Majority of Canadians Support the Republic of Canada

United North America - Helping Canada's Provinces Join The USA

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

UNA Yahoo

Frappr

Profile

Majority of Canadians Support the Republic of Canada
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

United North America Board -> UNA Debate

Author

Message

Foxfire
UNA Supporter

Joined: May 14 2004

Posts: 5936
Location: Oklahoma

Posted: Dec 03, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject:

Ignoring the world entirely is dangerous, but playing absolute police is equally as dangerous. Iran, actively campaigns against the US, we should watch them. We should be wary, and armed just in case. Same with China. These are people that will one day affect Libertarians, yes to every man his home is his castle, but man has become very adept at toppling those over the ages. Essentially, I can't trust government entirely, but nor can I trust you or foreign nations to behave any more or less than they can. There has to be a balance struck. Paul says some interesting ideas, but he is not the man to pull it off.

Monorprise
UNA Unopposed

Joined: Feb 16 2004

Posts: 3850
Location: New Mexico

Posted: Dec 04, 2007 3:41 am Post subject:

Foxfire wrote:

Ignoring the world entirely is dangerous, but playing absolute police is equally as dangerous. Iran, actively campaigns against the US, we should watch them. We should be wary, and armed just in case. Same with China. These are people that will one day affect Libertarians, yes to every man his home is his castle, but man has become very adept at toppling those over the ages.

Essentially, I can't trust government entirely, but nor can I trust you or foreign nations to behave any more or less than they can. There has to be a balance struck. Paul says some interesting ideas, but he is not the man to pull it off.

My concern is with countries like Iran, its not a matter of watching, the way they wage war, is shale we say under the belt and with out admitting it.

In short when they get the capability, they will use it and clam they didn’t.
As so that they can keep using it until they get their objectives.

Prisoners and surside watch patents are control by being placed in a controlled environment where there effective options and tools are limited in terms of their ability to do harm to either themselves or someone else.
Iran being a State government even with all the sanctions in the world is in no such environment, and never could be placed in one. Iraq Was the same way, only where as Saddams interests were a little bit revenged and mostly staying in power and comfortable, Iran’s Islamic leaders interest are quite ideological and global.

In short as with Iraq it’s only a matter of time, and unlike Iraq, the range and priority of targets and technology aren’t quite so confined and balanced.

We can play Russian roulette for a decade or so more but sooner or later, we are going to lose, and at that time we will have to pay the cost not only for their actions but for our response.

As to everyman’s castle, it should be noted that as with among men, states the same tend to topple each other. They don’t do this for no reason, they do it because human nature of self advancement drives them to do it, seeing it as a way to advance their own position, build their castle bigger.

Government were established among men, as a mean by which a union of men, could stand together and defend other union of men from exposing them, and to some degree defeat theses unions of men in self advancement of it self.

The 2ndary roll of government was that of setting up set of rules and guild lines by which these men could operate with out exporting each other using unhelpful means. Most of the time, this is called Law and order. But is by nature subject to exploitation as just as easly as 1 man or group of men can exploit others, by their own force, they can also do it using the force of government. This status is considered a tyranny, and there are a great many ways by which this can be done, and relatively few in which it can be stopped or reversed.

Americalex
UNA Supporter

Joined: Aug 27 2004

Posts: 4144
Location: Quebec

Posted: Dec 20, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject:

Vicomte13 wrote:

Anyway, you tell me what you think the primary cause of the American Revolution was. And then explain to me why this cause justified the murder of soldiers of the Americans' King.

Sorry it took so long. I think the primary cause of the war of independance was due to the fact that Britain deprived the colonies of their currency (the fiat colonial scrip) and imposed on them a system that drained the economy to such an extent as to cause a literal collapse of living standards, forcing americans into war, an easy choice between continued prosperity or perpetual slavery.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.

