That was a good question, "By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a bogus election?" As I understand it, the requirements for voting in Kansas allowed for the "migration" from Missouri to Kansas to engage in voting. In hindsight, it was a terrible oversight to have allowed this. The fact that some took advantage of this loophole seems to be the American way. You could call it a technicality that should not have been allowed, but regardless, it was. Some would say that they were not border ruffians (a term used initially and exclusively by Kansans), but rather citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Which, by the way, regardless of how deplorable one might describe slavery, it was protected by our constitution. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brady Umfleet (Terr. Newsstand Coord.)" <BUMFLEET@bordersgroupinc.com> To: <MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > Hello, > > I am well aware of our history and not some the revisionist bunk below-War > of Northern Aggression surely you jest-the South ran rough shot over the > north-until immigration began to turn the tide and the numbers tilted to > the north-once the south knew they could no longer bully the north they > decided to cut and run. I find it funny that the North kept the South > down-when in actuality the south up until the time of the Civil War more > often than not had the White House, The Congress, and more importantly the > Supreme Court- > > Actually, you are welcome to challenge my grasp-but you better come loaded > for bear-how interesting that you sit in judgment of a wonderful political > decision by Lincoln to only emancipate certain slaves. > > Federal Despotism-I find this to be a hoot-perhaps you should look into > the despotism of those in the south who not only railroaded many of their > people on the issue of Secession-then to further spit in the face of the > rights of the people decided that counties in their states who wanted no > part of this could not in turn leave the state-ironic. > > The last state to end Slavery was Texas-they forgot to tell the slaves > they were free-the day of freedom in Texas is still celebrated as > Juneteenth. > > By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a > bogus election-how do they stand for the rights of the people against > tyranny? the short answer is they don't. The Ruffians were the instigators > of the violence-once the Free Staters saw that they were to be governed by > an illegal government elected by the Ruffians-they indeed began to fight > back-something the Southern were not familiar with-some would call it > resistance. > > You are correct in that Jayhawkers used many excuses to pillage farms-etc. > But you are blinded by your revisionism to see that both sides were > equally guilty. > > I disagree with your economic analysis-first, Slavery depresses wages-no > need to pay white folks a good wage when you can work slaves for free-or > nearly free-since one does have to feed and cloth them. > > Let us keep in mind the planter elite were not interested in progress-they > wanted to emulate the wealthy land owners of England-you should ask > yourself why the southerners didn't take it upon themselves to develop > their industry, railroads, etc.? Oh, mean northerners made life tough on > the cotton plantation owners-I guess this would excuse them from > diversifying-investing, etc. > > I will agree that there was little interest in many northerners to > eliminate slavery-however, the Slave Owning elite drove them to this > position by the attempt of Southerners to not only expand slavery west and > south but to dictate to northerners the terms by which they would agree to > stay in the union. > > One last note-the rebels got off easy-no mass executions-no mass > confiscation of rebel property, and no mass expulsion of rebels. Had > northerners been as the revisionists and the neo-confederates make them > out to be then were was the retribution? > > Face up rebels-you all got hood winked by the wealthy-and paid the > price-god forbid you all should own up to it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Morgan [mailto:wmorgan1@kc.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:46 AM > To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > > > With such a complete grasp of history, surely you know that slavery > existed > in the North well after the Confederacy was forced to capitulate. Mr. > Lincoln's famed "Emancipation Proclamation" specifically limited freeing > of > slaves to those states "in rebellion" against the United States. As the > Confederate states had already declared their independence he was merely > making another affront to the sovereignty of a people who had voted for > independence from federal despotism. Mr. Lincoln also suspended the right > of > habeas corpus until overruled by the Supreme Court. > > His famed proclamation specifically excluded the states of Maryland, > Tennessee and Delaware and slavery was not officially ended in Kentucky, > Missouri and Delaware until ratification of the 13th Amendment in > December, > 1865. Delaware was, in fact, the last state to end slavery. > > Certainly you are also aware that much of the slave traffic came from the > North, with a booming slave market in Baltimore, for example. Many Yankee > brokers bought human chattel in the West Indies and brought them into > northern ports for sale. > > The most unique thing