Richmond Peace Conference

January Peace Conference in Richmond, Virginia


You are not connected. Please login or register

Discussion

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 8]

76 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:57 pm


Mr. Vernon Smith whispers something into Mr. Bullock's ears

"Quite right Vernon.Not to reign on the bi partisan concensus some of us have reached. But i'd be doing this convention a disservice If I didn't say the following. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will not agree to anything which recognizes the union as voluntary."

View user profile

77 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:58 pm

Free labor should be the highest goal of any civilized state. I am curious, if the Southern states deport their slaves to a colony in Africa - who will work their fields? The South is so incredibly hostile to the idea of the freedman that they would destroy their economy by deporting the negro, once they could no longer keep them in servitude. Imagine that, my friends. A region so hostile to the rights of man that they would literally ship them to another continent to avoid granting them their freedom.

Is this the group of men that we wish to deal with? Are we really prepared to grant them an equal seat at the table or will we finally accept what is in front of us? They are enemies of the moral foundations of this republic.

But, on a larger topic. If we accept that slavery should be phased out, we accept that it is a moral evil. If it is a moral evil, it should be expunged now. Connecticut will not support any half-measures on this topic and we will, so long as our people have the moral will, continue our attempts to end this practice.

Lastly, the very idea that our friends to the South would have us declare that this republic, united by contract, can be dissolved as easily as a ladies sewing circle fills me with trepidation. If we declare this right, we will have opened the door for any state, for any reason, to depart our union and destroy the shining city on the hill our founders created.

View user profile

78 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:59 pm

Oregon wrote:I believe, in all, Oregon would accept Governor Lee's proposal with a few points of clarification.

1) I believe in addition to the equitable distribution of federal tariff money, states actually collecting these tariffs should be permitted to keep a sizable portion of them for, at the very least, the improvement of infrastructure relating to the ports and transportation systems within those states. Is this agreeable?

2) I believe that, due to the legal issues I mentioned, the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act should be left solely to the federal government. Already, one of the most adamant opponents of slavery in this nation from Connecticut has said even his government would not fire on federal marshals. Is this agreeable?

3) I support Maryland's proposal of repatriation in other states in addition to returning to Africa.

On the Second point, would you be willing to accept that states should repeal portions of their laws that grant citizenship to such slaves and releases them from service?

View user profile

79 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:00 pm

Virginia wrote:In regards to compensation, current slaveowners would be losing no property. The owners of the second generation would receive a good many years of labor from their slaves, and I do not feel compensation is necessary, though Georgia would be more than able to provide for compensation if they so desire.

I agree that current slave owners wouldn't be, but generations from now slave owners will be. We cannot strip a man's livilyhood from him and not offer a cent in return. The negros in the south are property and generations from now we plan to take that property away without any compensation; we call that theft where I am from.

Slave owners will have to be compensated from the federal government, as they are the ones I assume is pushing this deal, in order for Georgia to agree to it.

View user profile

80 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:00 pm

I will need to meet with folks back in South Carolina and reconvene with this convention at a later to date to see whether or not the Virginia proposal and Maryland's repatriation suggestion are agreeable.

One point of concern is the economic result of the slavery agreement. Our economies suffered greatly due to the pre-existing tariffs and will due to the phasing out of a great deal of our agrarian labor force. If we are not able to industrialize like the North, we will continue to stagnate. Are there any suggestions on this matter?

View user profile

81 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:02 pm

Tennessee wrote:
Oregon wrote:I believe, in all, Oregon would accept Governor Lee's proposal with a few points of clarification.

1) I believe in addition to the equitable distribution of federal tariff money, states actually collecting these tariffs should be permitted to keep a sizable portion of them for, at the very least, the improvement of infrastructure relating to the ports and transportation systems within those states. Is this agreeable?

2) I believe that, due to the legal issues I mentioned, the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act should be left solely to the federal government. Already, one of the most adamant opponents of slavery in this nation from Connecticut has said even his government would not fire on federal marshals. Is this agreeable?

3) I support Maryland's proposal of repatriation in other states in addition to returning to Africa.

On the Second point, would you be willing to accept that states should repeal portions of their laws that grant citizenship to such slaves and releases them from service?

I'm not even sure what they're doing now is quite legal, but I see that as an acceptable compromise.