KEric
UNA Opponent

Joined: Apr 16 2008

Posts: 50
Location: Ontario

Posted: May 04, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject:

mccapitalism wrote:

Neither is Paris.

Another question for an ignorant American like myself is whether or not splitting from the Monarch will kick Canada out of the Commonwealth, and what the benefits are of being in the Commonwealth.

I hate to bump an old thread, but I had to answer this question.

Canada becoming a Republic would not kick us out of the Commonwealth, in the old days it would have, but after apartheid, republic became more common, countries like India and Ireland are republics but they're still in the Commonwealth, just as Commonwealth-Republics. Commonwealth republics recognize the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth, just not their head of state.

Prior to the EU, France was looking for closer economic ties with countries, and considered joining the commonwealth (which they would have been justified in doing, considering their tied history with the UK). The US would also be allowed within the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth-Republic, considering it was founded by the UK.

mccapitalism
UNA Supporter

Joined: Sep 04 2007

Posts: 1833
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: May 04, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject:

Thanks for that.

KEric
UNA Opponent

Joined: Apr 16 2008

Posts: 50
Location: Ontario

Posted: May 04, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject:

mccapitalism wrote:

Thanks for that.

No problem.

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 09, 2008 6:26 am Post subject:

KEric wrote:

mccapitalism wrote:

We might be allowed in the Commonwealth, but we weren't founded by UK. We were founded by our Founding Fathers. While some (but by no means even close to all) of our territory historically had a connection to and/or was dominated by UK, we do not identify with UK in a political sense at all. We have prohibitions regarding monarchial recognition for ourselves. The residuals from King George III linger today.

That said, in spite of our totally seperate political existence, and significantly different cultural underpinnings from UK, they are probably our closest ally year in and year out. Since WW2 there has been an excellent rapport between the two nations.

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 09, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject:

Windwalker wrote:

Lateral wrote:

The Civil war was not a "War Between the States". It was a war between the Federal Government of the USA against European Colonial powers.

I couldn't agree more. Vicomte has obviously had some bad experiences in having to deal with racism first hand. I can almost feel his pain in what he says. I think that he has let his emotions paint an inacurate picture, though.

He paints everything as a black vs. white issue, and seems to see the entire world and our history through this prism. The Confederates didn't just think that they were racially superior to the Blacks, they had a racial beef with the Yankees, too. Yankees were refered to as "Round-Heads" and were considered to be the ancestors of peasants that had escaped Europe. The Confederates considered themselves to be the decendants of Nobles tracing their heritage back to the Normans that conquered England. Even though outnumbered, they reveled in stories about how they would subjegate the "round-heads" again as they had in 1066. They had a big surprise waiting for them. I imagine the humiliation of being defeated by a "subject race" was so embarrassing to them that they had to completely re-think their identity as a culture after the end of the civil war.

The anamosity and anguish that came from being conquered by the "round-headed" peasants was redirected doubly upon the "Africans" and allowed them to continue holding onto a shred of their identity that was based on racial superiority.

While there were groups that felt that way, it was not a pervasive thing. In fact, it was not really a state thing at all but rather a conflict of ideas. There were many supporters of states rights (the primary issue for the Confederates) in the North, and many supporters of a stronger Federal entity in the South. Many northerners fought with the Confederacy and many southerners remained loyal to the Federal Government. The preponderance of people were divided on geographic lines, it is true, but that certainly does not tell the whole story.

If you've ever been to Gettysburg, for example, one of the things you will see is a place called Culps Hill. Pvt. Culp was a Confederate soldier (from Pennsylvania) who actually died on his own family's farm during the battle. One of the Confederate generals was from New Jersey. Most generals on both sides were personal friends and had been schoolmates.
Many families were split by the conflict with family members serving on both sides. My own family had two with the Federal forces (one was killed at Richmond) and one with the Confederates. New York City was actually sympathetic to the Confederate cause. The whole situation was much more complex than meets the eye.

KEric
UNA Opponent

Joined: Apr 16 2008

Posts: 50
Location: Ontario

Posted: May 09, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject:

CTMountaineer wrote:

KEric wrote:

mccapitalism wrote:

I meant founded as colonized, but thanks for calling me on that one

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 09, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject:

The original 13 were once British colonies. However, there were sizable French possessions that later came into the picture as well as Spanish. In addition, during the hundreds of years of colonial status before independence, a great deal of divergence developed between the colonies and the mother country. Communication was very slow. Additionally, basically the only contact the average American had with anyone British was with the British Governor and the tax collector. The identity as being British naturally diminished over time in that scenario. British gradually came to be seen as negative. It became all the more so when they continued to levy taxes here but afforded absolutely no representation in their government... not even a spokesman. The split might never have happened if there had been representation even with the other factors.

KEric
UNA Opponent

Joined: Apr 16 2008

Posts: 50
Location: Ontario

Posted: May 09, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject:

Of course there were plenty of french and spanish possesions, it all started with the british, so I think that'd be enough for commonwealth status. And of course it wasn't the greated bond between the US and Britain, but it was still 'governed' by the UK for a point in time.

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 09, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject:

KEric wrote:

Of course there were plenty of french and spanish possesions, it all started with the british, so I think that'd be enough for commonwealth status. And of course it wasn't the greated bond between the US and Britain, but it was still 'governed' by the UK for a point in time.

The 13 colonies were governed by Britain for about 200 years.

KEric
UNA Opponent

Joined: Apr 16 2008

Posts: 50
Location: Ontario

Posted: May 09, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject:

CTMountaineer wrote:

KEric wrote:

The 13 colonies were governed by Britain for about 200 years.

Exactly

Windwalker
UNA Supporter

Joined: Dec 09 2006

Posts: 1020
Location: Oregon

Posted: May 10, 2008 12:33 am Post subject:

CTMountaineer wrote:

Windwalker wrote:

...The anamosity and anguish that came from being conquered by the "round-headed" peasants was redirected doubly upon the "Africans" and allowed them to continue holding onto a shred of their identity that was based on racial superiority.

You are so full of shit TC. You're comments about the traitorous, murdering, rable of an excuse for an "army" that the filthy rebels feilded is not only disgusting, but it makes me ashamed that I have to share my Country with disgusting puss-bags with our opinion on the subject.

You say things like, "while there were groups that felt that way, it was not a pervasive thing," but somehow I doubt you have ever bothered to do much research on the subject. You make it sound like Racism and Slavery were just some minor side-note popular among fring-groups of the traitors, but in real life, it was the LEADERS and FOUNDERS of the confederacy that espoused these ideas, not some strange fringe group. Here are some direct quotes from the "founding fathers" of the confederacy around the time of its formation, given in major public speeches in front of roaring crowds of their fellow traitorous bigs:

From Alexander H. Stephens' (Vice President of the CSA) "Cornerstone Speech," which was widely regarded during its time as the embodyment of the push for seccession:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

Quote:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

I am sorry for posting such a long quote, but I am sick of having this same argument with CT over-and-over. Funny thing, CT, I didn't read anything that came out of that windbag's mouth about their "State's Rights" being violated, and a whole lot of bullshit about how the Confederate God gave them permission to own slaves. You keep defending these fruit-bags like they were some kind of American Heros, but in fact they were a bunch of lunatics in the same catagory as the Nazis and the Muslims. They called the founders of our country evil and wrong, and you defend them as if they were just "Americans with a difference of opinion."

Anyone who was willing to put on a the gray of the confedracy deserved nothing better than to be shot to death on sight, as far as I am concerned.

dittbub
UNA Opponent

Joined: Jan 15 2005

Posts: 685
Location: Ontario

Posted: May 10, 2008 1:20 am Post subject:

someone tell me if i'm wrong. but as i understand it the confederate constitution was almost identical to the unions, save for the amendment in the confederates that protected the right to own slaves. how can anyone wave such a flag with pride? shouldn't it be no different than waving a swastika?

