[Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

Stephen A. Frye s.frye at verizon.net
Fri Jun 14 16:32:28 MDT 2013


Yes, it was penned then, but I think they meant - definition - men:  white,
male, property owners.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Tom Matiska
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:02 AM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

 


Hard to argue it is only a State's right enslave, but not to offer freedom.
Why wouldn't free state's have the right to say humans aren't property?   I
missed the part where the war was fought over failure to return livestock.
The concept of all men are created equal was put to ink in the 18th century.

Tom


--- On Fri, 6/14/13, Dennis Putnam <dap1 at bellsouth.net> wrote:


From: Dennis Putnam <dap1 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Date: Friday, June 14, 2013, 11:51 AM

Semantics. The Constitutional crisis was about state rights. Namely
property. That the property was human beings is really irrelevant. The
northern states also refused to return livestock that accompanied the
slaves. Surely you would agree that much is indeed theft. You cannot hold
19th century morals to 21st century standards.

On 6/14/2013 11:31 AM, Tom Matiska wrote:


Add that to my point.  The whole of the "State's rights'" debate was
centered on the wrongs of slavery.

Tom

--- On Fri, 6/14/13, Dennis Putnam <dap1 at bellsouth.net> wrote:




From: Dennis Putnam <dap1 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Date: Friday, June 14, 2013, 8:25 AM

Not quite. Slaves were considered property. When slaves escaped to the north
the owners demanded return of their property and some refused. That was the
trigger point at which time the southern states demanded their rights as
states. There was nothing in the Constitution that granted the federal
government the power to regulate private property between states, nor does
such exist today. The federal authorities refused to facilitate the return
of property so the south decided to secede. If the war was strictly about
slavery, why did it takes 2 years of war before Lincoln issued the
Emancipation Proclamation?

On 6/14/2013 5:55 AM, Tom Matiska wrote:




--- On Thu, 6/13/13, John A. Quayle <blueoval57 at verizon.net> wrote:



 

        Actually, Tom......it was about State's Rights, not slavery! 

The right of states to allow slavery,  the right to expand slavery westward
to new states, , and the right of states to secede over slavery pretty much
covers all the state's rights discussions of the era.

Tom

 

_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 

_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130614/5837b75a/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list