DomAviator
Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008 Status: offline
|
I have her blocked so I dont get to see what she is saying except what is quoted in reposts. However, she is clearly on another tirade again and taking my words out of context in her unholy crusade against me etc... Once again - I did not say emancipation was wrong. I said it was HANDLED ILLEGALLY and Lincoln ran roughshod across the constitution. I said that it was MORALLY RIGHT but LEGALLY WRONG in that the owners, who were in full compliance with the laws of the time, were denied property they had paid dearly for without compensation. Again - had lincoln followed the law in emancipation there would have been due process and compensation under fair market value such as when a govt exercises emminant domain to seize real estate. This would have prevented generations of bitterness, saved countless lives, and probably prevented a group that spread decades of terror - the Ku Klux Klan - from ever forming. To reuse my Bush emancipates the Ford Explorer analogy - if you take away my explorer and write me a check for what tis worth Im content and fine. I will wave to it as it drives by me. However, if you take away my Ford Explorer - give me NOTHING for it and Im out $38,000 well then Im seriously pissed and will take my wrath out on every Explorer I see even if it means putting on a hood and going out at night to ruin Ford Explorers wherever I find them... It sounds far fetched but even though morally wrong, under the law of the land at the time, the slaves had the same legal status as a Ford Explorer. They even came with a bill of sale / title when you bought them... They were whether you like it or not, legally considered property and until the 13th ammendment were legal to own. If the matter was handled better, legally, instead of by proclamation the slaves could have been freed and much hatred, violence, and bloodshed averted. Now how is that so bad to say except that someone has a special hard on for me???
|