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 10, 2008 10:46 am Post subject:

Americalex wrote:

Vicomte13 wrote:

Anyway, you tell me what you think the primary cause of the American Revolution was. And then explain to me why this cause justified the murder of soldiers of the Americans' King.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.

The lack of representation was also a major beef. The system itself was a tax, and they had no way to seek redress.

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 10, 2008 11:22 am Post subject:

Windwalker wrote:

CTMountaineer wrote:

Windwalker wrote:

You are so full of shit TC. You're comments about the traitorous, murdering, rable of an excuse for an "army" that the filthy rebels feilded is not only disgusting, but it makes me ashamed that I have to share my Country with disgusting puss-bags with our opinion on the subject.

I am sorry for posting such a long quote, but I am sick of having this same argument with CT over-and-over. Funny thing, CT, I didn't read anything that came out of that windbag's mouth about their "State's Rights" being violated, and a whole lot of bullshit about how the Confederate God gave them permission to own slaves. You keep defending these fruit-bags like they were some kind of American Heros, but in fact they were a bunch of lunatics in the same catagory as the Nazis and the Muslims. They called the founders of our country evil and wrong, and you defend them as if they were just "Americans with a difference of opinion."

Anyone who was willing to put on a the gray of the confedracy deserved nothing better than to be shot to death on sight, as far as I am concerned.

"Full of shit" huh? That's a pretty strong statement. Opinions are like assholes, ... everyone has one. Let me ask you something... is your ethnic background Afro? You seem to have a pretty strong opinion about the matter you want to make the focus.

I have done more than research the matter. I am actually from the region most directly affected by the conflict. As I said, I had ancestors on both sides, and my great great grandfather (he happened to be Federal ... US 1st. Infantry) was killed at Cold Harbor. I have actually visited his grave near Richmond.

In your zeal to make slavery the central focal point of the conflict, you are confusing the underlying arguments. I am certainly not defending slavery in any way. The fact is, slavery was the sympton of rather than the cause of the conflict. The conflict over it was a result of the larger conflict over whether it could exist, which was a conflict because there was disagreement over the relative power positions of the political entities.

If you would do YOUR research, you would discover that slavery once existed all over the North American continent as well as in Africa and the Carribean. Since most slaves originated in Africa, they were sold into slavery by other blacks who had captured them as a result of tribal conflict. English and Dutch traders purchased them from Africans, and brought them to the "New World" where they were again sold on the open market. The practice existed longer in the South than in other areas because of the plantation economy in that region... the need for that type of labor was more directly manifested there.

It didn't disappear from other areas, including Canada, because people suddenly developed a conscience. That fact was aided by the fact that the practice was no longer economically feasible in those regions.

Once certain regions rejected the practice, then it became morally reprehensible that other areas hadn't done so. In reality, most people, north or south, never owned a slave nor had any of their family members. By and large (though admittedly not exclusively, since some free blacks actually owned slaves), slavery was the province of the wealthy. Only 1 in 5 people in slave holding states at the time of the Civil War owned a slave. That minority of people also happened to largely be the power brokers in the areas concerned.

In order to protect the underpinnings of the plantation economy, from which nearly everyone depended in one way or another economically, when the states where slavery had a strong foothold took up the rebellion, their residents generally (but certainly not always) took up the cause of their own state. They were fighting, in their minds, to defend their home state, ... certainly not to defend slavery per se. Most of them had no stock in the slavery debate one way or the other. Other than geographic considerations, the other reason one took one side or the other had to do with his personal interpretation of the Constitution. The debate raged over whether states had more power in the Federal system, or whether the central government was supreme.

In fact, while the Civil War started in 1861, slavery was not abolished by the Federal Government until 1863. When that happened it make many people in the states in rebellion furious. Not because of the abolition itself, but because they knew it would prolong the rebellion and make conciliation more difficult.

That decision was answered by the results of the conflict. Even the Confederate leaders considered the issue "settled on the field", and most swore allegiance to the Federal Government once more.

The real issue, however, was never formally and totally resolved. That's why from time to time there are cases argued in the Supreme Court as to whether or not a State has a "right" to do some undertaking or another. Decisions in those cases have had the effect of gradually defining the relationship of states to the central government one issue at a time.

You might want to check this out... among the famous participants in the conflict, one of the Confederacy's most famous generals Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, was from Clarksburg, West Virginia... just south of the PA line and in an area that seperated from the State of Virginia to remain loyal to the Union. Robert E. Lee, whose home in Arlington was actually within eyesight of the Capitol in Washington, debated long and hard whether to remain with the Federal Government or throw in with his home state. He ended up doing the latter, and it cost him almost everything. He was related by marriage to George Washington.

Pvt. Culp of Pennsylvania was by no means the only northerner who threw in with the Confederates. The whole issue was much more complicated than your position would make it. Abraham Lincoln devoutly believed in his stance and in the Federal cause. Although he had a loyal and loving marriage, his wife was a Confederate sympathizer and several of her brothers fought for the Confederacy. Although the name escapes me at the moment, there was a Confederate general from New Jersey.
Many families were literally split apart by the conflict.

Bethany, West Virginia is located just 15 miles from Pittsburgh. It was a Confederate leaning town. Just 3 miles from there and further south is West Liberty, West Virginia. That town threw in with the Federals. Residents of the two towns wouldn't speak to each other until the 1900s, and the athtleic teams of the schools wouldn't play each other until the 1940s, so strong was the anomosity. There were many interconnected families involved in that situation.

By the way, although it doesn't get much press for obvious reasons, there were blacks who remained loyal to their rebellious state and who fought for the Confederacy, sometimes as slaves accompanying their owners and sometimes as free blacks.

Last edited by CTMountaineer on May 10, 2008 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Demiurge
UNA Opponent

Joined: Mar 16 2005

Posts: 1061
Location: British Columbia

Posted: May 10, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"Full of shit" huh? That's a pretty strong statement.

Strong but true. Can't be said for a lot of what you post.

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 10, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject:

dittbub wrote:

someone tell me if i'm wrong. but as i understand it the confederate constitution was almost identical to the unions, save for the amendment in the confederates that protected the right to own slaves. how can anyone wave such a flag with pride? shouldn't it be no different than waving a swastika?

The Confederate Constitution was essentially identical. The dispute wasn't over what constitution to use. It was a question of interpretation of the provisions. Just like with the Bible, there are sometimes things that can be interpreted more ways than one. The Constitution said nothing about owning slaves until it was added later as an Ammendment. When the Civil War started, and until about half way through it, slavery was essentially legal. You could not own them as a resident of some states (notably most northern states), but if you owned one as a resident of a state that permitted ownership, that claim to ownership was recognized all over the country. Runaways captured in Massachusetts had to be returned to their owners, for example.

The Emancipation Proclaimation (midway through the conflict) freed all slaves in areas in rebellion, but essentially left intact ownership of slaves in states that allowed slavery but were loyal to the Federal cause (such as Deleware and Maryland), and slaves belonging to people who were residents of states in rebellion but whose slaves were not in the area of the rebellion (were located in a "free state"). The Ammendment (I believe it was the 13th. Ammendment) was not added until later.

CTMountaineer
UNA Opponent

Joined: Feb 28 2006

Posts: 1965
Location: Connecticut

Posted: May 10, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject:

Demiurge wrote:

Quote:

"Full of shit" huh? That's a pretty strong statement.

Strong but true. Can't be said for a lot of what you post.

I'm not offended. I think you are anal retentive yourself. I can appreciate that.

Display posts from previous:

	United North America Board -> UNA Debate	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 8 of 9