Knights' Gold . . . 5,000 Gold Coins . . . Largest KGC Treasure Ever Discovered

Old Bookaroo

Silver Member
Dec 4, 2008
4,344
3,548
ECS:

The Southern states didn't "succeed" from the Union. No state can do that without the consent of the others.

In 1860 and 1861 slavery was legal in some states and not in others.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM
 

L.C. BAKER

Silver Member
Sep 9, 2012
3,805
4,643
Nebraska City, Nebraska
Primary Interest:
Other
"It was only called the 'Lost Cause' by the Yanks."

Obviously wrong.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM

Once again....this is what happens when you are 100% educated by U.S. History books. I arrest my case.

jub.jpg
 

Old Bookaroo

Silver Member
Dec 4, 2008
4,344
3,548
That would be news to Gen. Robert E. Lee. He had the rare good sense to surrender and not prolong the agony with a pointless guerrilla war.

Personally, I don't think your case is against the law. It is simply factually incorrect. Interesting you quote Gen. Early after claiming only Yankees used "The Lost Cause." Why wasn't he covered by the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia? Because he'd been relieved of his command. He wore out his welcome.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM
 

franklin

Gold Member
Jun 1, 2012
5,036
7,168
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Robert E. Lee's rare good sense had nothing to do with the situation he faced at Appomattox. His men soundly wiped General Custer and Sheridan's Calvary and drove them back for over a mile. And they did this without sleep or anything wholesome to eat for three days of forced marching. The only reason Robert E. Lee surrendered is because the 6th Corp of Infantry had been brought up during the night. Rather than having his men slaughtered by facing insurmountable odds, Robert E. Lee did the only thing he could do and surrendered. As far as the South losing the war, it ain't over yet?
 

ECS

Banned
Mar 26, 2012
11,639
17,694
Ocala,Florida
Primary Interest:
Other
ECS:

The Southern states didn't "succeed" from the Union. No state can do that without the consent of the others.

In 1860 and 1861 slavery was legal in some states and not in others.
It was legal in all of the United States for seventy years, why do you keep this denying this, Old Bookaroo?
The Confederate States only lasted 4 1/2 years, and yes they did succeed from the Union.
 

Old Bookaroo

Silver Member
Dec 4, 2008
4,344
3,548
ECS:

You wrote "It was legal in all of the United States for seventy years, why do you keep this denying this, Old Bookaroo?"

So it is your contention from the time the Constitution was ratified until the Civil War there were no free states and slave states? That all the states within the United States were slave states?

Did I state that correctly?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM
 

ECS

Banned
Mar 26, 2012
11,639
17,694
Ocala,Florida
Primary Interest:
Other
Old Bookaroo, you are becoming a Lost Cause.
Are you referring to the Missouri Compromise?
Even after that Act there was slavery in the states not affected in that, including Northern states like New York and New Jersey.
You are aware of that, or are you smugly content to pin all the evils of slavery in America on the 4 1/2 years of the Confederacy?
You do seem to have a revisionist agenda of blaming the South.
 

Rebel - KGC

Gold Member
Jun 15, 2007
21,680
14,739
It was legal in all of the United States for seventy years, why do you keep this denying this, Old Bookaroo?
The Confederate States only lasted 4 1/2 years, and yes they did succeed from the Union.
ACTUALLY, it was a STATE'S RIGHTS "Issue"; SOME "needed" slaves & SOME didn't, SO...
 

ECS

Banned
Mar 26, 2012
11,639
17,694
Ocala,Florida
Primary Interest:
Other
Old Bookaroo, when the Confederacy succeeded from the Union, was slavery legal in the United States ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
You still keep avoiding this question, Old Bookaroo. Why?
Yes or No.
A simple answer.
 

Old Bookaroo

Silver Member
Dec 4, 2008
4,344
3,548
ECS:

You have no standing to demand I answer your random questions.

However, in this case I already posted a reply. The fact that you may not like it doesn't change anything. Vermont, for example, became a free state before the Articles of Confederation were signed.

"The Ohio Constitution of 1803 prohibited slavery, honoring one of the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance. The convention members failed to extend the suffrage to African-American men in the constitution by a single vote."

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Ohio_Constitution_of_1803

Your claim that "It was legal in all of the United States for seventy years" is plain wrong.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM
 

Last edited:

Old Bookaroo

Silver Member
Dec 4, 2008
4,344
3,548
Did Texas declare independence to preserve slavery after Mexico made it illegal?


Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM
 

L.C. BAKER

Silver Member
Sep 9, 2012
3,805
4,643
Nebraska City, Nebraska
Primary Interest:
Other
That would be news to Gen. Robert E. Lee. He had the rare good sense to surrender and not prolong the agony with a pointless guerrilla war.

Personally, I don't think your case is against the law. It is simply factually incorrect. Interesting you quote Gen. Early after claiming only Yankees used "The Lost Cause." Why wasn't he covered by the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia? Because he'd been relieved of his command. He wore out his welcome.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo, CM

Again.. Buckarooski, below on the left is another example of the way cold hard facts sound without any candy coating or censorship. Unfortunately some of the United States history has been written with
candy coating and censorship leaving some of us with an illusion of what we were to study and quote as fact .

. cold hard facts.jpg FOOL.jpg
 

Last edited:

etex

Bronze Member
Feb 20, 2013
1,167
2,066
Longview, Texas
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
No, Santa Anna overthrew the constitution of 1824 was the main reason, same reason Zacatecas rebelled and Santa Anna put them down first. The same reason the Alamo flag had 1824 on it. My GGgrandfather came to Texas in 1835, he had no slaves also. Not everything is about slavery. He didn't fight but received land for loaning a mule to another man that went to fight.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top