about Missouri and Kansas was that the so-called > "civil war" started here about five years before the assault on Fort > Sumter. > Federally instigated bandits and fanatics such as Jim Lane, Jim Montgomery > and John Brown organized gangs of armed ruffians to launch raids in > Missouri, ostensibly to combat slavery. The "Jayhawkers" and "border > ruffians," however, were seldom interested in whether or not a targeted > family owned slaves. If they had livestock or other valuables they were > fair > game no matter how they stood on the issue of slavery. > > The War of Northern Aggression, like most wars throughout history, was > over > money and wealth. The Yankees wanted cheap cotton for their textile mills > and they wanted to recover what they paid for that cotton by taxing > southern > cotton producers unmercifully. The powerful business interests of the > Northeast controlled the national government in the city of Washington and > used it to hold the South in firm control and near-poverty. Those same > businessmen abused their own workers and held them in what amounted to > economic slavery. They had no interest in eliminating slavery, just a > burning desire to insure that they reaped as much as possible of the > profits > of that "unholy institution." > > Chattel slavery was deplorable but it continues today in many parts of the > world. > > This country was built first upon the backs of indentured servants > (economic > slaves) from Europe and then on the labors of chattel slaves, first from > the > people indigenous to the West Indies and subsequently the Africans. "Human > bondage" built the great industrial strength of the northeast United > States > just as surely as it did the plantation life of the South. > > Bill, in KC > =-=-=-=-= > >> If by resources you mean the ability to traffic in human bondage-then you >> are correct-and actually you are incorrect regarding Missouri's >> uniqueness-the only state not to raise White Union troops was South >> Carolina-where neo-confederates still fight the usage of the term civil >> war-Slavery allowed a lazy white slave owning population to play upon the >> racial fears of the middle to lower classes-who had nothing to gain with >> slavery-slavery of course kept wages down for the middle and poor >> whites-while allowing the wealthy slave owners to live a life of fancy >> laziness. Also let us keep in mind the CSA instituted our first >> draft-however, exempting Slave owners who owned 20 slaves or more (I >> think >> this # is accurate)-Rich man's war-poor man's fight. >> >> Of course the issue of State's Rights was not important to Southerners >> who >> clamored for, and had passed, the Fugitive Slave Law which allowed >> widespread violations of non Slave States Rights-State's Rights folks >> tend >> to forget this little issue-I will not even go into the violent >> resistance >> to and repression of free speech and free press for anti-slavery >> AMERICANS >> in the south-suffice to say that the Slave Owning elite were able to >> trample on the rights of the working class, the anti-slavery, and Black >> Americans. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: SEASNAPPIER@aol.com [mailto:SEASNAPPIER@aol.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:54 AM >> To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Re: MO-CW-D Digest V05 #134 >> >> >> Remembering that the North benefited the most from it all. They had the >> textile factories. It appears the North was trying to control the South >> and it's >> resources. I believe much of the history to be correct in regards to most >> the >> south, but when it came to MIssouri, it was an entirely different issue. >> State's Rights...is always what is at issue and as typical, it appears >> to >> be a >> repeating trend. Slavery of any kind is wrong and was wrong so please >> don't >> misunderstand me. I am not trying to justify slavery. I am trying to >> introduce >> the real reasons for the SO CALLED CIVIL WAR, from one Missourian's >> point >> of >> view. My family lost all it had from Order #11 and the Burn Orders. They >> were >> just simple God Believing and Hard Working Folks as many were. >> Check Scholl/Ross/Boone/Muir/Hinde/Key/Wallace/Parr/James/Younger, >> ect...... >> >> >> >> ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== >> NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, >> political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal >> messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be >> grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen >> Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net >> >> ============================== >> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find >> marriage announcements and more. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >> >> >> >> ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== >> To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the >> utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to >> unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change >> the -L- to a -D- >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, > political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen > Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the > utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to > unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change > the -L- to a -D- > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >