Northerners accused him of trying to cozy up with the South (https://lancasteronline.com/opinion...cle_b448daf3-7974-5209-974d-c52302c5cc75.html).

The reference I offered is not from the Reynolds book, it's from the linked source ("Kansas: The Prelude to the War for the Union" by Leverett Wilson Spring). But the Reynolds book and the source I linked are referencing the same letter from Cooke (they both begin with the same sentence: "I just missed the arrest of the notorious Osawatomie outlaw, Brown"), and they both refer to the same incident (Brown escaping from Kansas to Nebraska before the troops could get to him) that took place on October 7th (hence why they both mention the same date).

The quote "U.S. troops caught him" does not appear on page 207 of the Reynolds book, and from what I can gather, is not stated at all in the book unless referencing his capture following the Harper's Ferry raid.

"Brown was cast as both a murderer and a thief. President Buchanan even offered a $250 reward for John Brown’s capture. Brown mockingly responded by offering $2.50 for the arrest of Buchanan.

There were few abolitionists Brown could look to for support. Although there was a general consensus on the evils of slavery, there were great divisions over the best way to end it. Few advocated the taking of life." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/brown-missouri-raid/

The Fed. govt. should have hanged Brown, not Virginia. You can say how hated Brown was in the North, but he wasn't. That is why he was allowed to roam free and gather support for his raid on Harpers Ferry. The Fed. govt. was willing to grant Virginia the power to execute Brown because he was the North's man.

I know the reference you gave is not from Reynolds book. I was talking about your reference. Show me in chapter 9 where the quote is. I looked and couldn't find it. It is rather long, and is divided in sections and numbered. Show me the number where it is.

Im looking at the book right now. The quote is there. "....crossing over into Nebraska before U.S. troops caught him." (John Brown, David S. Reynolds, Vintage Books, 2005, p. 207)

And why do you think Brown could offer a reward for the arrest of Buchanan? Answer: because he knew he had the backing of the North.

No, there were many who supported Brown, and I gave you the quote. "In Kansas, Brown had been a 'paid hireling of the New England Republicans,' who supported his murderous campaign there. And the support broadened: After his boasts that pro-slavery men had met their death with his own hands, he visited New England, was received with open arms by leading Republican politicians, donations were collected for his support and future operations, and his action, brutal and murderous as it confessedly was, generally approved by the leaders in the Republican party, who then began 'looking for another field of labor,' finding it in Harpers Ferry." (John Brown, David S. Reynolds, p. 358)

Lees

 

[Master Debator]

When was that? Was it when John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry in Virginia? Was it when Anderson moved yankee troops from Moultrie to Sumter, contrary to what was agreed upon? Was it when Anderson attacked the workers at Fort Sumter with a bayonet charge? Was it when the North tried to secretly reinforce Sumpter with various ships? Just when was that?

As another poster pointed out, none of those were acts of war.

Oh, good, Im glad because I was worried about your laughing at me.

Your comments are only gathering more people to laugh at you.

But I'm asking you, as you said you don't give a shit about Lincoln. So why don't you and the NAACP go after the Lincolnn memorial.

Because I don't give a shit. Do you know what not giving a shit means? No?

You soft whites are the ones here crying because they are taking statues down of your favortite slavers. I'm just amused by your tears.

I did. The Southernors are those white people who fought and supported and still support the Confederacy. Thus, as you can see, MLK was no Southernor, for obvious reasons. Describe that decent society the Southernor, Southern whites who support the Confederacy,, are not welcome to?

Lees

He's not white trash no. He's a Southerner people are actually openly proud about. The Confederates? Hardly anyone wants to be associated with those pieces of white trash anymore.

 

[blur]

@Lees


You’re taking the Reynolds quote regarding Northern Republicans out of context (Reynolds was quoting from the press at the time, and was explaining why the claims that Brown was a “hireling” of the Northern Republicans was wrong, you leave that part out). You ignored the multiple quotes I offered (from the same chapter as the “hireling” quote you gave) comes from where Reynolds explains that Brown hated the Republicans, and the Republicans largely didn’t trust him or agree with his “extremism.”

The quote “before US troops caught him” when place in context (including what General Cooke stated), meant that Brown escaped before the US troops could get to him. This is made clear when you read the quote I offered which gives a longer account from Cooke saying that he had sent troops to capture Brown at a house Brown had been staying at, but by the time they had got there he was gone. You can find that quote on page 171 chapter 9 of “Kansas: The Prelude to the War for the Union" by Leverett Wilson Spring”.

Brown offered a reward on Buchanan as a joke. He didn’t need anyone’s support to do it, It was just an ad in the newspaper. We learn about this in History class. You are ignoring that the Northern President put a larger bounty on him first.

 

[Lees]

You're taking the passage out of context. The book is quoting a "smear campaign" that had been published at the time against the Republican Party by those affiliated with the Democratic Party following Harper's Ferry that attempted to link Brown to the Republican Party. If you read the full chapter, the book goes on to explain why these claims were actually false.

Here's are some quotes from the same chapter, "Pilloried, Prosecuted, and Praised":

"Actually, there was a great distance between John Brown and the Republicans, as those who knew him well pointed out. James Redpath, the Northern journalist who had befriended Brown in Kansas, was stunned by the reports of an alleged Republican connection. "He despised the Republican party," Redpath wrote in the Liberator. "He had as little sympathy with Garrison as Seward."

Indeed, Redpath had learned from Brown himself that the Virginia invasion was an anti-Republican move. Brown had told Redpath that if the Republicans gained office, the American people would grow complacent, assuming slavery would disappear peacefully. "The Republicans," Brown had said, "would become as conservative of slavery as the Democrats themselves....Aрa-thy to the welfare of the slave would follow; hence it was necessary to strike a blow at once.

Others close to Brown made similar points. Brown's Kansas associate Richard Hinton characterized the effort to link Brown with the Republicans as "ridiculous enough to breed Homeric laughter." Hinton had once addressed the issue at length with Brown's right-hand man, Kagi, who "stated that no politician, in the Republican or any other party, knew of their plans, and but few of the Abolitionists. It was no use talking, he said, of anti-slavery action to non-resistant agitators." Richard Realf, who had been an officer of Brown's provisional government, wrote a public letter to Greeley's Tribune calling the Republican conspiracy idea
'wholly and altogether untrue.'"

"Brown and his followers had no faith in the American political system, which they believed was corrupted by compromises with slavery. "Not one of Brown's original party voted," Realf recalled. "We opposed the action of the [Republican] party in every possible way, by speeches, and in every available manner."

"Not only did Brown hate the Republicans; they mistrusted him, too."

"The Republicans presented themselves as peaceful antislavery activists who wanted to stop the spread of slavery but were willing to let it stand where it currently existed. They opposed the Garrisonian Abolitionists because they shied away from disunion. Nor could they tolerate Brown's violence, which they considered a threat to the Union. They prized the political process and criticized any anarchistic action that might tear the national fabric. Like most Americans of the day-and unlike Brown-they had conservative attitudes on race."

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. And Northernors who supported Brown were being attacked for it. Which also is why the North let Virginia hang John Brown. Brown, after Harpers Ferry, for a while became a problem to them. Because so many did support him. Just like in the previous paragraph it is said: "Within a week of Brown's raid, a writer for the New York Journal of Commerce began the Democratic onslaught by insisting that the real source of Brown's aggression was the Republican Party, with its talk about 'an irrepressible conflict,' 'Beechers Bibles,' and so on. The writer called the near-universal criticism of Brown in the antislavery newspapers just a cover-up for Republican involvement in the Virginia raid. 'No wonder that some of the leading organs of Republicanism writhe under the disclosures at Harper's Ferry,' the journalist wrote." (John Brown, David S. Reynolds, Vintage Books, 2006, p. 357)

So, no, the quote was not out of context.

The bottom line is that the North supported John Brown and let him roam free throughout the North and gather support for his Harpers Ferry raid. Following the raid, most did all they could to distance themselves. The Secret Six are a good example....of that and many other things.

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.

Lees

 

[Lees]

The Jayhawk in History and Legend

union.ku.edu

Again, you're taking the quote out of context. Let's break this down, here's the full quote:
"Captain Foster had tried on December 2 to obtain a hundred muskets for training the workmen in Sumter and Castle Pinckney. Floyd deferred the request, and Foster soon concluded that the loyalty of the workers was too unreliable to entrust them with arms."

Foster made a request, the request was denied, Foster complied.

"On the 17th Foster revived an order of November 1 for forty muskets that had been suspended by Colonel Gardner, got them from the arsenal, and put them in Sumter and Castle Pinckney."

This order had been previously approved, but never fulfilled. Foster thought it was be fine to go ahead and fulfill, because it had been approved.

"The next day he was told that the transfer had caused an uproar in the city and that the guns must be returned at once because Major Huger had pledged that no arms would be removed from the arsenal."

Foster was furious and refused to budge until he received orders directly from Washington. He did not know that a telegram had already gone to Trescot, who took it at once to Floyd. From his sickbed Floyd ordered the muskets returned to the arsenal. The whole situation at the arsenal was strange. State troops had been posted there since November 9, ostensibly to prevent any mob attack but also to certify any movement of arms from the stores. Mindful of the absurdity that the garrison could not even obtain arms to defend itself from the government's own storehouse, Foster complied sullenly with Floyd's order. On the day he agreed to return the muskets, South Carolina passed its secession ordinance, and the game took on a new twist."

But you don't have proof, you have assumptions. Floyd could have also be lying to protect himself.

Floyd was facing attacks from the press accusing him of being a traitor, an investigation, and numerous calls to resign.

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'.

It doesn't matter if Foster was mad or that he didn't know about the pledge. He already knew it was against orders being denied before. Now he finds out the hard way and has to return the weapons.

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.

Yeah, and a frog could fly if it had wings.

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

Lees

 

[Lees]

Here is the quote in full:

"You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and, for that reason, you are not, without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude; but you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and, if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts; but an attack on, or attempt to take possession of either of them, will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper, to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act." https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/scconven/corresp.html

That final sentence is key. Anderson was not only empowered to act when attacked, but also when he had reason to believe that a hostile act was being "designed". The quote I offer below from "Days of Defiance" highlights Anderson's justification for moving forts.

What "bidding" exactly?

It matters to whether or not the initial demand from the South was reasonable. Telling garrisons that they can't move forts, and they can't have any reinforcements is essentially holding them hostage.

"No orders. No clear policy other than to avoid a collision that might bring on war. No one willing to take a stand or make a tough decision in Washington while the tide of events swept South Carolina ever closer to securing the forts by force. Anderson knew of the departure of the commissioners on the 24th and concluded that his fate rested in their hands. But he had no feel for what was going on in Washington, no sense even of what options were being explored. All he knew was that he had issued repeated urgent requests and received no response or even a signal that one would be forthcoming. Someone had to make a decision, had to deal with the reality confronting him. If no one else would, he concluded grudgingly, then he must.

If the object was to avoid a confrontation, only one plan made sense to him. It had been there all along, talked about repeatedly. But every time his officers had urged him to move the command to Sumter, Anderson reminded them that he had been assigned to Moultrie and could not vacate it without orders. Now he realized that no orders would be forthcoming and that Moultrie would be even more helpless if state troops seized Sumter and turned its guns on him. With an energy and decisiveness that surprised perhaps even himself, Anderson perfected his plan. He hoped to make his move on Christmas, while the city was preoccupied, but rain forced him to wait until the next day." (Days of Defiance, Maury Klein, Alfred A. Knopf Pub., 1997, p. 154)

No, one army officer going rogue is not considered an "act of war", because his actions did not represent his government (hence the "rogue" part).

The move to Sumter from Moultrie was an act of aggression as it was breaking the agreement. There was no design of an hostile act unless Anderson broke the pledge. Soldiers at Moultrie could go to Charlston and get supplies if they needed.

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.

Lees