View user profile

82 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:03 pm

"I'd ask the gentleman from Oregon not to speak for other states."

View user profile

83 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:03 pm

Oregon wrote:I believe, in all, Oregon would accept Governor Lee's proposal with a few points of clarification.

1) I believe in addition to the equitable distribution of federal tariff money, states actually collecting these tariffs should be permitted to keep a sizable portion of them for, at the very least, the improvement of infrastructure relating to the ports and transportation systems within those states. Is this agreeable?

2) I believe that, due to the legal issues I mentioned, the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act should be left solely to the federal government. Already, one of the most adamant opponents of slavery in this nation from Connecticut has said even his government would not fire on federal marshals. Is this agreeable?

3) I support Maryland's proposal of repatriation in other states in addition to returning to Africa.
I find the first completely acceptable, the second so long as the Sovereign States would accept that, and as for the third, I do not support forcible repatriation, and I would suggest we make no such provisions for it at this time.

Tennessee wrote:1) States would have the power to compensate slave owners on their own, and that no federal law would prevent such compensation.

2) States would be allowed to relocate, willingly or forcibly, negroes to another state or to Africa provided that the costs of such relocation was covered completely by the State Government.

3) States would be given the power to decide when the Second Generation was released from servitude.

4) That nothing would prevent states from enacting servitude as a form of punishment for crimes committed as long as no long term financial benefit was given to the state or individuals without compensation.
I find all but the second completely acceptable. I feel we should delay the debate on repatriation for a later date, though I will not insist upon this.

Additionally, I would suggest no statement be made on the legality of secession. I feel the proposed super-majority of the Senate approval of the President acting with federal troops domestically to put a sufficient check on tyrannical intentions, and that to make secession a subject of debate would be purely divisive at this time.

View user profile http://peaceconf.forumotion.com

84 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:05 pm

Thomas Powell wrote:"I'd ask the gentleman from Oregon not to speak for other states."

I would advise the Gentleman from Pennsylvania to sit down and shut up. His and his Governor's antagonistic approach to this whole situation shares a large part of the blame.

Furthermore, no where did I see the gentleman from Oregon dare to speak on behalf of Pennsylvania.

View user profile

85 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:06 pm

The gentlemen from Tennessee should refrain from such antagonizing statements. They serve no purpose here.

Regarding South Carolina's concerns over industrialization. Virginia is undergoing industrialization with no problems, and I see no barriers to the industrialization of my neighbors.

View user profile http://peaceconf.forumotion.com

86 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:07 pm

Tennessee wrote:
Virginia wrote:I would suggest that the current generation remains in servitude, but that the next be freed upon their children reaching adulthood. This should provide slave-owners with most likely 30 years, or more, of labor from this generation.

In response to our friend from Georgia, I do not propose forcibly repatriating them, no. However, charitable organizations would be welcome to provide for their relocation if they so desired, certainly. In regards to compensation, current slaveowners would be losing no property. The owners of the second generation would receive a good many years of labor from their slaves, and I do not feel compensation is necessary, though Georgia would be more than able to provide for compensation if they so desire.

In regards to my friend from Maryland, I would assume two generations is more than sufficient, but that if there is indeed a risk of the situation not evolving sufficiently, that we accept that risk for the sake of unity and peace.

I would be willing to accept the proposal providing that:

1) States would have the power to compensate slave owners on their own, and that no federal law would prevent such compensation.

2) States would be allowed to relocate, willingly or forcibly, negroes to another state or to Africa provided that the costs of such relocation was covered completely by the State Government.

3) States would be given the power to decide when the Second Generation was released from servitude.

4) That nothing would prevent states from enacting servitude as a form of punishment for crimes committed as long as no long term financial benefit was given to the state or individuals without compensation.
Sir, I suggest that the first point is acceptable.

The second point is less so, given that status as a freed person would seem to entitle them to more respect than that. I suggest, as a compromise, that states may expel freedmen from their state, but to a location of each freedman's choice.

I suggest that the third point is not entirely unacceptable, but it does bring into question an important point: who will care for the children if their parents are in servitude and they themselves are free?

The fourth point would, I imagine, only be acceptable if it applied to men of all colors. Else it would violate the Bill of Rights.

View user profile

87 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:07 pm

Mr. Bullock stares at the gentleman from Tennessee, and ignores him.

View user profile

88 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:07 pm

I am curious as to where I spoke for the people of Pennsylvania or any other state in anything but a passing opinion. What is it I have said that the representative finds so objectionable?

View user profile

89 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:07 pm

If I might suggest, for my colleages in South Carolina, with a more equitable distribution of revenue from tariff collection, and the ability to import less expensive goods, I think we would hope that industrializing the south should, certainly be possible. Indeed, even a priority.

To my colleages: I must say this. Those of us who welcome gradual abolition, as opposed to immediate and total, recognize the simple fact that sometimes, the best solution is not our preferred one. Do not throw away the preservation of our nation. You are acomplishing your goal, merely not all at once... and if you push for it all at once, you may well cost the chance to have it happen at all.

View user profile

90 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:08 pm

Sequoyah wrote:
Tennessee wrote:
Virginia wrote:I would suggest that the current generation remains in servitude, but that the next be freed upon their children reaching adulthood. This should provide slave-owners with most likely 30 years, or more, of labor from this generation.

In response to our friend from Georgia, I do not propose forcibly repatriating them, no. However, charitable organizations would be welcome to provide for their relocation if they so desired, certainly. In regards to compensation, current slaveowners would be losing no property. The owners of the second generation would receive a good many years of labor from their slaves, and I do not feel compensation is necessary, though Georgia would be more than able to provide for compensation if they so desire.

In regards to my friend from Maryland, I would assume two generations is more than sufficient, but that if there is indeed a risk of the situation not evolving sufficiently, that we accept that risk for the sake of unity and peace.

I would be willing to accept the proposal providing that:

1) States would have the power to compensate slave owners on their own, and that no federal law would prevent such compensation.

2) States would be allowed to relocate, willingly or forcibly, negroes to another state or to Africa provided that the costs of such relocation was covered completely by the State Government.

3) States would be given the power to decide when the Second Generation was released from servitude.

4) That nothing would prevent states from enacting servitude as a form of punishment for crimes committed as long as no long term financial benefit was given to the state or individuals without compensation.
Sir, I suggest that the first point is acceptable.

The second point is less so, given that status as a freed person would seem to entitle them to more respect than that. I suggest, as a compromise, that states may expel freedmen from their state, but to a location of each freedman's choice.

I suggest that the third point is not entirely unacceptable, but it does bring into question an important point: who will care for the children if their parents are in servitude and they themselves are free?

The fourth point would, I imagine, only be acceptable if it applied to men of all colors. Else it would violate the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth point would apply to all men of all colors. It would only be needed so as to allow such punishments if a state deemed them necessary.

View user profile

91 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:13 pm

Tennessee wrote:
Sequoyah wrote:
Tennessee wrote:
Virginia wrote:I would suggest that the current generation remains in servitude, but that the next be freed upon their children reaching adulthood. This should provide slave-owners with most likely 30 years, or more, of labor from this generation.

In response to our friend from Georgia, I do not propose forcibly repatriating them, no. However, charitable organizations would be welcome to provide for their relocation if they so desired, certainly. In regards to compensation, current slaveowners would be losing no property. The owners of the second generation would receive a good many years of labor from their slaves, and I do not feel compensation is necessary, though Georgia would be more than able to provide for compensation if they so desire.

In regards to my friend from Maryland, I would assume two generations is more than sufficient, but that if there is indeed a risk of the situation not evolving sufficiently, that we accept that risk for the sake of unity and peace.

I would be willing to accept the proposal providing that:

1) States would have the power to compensate slave owners on their own, and that no federal law would prevent such compensation.

2) States would be allowed to relocate, willingly or forcibly, negroes to another state or to Africa provided that the costs of such relocation was covered completely by the State Government.

3) States would be given the power to decide when the Second Generation was released from servitude.

4) That nothing would prevent states from enacting servitude as a form of punishment for crimes committed as long as no long term financial benefit was given to the state or individuals without compensation.
Sir, I suggest that the first point is acceptable.

The second point is less so, given that status as a freed person would seem to entitle them to more respect than that. I suggest, as a compromise, that states may expel freedmen from their state, but to a location of each freedman's choice.

I suggest that the third point is not entirely unacceptable, but it does bring into question an important point: who will care for the children if their parents are in servitude and they themselves are free?

The fourth point would, I imagine, only be acceptable if it applied to men of all colors. Else it would violate the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth point would apply to all men of all colors. It would only be needed so as to allow such punishments if a state deemed them necessary.
So long as it was applied equally across the races and passed Constitutional muster, Sequoyah would have no qualms.

View user profile

92 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:15 pm

OOC: Careful or we might avoid the war that I know everyone here wants to fight :p

View user profile

93 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:15 pm

Lt. Governor Hoffman
The gentleman from Tennessee would be advised to provide courtesy to all members of the conference since most of us are here with the goal of preserving the Union. Respect for that alone should demand respect for all of us present.

As to the proposal regarding stripping free men of their rights, Illinois cannot and will not consent to such a policy. All men have certain birthrights and our state has merely provided them with one such right that they have been denied until now. I speak for Governor Yates and many members of our legislature when I say that we cannot in good conscience take away that freedom. Nor will we support relocation of any man except by their choice - not to Africa, not to another state, not to another county. And while Illinois would gladly accept freedmen who desire to move to our state, we do not believe it can be forced upon them.

Likewise, we will not support any proposal that speaks to the legitimacy of secession from the Union - we are a perpetual Union, not some bridge club that can be dissolved at a whim.

View user profile

94 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:16 pm

Thomas Powell wrote:OOC: Careful or we might avoid the war that I know everyone here wants to fight :p

ooc: more like the one you want to fight.

View user profile

95 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:16 pm

Thomas Powell wrote:OOC: Careful or we might avoid the war that I know everyone here wants to fight :p

OOC: At last, PA's true intentions are revealed! *Dances* bounce

View user profile

96 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:18 pm

OOC: I for one am intrigued in a Civil War sim where the war is actually avoided.

View user profile

97 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:19 pm

Oregon wrote:OOC: I for one am intrigued in a Civil War sim where the war is actually avoided.

OOC: You know, for some reason, even your civil war picture here looks emo. Shocked

Okay, done OOCing. lol

View user profile

98 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Illinois wrote:Lt. Governor Hoffman
The gentleman from Tennessee would be advised to provide courtesy to all members of the conference since most of us are here with the goal of preserving the Union. Respect for that alone should demand respect for all of us present.

As to the proposal regarding stripping free men of their rights, Illinois cannot and will not consent to such a policy. All men have certain birthrights and our state has merely provided them with one such right that they have been denied until now. I speak for Governor Yates and many members of our legislature when I say that we cannot in good conscience take away that freedom. Nor will we support relocation of any man except by their choice - not to Africa, not to another state, not to another county. And while Illinois would gladly accept freedmen who desire to move to our state, we do not believe it can be forced upon them.

Likewise, we will not support any proposal that speaks to the legitimacy of secession from the Union - we are a perpetual Union, not some bridge club that can be dissolved at a whim.

If you are referring to the granting of citizenship and the releasing of fugitive slaves from slavery, I need to remind you that our Constitution prohibits such activity already. These states that are granting these "rights" are doing so while blatantly violating our Constitution.

Tennessee is not asking for Illinois, or Pennsylvania, or Connecticut, or any other state to act to forcibly return those fugitives, but they cannot sit here and claim they would not interfere with Federal Marshalls doing their job when they are enacting such laws that are unconstitutional and go against that statement of simple non-compliance.

Furthermore, I would raise again that we need serious commitments from states like Pennsylvania, who have threatened militia force to prevent the return of fugitives, that they would allow federal marshalls return those fugitives.

View user profile

99 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:21 pm

While we appreciate the efforts of many individuals on peace, it is evident to us - if to no one else - that the Southern states, who have promoted secession and murdered federal troops, are not proper partners in this endeavor. We will leave an observer here to see what is decided, but in the end it is obvious that we will have to continue our opposition to secession, nullification, and the moral evil of slavery in the halls of Congress. Best wishes to all involved.

Congressman Styles collects his notes and departs the conference, leaving an aide to transcribe the proceedings.



Last edited by Connecticut on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

100 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:21 pm

I remind my northern colleages that several of their states continue to hold on their books laws which restrict the movements and and freedoms of our free, colored friends. For example, Illionois bans miscengenation. Many states such as Illionois continue to have Black Codes on the books.

Those who live in glass houses should be careful before they throw stones.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 8]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum