The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rebel Yell on March 24, 2008, 02:45:55 PM
-
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/01/war-of-northern-aggression.html
The War of Northern Aggression...?
I want to start this out with a little disclaimer. Before you, the reader, continues into this particular posting, I want it to be known that neither I nor spree are in any way advocating nor promoting the taking of arms by the citizenry of the United States against our government. Our record will show, if you have been following this blog site for any length of time whatsoever, that we are both behind our troops and the President in regards to the war in the Middle East. We may take issue with the administration on other things, even with each other in some cases, on issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, and any host of other things involving our government. That being said, I want it perfectly clear that we are NOT advocating uprisings of any sort.
That being said, I'm going to venture into an area that I hear daily discussed on talk radio shows across the southeastern U.S. that don't make it into the headlines nor into the topics of national talk radio shows. Southerners, by and large, are a pissed off group of people. And they're starting to vent their frustrations verbally in public forums.
Anyone who has ever been to the South has seen a certain red, white, and blue flag flying in front yards throughout the countryside or on bumper stickers of cars and pickup trucks driving down the highways. The American flag flies high, shown with great pride in the South. So does the other flag to which I refer; the Confederate battle flag, known widely across the country and the world as the Rebel flag. I know what I'm about to say is going to piss some people off. So be it. What I'm about to say isn't going to feed propoganda of groups like the NAACP, the Klan, or any other groups that are out there rallying around the Rebel flag or trying to get rid of it for their own causes. What I'm about to say about this is the heartfelt sentiment of many Southerners, men and women who don't fly the flag out of hatred or for racial reasons, but for other reasons that we're going to explore today.
So if you can follow along for a bit to learn a bit and to stop and think, without letting left wing or right wing bias cloud your thinking, please continue. If you're already planning to go on the attack for what I'm about to say? You might as well stop right now and close this, don't even bother to continue. What I'm about to say comes from years and years of having the same conversation over and over and over again with people who love the South, live in the South, and love our country as a whole as WELL as the South, but also love a deep heritage that is unique TO the Southerner. For those of you who choose to read on from this point, let us continue.
There are any number of bumper stickers in the South bearing a little cartoon figure in Confederate gray waving a Confederate flag with the words "Surrender, Hell!", "Lee surrendered, I didn't," or the bumper sticker featuring the American AND Confederate flags stating "American by birth, Southern by the grace of God" on them. Northerners who come to the South and see them have various reactions to these effigies, varying from "quaint," "cute," "charming," to "racist," "hateful," and "gotta be a redneck." From Maryland and Virginia southward to Miami, across Tennessee, Arkansas, and down into Texas, even in Kentucky and Missouri, the Confederate flag is everywhere. One hundred and forty-two years after Appomattox, why is there still such a display of the Confederate flag?
One answer is Reconstruction. A period of time that should have been a time of healing after the war only served to further deepen the resentments of Southerners against the North. Contrary to popular beliefs written by historians after the war, ingrained in the mindset of the public in regards to the Civil War, the war itself was alllllllllllllllll about slavery. It wasn't. Slavery was only one issue among a great, great many. Slavery, in fact, was becoming an economic hardship on slaveholders and was, by economic necessity, on it's way out. Historians are on both sides of this arguement, but by looking at things from a fiscal and financial point of view, the introduction of the cotton gin and other advances in farm machinery opened the door for the end of slavery. Call slavery what you will, evil or necessary, there are a few facts that should be kept in mind in regards to the practice: Christ did not condemn slavery (nor is it condemned anywhere in the Bible), a great number of African tribes sold prisoners from other tribes to white slavers through the centuries that Africa was being used to provide slaves to the Americas and Europe, and slavery is a practice that even today is alive and well in the Muslim world under Islamic law.
At this point I want anyone who is reading this to get up, stretch your legs, go to the bathroom, get a cup of coffee or whatever beverage of choice you prefer, and let your mind chew on that last one. Slavery is a practice that EVEN TODAY is alive and well under Islamic law.
Take five, people. Digest that information.
No, seriously, take five minutes to wrap your Western mind around the fact that slavery is alive and well in the Muslim world.
Okay, I'm going to assume that you've done as I've asked and taken five minutes to get this concept of slavery being alive and well in Islam into your thick American heads (I say that AS a thick headed American, chill out) and we can move on from here.
To get back on topic, the Civil War didn't end with Lee's surrender at Appomattox, in the minds of many Southerners. It went on hold. Especially after Reconstruction.
Nearly one hundred and fifty years later, issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, burdensome taxation (an issue eternal, it seems), states rights versus a large federal government (another holdover from the original war between the states), and a host of issues both new and old have grass roots Southern America in a state of pissed the **** off. At least once or twice a day in my travels with work, either in face to face conversations with people or hearing it on the airwaves, civil war is mentioned.
That should scare the shit out of people.
For some reason, it doesn't.
Congress seems to be ignoring this. The Senate seems to be ignoring this. The White House? No idea what the White House position on it is. I will tell you, though, that the mindset of a number of Southerners out there is to take up arms again.
IF THAT HAPPENS,
and historically, it has already happened once,
IF THAT HAPPENS,
moderate thinking Southerners will resign themselves to the fact that "it's back on."
In the back of almost EVERY Southerner's mind, Lee at Appomattox was nothing more than an extended cease fire that's been waiting for it's end. "Lee Surrendered, I Didn't." Day by day, week by week, month by month, left wing leadership is taking more and more Southerners into the mindset of "we don't need this bullshit."
Most of us have already disowned Al Gore.
Just a case in point.
I'm not saying these things in advocacy. I want that remembered. I want that clearly understood and comprehended. I'm saying it as a hope that there are people reading this who will wake up and listen. Not to prosecute. You don't prosecute over thoughts. When the thought police start taking to the streets, the people DO rise up and strike back. I'm saying what I'm saying because I have the hopes of an American described in the Charlie Daniels song "In America" that says "and you never did think that we'd ever get together again."
Extreme ideas cause extreme problems.
Now if you'll excuse me, I see that my Confederate flag needs to be refolded from where someone has been looking at it and thinking...
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man
Posted by Mike Tippitt aka HCdL at 2:03 PM
-
Every time I read some psuedo-historian pretend the Civil War wasn't about the CSA attempting to illegally fracture the Union to preserve slavery I go back a re-read the Delcarations of Secession just to make sure the time-space continuum didn't hiccup.
-
About as much chance of that really happening as DU taking to the streets for armed action.
-
About as much chance of that really happening as DU taking to the streets for armed action.
Not one damn rebel yell day?
-
For a minute there I thought Gator had found a way in.
-
Nothing in that rambling essay came anywhere close to making sense...
-
About as much chance of that really happening as DU taking to the streets for armed action.
Not one damn rebel yell day?
The thought that it was some God-awful Pitt/Gator mindmeld did cross my mind....
:rotf:
-
Every time I read some psuedo-historian pretend the Civil War wasn't about the CSA attempting to illegally fracture the Union to preserve slavery I go back a re-read the Delcarations of Secession just to make sure the time-space continuum didn't hiccup.
They could have stayed in the Union and kept slavery. I.e., like the two other sorryass states that stayed that were allowed to keep their slaves until 1866.
The war was and is unconstitutional. If anyone wants to bitch about how strong and bloated the federal government is right now, don't ****ing bitch about the war between the states and be in favor of the union. That was the start of the destruction of our Republic.
-
Every time I read some psuedo-historian pretend the Civil War wasn't about the CSA attempting to illegally fracture the Union to preserve slavery I go back a re-read the Delcarations of Secession just to make sure the time-space continuum didn't hiccup.
They could have stayed in the Union and kept slavery. I.e., like the two other sorryass states that stayed that were allowed to keep their slaves until 1866.
The war was and is unconstitutional. If anyone wants to bitch about how strong and bloated the federal government is right now, don't ****ing bitch about the war between the states and be in favor of the union. That was the start of the destruction of our Republic.
Your Sealab 2010 meets LOTR sig block is freaking hilarious.
-
Every time I read some psuedo-historian pretend the Civil War wasn't about the CSA attempting to illegally fracture the Union to preserve slavery I go back a re-read the Delcarations of Secession just to make sure the time-space continuum didn't hiccup.
They could have stayed in the Union and kept slavery. I.e., like the two other sorryass states that stayed that were allowed to keep their slaves until 1866.
The war was and is unconstitutional. If anyone wants to bitch about how strong and bloated the federal government is right now, don't ******* bitch about the war between the states and be in favor of the union. That was the start of the destruction of our Republic.
Thank God somebody gets it. Lincoln offered to allow the South to keep the slaves if they would agree to a 40% tarriff. That was before the war. If the south was just about keeping slaves, then why fire a single shot? Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the states that stayed in the union? Why just free the ones that he had no jurisdiction over?
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
Maybe the War for Bloated Government? Big Government? Removal of State's Rights? Death of the Republic?
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
Perhaps that's wwhat the Polish should call World War II. The War of German Victory. Just because you win doesn't make you right, it means you get to spin the history in your favor.
For the record, this is how the original 13th Amendment reads (before the war).......
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
If that was on the table, then why did the South still secede? That protected slavery, made it permenant.
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
That was Lincoln. He realized that anything less than status quo would be a mistake. There was a very strong move in Congress to declare the Southern states "junior states" with fewer rights than "normal states." Lincoln is the only reason that didn't happen.
Officially, there never was a "Civil War." It was an insurrection which was suppressed.
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
That was Lincoln. He realized that anything less than status quo would be a mistake. There was a very strong move in Congress to declare the Southern states "junior states" with fewer rights than "normal states." Lincoln is the only reason that didn't happen.
Officially, there never was a "Civil War." It was an insurrection which was suppressed.
Reconstruction my ass.
Truth About the 14th Amendment
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.
The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment at the point of a bayonet. President Andrew Johnson called this tactic absolute despotism, the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch for more than 500 years. For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.
The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states Ohio and New Jersey withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority.
More at....http://www.southernmessenger.org/14th_amendment.htm
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
That was Lincoln. He realized that anything less than status quo would be a mistake. There was a very strong move in Congress to declare the Southern states "junior states" with fewer rights than "normal states." Lincoln is the only reason that didn't happen.
Officially, there never was a "Civil War." It was an insurrection which was suppressed.
Insurrection? "Normal States"? Do you know how many of those "Junior States" were involved in the founding of this country? Do you know how much Southern blood was spilled just so this ****ing country could be founded? As for an insurrection, you're looking at that from today's lenses using faulty and devious history, which was written by the victors. The states were well within their rights to secede from the Union, once they viewed the Union as not operating in their best interest.
I'd suggest you do a little more reading of something other than those books written by Hollyweird writers.
-
So some of you guys think that some Southerner's aren't still pissed off and that this OP is off the mark? While I think the OP is full of hyperbole, I think some valid points were made.
I won't pretend to be a Civil War scholar. I know that it goes way deeper than the miniscule paragraphs approved for our textbooks. And, I know it will be debated for ages. Bottom line, it was an ugly, horrible part of our nation's history and it left scars that may never heal. I do think it's a shame that a lot of people never go beyond the "sanitzed for your protection" version of events. What little I've read since my school days leaves me feeling many things. I've read things that made me proud to be a Southerner and things that have made me angry and ashamed.
Bottom line: we're still reeling from what happened. The civil rights movement was born out of Reconstruction. Go to any Southern town today and you can still feel tension amongst the blacks and the whites. This is all timely because of the presidential elections. Personally, as a Southerner, I want nothing more than for everyone to just get along. But mentalities have to be changed on both sides. Alas, that is a thread topic in and of itself....I really wish race relations were different. I'm sick and tired of Liberal White Guilt which I think feeds into the conflict. The whole idea of reparations stinks. It's all about making someone alive today pay for something people that lived generations ago did simply because they are dead and we resemble them. No one alive today owned slaves or was a slave. But the mentality is pervasive and as long as black community leaders play up the victim aspect and as long as whites feel resentment, it's never going to improve.
I will continue to be proud of my Southern heritage and will honor the blood spilled for the South. I had ancestors who have fought and died for this country since 1770. I really don't care if I'm politically correct in that regard.
/rant off.
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
That was Lincoln. He realized that anything less than status quo would be a mistake. There was a very strong move in Congress to declare the Southern states "junior states" with fewer rights than "normal states." Lincoln is the only reason that didn't happen.
Officially, there never was a "Civil War." It was an insurrection which was suppressed.
Insurrection? "Normal States"? Do you know how many of those "Junior States" were involved in the founding of this country? Do you know how much Southern blood was spilled just so this ******* country could be founded? As for an insurrection, you're looking at that from today's lenses using faulty and devious history, which was written by the victors. The states were well within their rights to secede from the Union, once they viewed the Union as not operating in their best interest.
I'd suggest you do a little more reading of something other than those books written by Hollyweird writers.
Check my sigline.
-
Why don't they ever call it the War Of Northern Victory? :uhsure:
That was Lincoln. He realized that anything less than status quo would be a mistake. There was a very strong move in Congress to declare the Southern states "junior states" with fewer rights than "normal states." Lincoln is the only reason that didn't happen.
Officially, there never was a "Civil War." It was an insurrection which was suppressed.
Insurrection? "Normal States"? Do you know how many of those "Junior States" were involved in the founding of this country? Do you know how much Southern blood was spilled just so this ****ing country could be founded? As for an insurrection, you're looking at that from today's lenses using faulty and devious history, which was written by the victors. The states were well within their rights to secede from the Union, once they viewed the Union as not operating in their best interest.
I'd suggest you do a little more reading of something other than those books written by Hollyweird writers.
That is what happened. It was a proposal and a discussion item. It never happened but it was on the table.
Don't get mad at me. I don't want Junior States.
And part of the Reconstruction was to NOT punish the South for the CW. So, officially, it was decided that it never happened.
As far as the right to secede, I think you are familiar enough with Texas v. White to go back over that.
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
LOL! You really are stirring it up aren't ya? :-)
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
You'd be living in the United States of Socialist America right now if it weren't for the South. What.
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
Speaking of Sherman's Army.......
If the Republican party was so sensitive about racial discrimination in the post-war era it would not have sent General Sherman out west just three months after the war ended to commence a campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians. The very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
You'd be living in the United States of Socialist America right now if it weren't for the South. What.
You're all welcome for 8 years of no Gore, no Kerry. And you're welcome in advance for 4 years of no Obama, no Hillary.
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
You'd be living in the United States of Socialist America right now if it weren't for the South. What.
We damn near are, anyway. But thanks for helping keep it at bay a bit.
-
Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song;
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along,
Sing it as we used to sing it, fifty thousand strong,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
How the darkeys shouted when they heard the joyful sound!
How the turkeys gobbled which our commissary found!
How the sweet potatoes even started from the ground,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
Yes, and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored Flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching though Georgia.
"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Sherman's dashing Yankee boys will never reach the coast!"
So the saucy Rebels said, and 'twas a handsome boast;
Had they not forgot, alas! to reckon with the host,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
So we made a thoroughfare for Freedom and her train,
Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
-
Now see I was just joshin but Dutch crossed the line! ;)
-
Now see I was just joshin but Dutch crossed the line! ;)
Yeah, I just love seeing bullshit rewritten history. He would make it seem as if all those "Darkeys" were jubilant as hell when his band of mass murderers came rolling through. I did fail to see anything about any of those "Darkeys" being killed along with other innocent men, women, and children.
Yeah, Sherman, a man of great compassion and morals. Just like ****in' Hitler.
-
Marching Through Georgia (sometimes called Marching Thru' Georgia) is a marching song written by Henry Clay Work in 1865, referencing U.S. Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the previous year.
It was widely popular with Union Army veterans after the war. However, General Sherman himself despised the song, in part because it was played at almost every public appearance that he attended. Outside of the Southern United States, it had a universal appeal: Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur, the British sang it in India, and it was popular with the Allies in World War II.
So much for re-writing history...
-
Marching Through Georgia (sometimes called Marching Thru' Georgia) is a marching song written by Henry Clay Work in 1865, referencing U.S. Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the previous year.
It was widely popular with Union Army veterans after the war. However, General Sherman himself despised the song, in part because it was played at almost every public appearance that he attended. Outside of the Southern United States, it had a universal appeal: Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur, the British sang it in India, and it was popular with the Allies in World War II.
So much for re-writing history...
I never said the song wasn't written in 1865. I said it's essentially rewriting history. Will propagandistic bullshit be a better statement?
-
A printer and an inventor by trade, Henry Clay Work was also the author of a number of popular wartime tunes, written for composer George Root's music publishing house, Root & Cady of Chicago. A diehard abolitionist whose father was rumored to have worked with the Underground Railroad, Work's best-known composition is "Marching Through Georgia".
Our Jimmy has gone for to live in a tent,
They have grafted him into the army;
He finally pucker'd up his courage and went,
When they grafted him into the army.
I told them he was too young, alas!
At the captain's headquarters, they said he would pass.
They'd train him up well in the infantry class,
So they grafted him into the army.
CHORUS:
Oh, Jimmy, farewell! Your brothers fell
Way down in Alabamy;
I thought they would spare a lone widder's heir,
But they grafted him into the army.
Drest up in his uniform -- dear little chap;
They have grafted him into the army;
It seems but a day since he sot in me lap,
But they grafted him into the army.
And these are the trousers he used to wear --
Them very same buttons -- the patch and the tear --
But Uncle Sam gave him a bran' new blue pair
When they grafted him into the army.
CHORUS
Now in my provisions I see him revealed --
They have grafted him into the army;
A picket beside the contented field.
They have grafted him into the army.
He looks kinda sickish -- begins to cry --
A big volunteer standing right in his eye!
On, what if the ducky should up and die
Now they've grafted him into the army.
CHORUS
-
Marching Through Georgia (sometimes called Marching Thru' Georgia) is a marching song written by Henry Clay Work in 1865, referencing U.S. Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the previous year.
It was widely popular with Union Army veterans after the war. However, General Sherman himself despised the song, in part because it was played at almost every public appearance that he attended. Outside of the Southern United States, it had a universal appeal: Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur, the British sang it in India, and it was popular with the Allies in World War II.
So much for re-writing history...
Oh, I'm a good ol rebel,
Now thats just what I am,
And for this yankee nation,
I do not give a damn.
I'm glad I fought again'er,
I only wished we won.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
I hates the yankee nation and eveything they do.
I hates the declaration of independence, too.
I hates the glorious union, tis' dripping with our blood.
I hates the striped banner, and fit it all I could
I rode with Robert E. Lee,
For three years, thereabout.
Got wounded in four places,
And I starved at point lookout.
I cotch' the Roomatism a
Campin' in the snow.
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some more.
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust.
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of Southern Fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish there were three million
Instead of what we got.
I can't pick up my musket
And fight 'um down no more
But I ain't gonna love 'um
Now that is certain sure
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstruted
And I do not give a damn
Oh, I'm a good old rebel,
Now thats just what I am,
And for this yankee nation,
I do no give a damn.
I'm glad I fought again'er,
I only wished we won.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
-
Always liked that one, reb.
-
Always liked that one, reb.
I got it on CD. Really is a moving song. More so since it's coming from a defeated soldiers point of view.
-
Who was the guy, Billy Horton?, who put out a bunch of albums one civil war songs. A set on confederate and one on union ones.
-
Who was the guy, Billy Horton?, who put out a bunch of albums one civil war songs. A set on confederate and one on union ones.
I'm not sure, this one is by Hoyt something or something Hoyt. I could tell you if you hadn't asked me.
-
Bobby horton, Homespun songs of the Civil War. At least three volumes for each side.
http://www.amazon.com/Homespun-Songs-C-S-1/dp/B0013M0658/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1206478697&sr=8-1
-
A few points to ponder:
Lincoln didn't like blacks. He felt sorry for them, but he didn't like them.
The emancipation proclomation only freed slaves in the southern states, over which he had no authority.
President Jefferson Davis had already outlawed future slave trade in the south.
The south was well within their rights to secede
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Blacks fought on the side of south during the civil war also.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Ym8LSIMofrcJ:www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter021500.asp+black+members+of+the+sons+of+the+confederacy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://www.scv.org/documents/edpapers/blackhistory.pdf
-
The actual results of the current war of Northern Agression by retirees
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=4754.0
-
Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.
:stirpot: :-)
Speaking of Sherman's Army.......
If the Republican party was so sensitive about racial discrimination in the post-war era it would not have sent General Sherman out west just three months after the war ended to commence a campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians. The very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.
Oooh, next tell us about Southern hero Old Hickory and the expulsion of the Cherokees from the Democracy- and Constitution-loving Southland after the INDIANS won in the Supreme Court, Uncle McBragg!
:rotf:
-
Y'all can snivel all you want but the declarations of secession say the southern states seceded over slavery because those wretched abolitionists were preaching about it in church and printing newspaper articles.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
*GASP!*
How dare those terrible nti-slavery people use their 1 amendment rights to constitutionally overturn slavery through legislative redress!!!
Be proud of your supposed southern heroes (even I have a soft spot for Lee and Jackson); I'm sure their are Japs alive today that are proud of their grnadparents. However, this notion that the vanquished are entitled to their flags or that the war was a clarion call against bloated government is fallacious (see links above) and James Madison, who might just know a thing or two about the intent if the constitution notes that secession is not an explicit or implicit right:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html
Spare me the theories and romanticizing.
BTW - Thomas DiLorenzo is a Lew Rockwell-posting hack who refers to those he disagrees with as "neocons" and cites The Disquisition of Government as a seminal work on the basis of government...despite the fact it lays its moral foundation on white supremacy based on white civilization's invention of steam power and and guns in resisting the rebuffs of non-white societies.
-
There were two slave-holding states that fought against the South. **** the reason the South seceded, which was their right to do so, what was the reason the North invaded, Rabbit? Damn sure wasn't slavery.
-
There were two slave-holding states that fought against the South. **** the reason the South seceded, which was their right to do so, what was the reason the North invaded, Rabbit? Damn sure wasn't slavery.
Those two states gave up their slaves when abolition became a fact...they didn't take up arms because they were on the losing side of a legislative agenda. See?
No, there is no right to secede just because you lose a legislative contest. I refer you again to Madison. The protestations of fighting for rights rings hollow because the African slaves more than anyone fulfilled the definition of people oppressed by tyrannical government. Tell me they had a right to take up arms and I might start to believe in the sincerity of the so-called states' rights movement. Yet, abolition was centered on legislative redress using the constitutionally guaranteed rights of religion and free press...a thing the declarations of secession complain about bitterly.
The North fought to preserve the Union from an unlawful dissolution.
-
There were two slave-holding states that fought against the South. **** the reason the South seceded, which was their right to do so, what was the reason the North invaded, Rabbit? Damn sure wasn't slavery.
Those two states gave up their slaves when abolition became a fact...they didn't take up arms because they were on the losing side of a legislative agenda. See?
No, there is no right to secede just because you lose a legislative contest. I refer you again to Madison. The protestations of fighting for rights rings hollow because the African slaves more than anyone fulfilled the definition of people oppressed by tyrannical government. Tell me they had a right to take up arms and I might start to believe in the sincerity of the so-called states' rights movement. Yet, abolition was centered on legislative redress using the constitutionally guaranteed rights of religion and free press...a thing the declarations of secession complain about bitterly.
The North fought to preserve the Union from an unlawful dissolution.
First off, a few states seceding LAWFULLY does not make the dissolution of the Union. The Union would still be intact, minus a few states. Secondly, those states in the North that had slaves didn't see them free until one year after the Civil War ended....in 1866. Hence the war to end slavery is a myth. It was only a byproduct. It was used to get the abolitionists on board, even though they didn't comprise a majority anyway.
As for secession being a right, it most certainly was a right. The Union was entered into voluntarily thus exiting was also voluntary so given that the Union wasn't acting in the best interest of the States. As for the Madison situation, I'm assuming you're referring to Texas? It's completely a different scenario as Texas was, at one point, it's own country. ...but if you want to go down that road....I'm game.
-
So the South illegally attacking and taking assets of the Federal Government is not grounds to attack them?
If Germany where to attack our military bases there, kill some of the soldiers, and then claim all of the arms and supplies as their own, we should sit back and let it go?
-
First off, a few states seceding LAWFULLY does not make the dissolution of the Union. The Union would still be intact, minus a few states. Secondly, those states in the North that had slaves didn't see them free until one year after the Civil War ended....in 1866. Hence the war to end slavery is a myth. It was only a byproduct. It was used to get the abolitionists on board, even though they didn't comprise a majority anyway.
This is where revistionist cognitive dissonance kicks in.
I DID NOT say it was a war to end slavery I said it was a war by the CSA to preserve slavery and you aren't arguing against me you are arguing against the Declarations of Secession.
I DID NOT say the North fought to end slavery it fought to preserve the lawful bonds of the Union. For law to have any effect it must be obedyed even when disapproved of; you cannot declare yourself exempt from a law and write a new one just because you did not get your way.
Please have the courtesy to contend with my arguments as I submit them, and not simply re-writing them to your convenience.
Now before someone comes sputtering along lobbing strawmen the difference between the American Revolution and the CSA is representation. The colonies never had it, instead they were held by the whims of the king. In contrast the South had their place in the national legislature but the tide was turning decisively agianst them...as witnessed by their own admission in their declarations of secession. This would again make me pose my question to the dreamers in the day: based upon the principles of freedom and representative government would the African slaves have been morally and/or legally justified in taking up arms against their masters?
As for secession being a right, it most certainly was a right. The Union was entered into voluntarily thus exiting was also voluntary so given that the Union wasn't acting in the best interest of the States. As for the Madison situation, I'm assuming you're referring to Texas? It's completely a different scenario as Texas was, at one point, it's own country. ...but if you want to go down that road....I'm game.
James Madison disagrees...
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.
The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.
It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.
The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.
In other words: Unless the Constitution is annulled by the same manner in which it came about, no person or body may consider him/itself exempt from it.
That being from the pen of the man primarily responsible for writing the Constitution I feel secure in claiming its authority. You cannot simply igonore this authority and re-recite the theory that rebellion is an inherent right among the states. It clearly is not and was never intended to be as such. If any sub-group within the US is entitled to bear arms to carve out a section for itself and make itself its own law we would be helpless Black nationalists, white supremacists, international Marxists, jihadists, La Raza and any other group claiming to find fault with our laws so long as its majority was comprised of erstwhile citizens claiming constitutional authority to disregard the constitution (a most ironic hope).
-
So the South illegally attacking and taking assets of the Federal Government is not grounds to attack them?
If Germany where to attack our military bases there, kill some of the soldiers, and then claim all of the arms and supplies as their own, we should sit back and let it go?
If Germany demanded us to remove ourselves from their land, we'd do so.
-
If Germany demanded us to remove ourselves from their land, we'd do so.
Apples and oranges.
Germany is occupied post-bellum and if we left it would only be because we are a polite people and no longer viewed them as a threat. If Germany was still a threat there would be no way the US would leave.
The South assented to a binding Union that could only be dissolved by the same means in which it was entered. The Federals had every right to stay where they were.
-
The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-
Other facts many of you probably didn't know:
http://www.geocities.com/pickinwright/south.htm
-
The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Is this going somewhere?
I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.
-
The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Is this going somewhere?
I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.
So, you think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete after the revolutionary war? I guess all those big words were just double talk meant to confuse the Brits?
-
The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Is this going somewhere?
I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.
So, you think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete after the revolutionary war? I guess all those big words were just double talk meant to confuse the Brits?
Where did I say that?
-
The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Is this going somewhere?
I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.
So, you think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete after the revolutionary war? I guess all those big words were just double talk meant to confuse the Brits?
Where did I say that?
Says right there in the Declaration of Independence that the people can decide on the government they want representing them. How about:
The Bill of Rights ~ The Tenth Amendment ~ U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now, since it wasn't explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, can you tell me how secession was illegal? This is exactly what this nation was founded on. BTW, you can't bring up what Madison said all you want. Last time I checked, we were never ruled by a dictator, nor did we have a Chief Justice on a One-Member Supreme Court. I.e. there was nothing in the founding documents that prevented secession and when the case was going to be made, it was squashed by the Union...after the Civil War. Gee, wonder why that is? Maybe because it would have shown that the North invaded a sovereign nation?
-
Y'all can snivel all you want but the declarations of secession say the southern states seceded over slavery because those wretched abolitionists were preaching about it in church and printing newspaper articles.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
*GASP!*
How dare those terrible nti-slavery people use their 1 amendment rights to constitutionally overturn slavery through legislative redress!!!
Be proud of your supposed southern heroes (even I have a soft spot for Lee and Jackson); I'm sure their are Japs alive today that are proud of their grnadparents. However, this notion that the vanquished are entitled to their flags or that the war was a clarion call against bloated government is fallacious (see links above) and James Madison, who might just know a thing or two about the intent if the constitution notes that secession is not an explicit or implicit right:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html
Spare me the theories and romanticizing.
BTW - Thomas DiLorenzo is a Lew Rockwell-posting hack who refers to those he disagrees with as "neocons" and cites The Disquisition of Government as a seminal work on the basis of government...despite the fact it lays its moral foundation on white supremacy based on white civilization's invention of steam power and and guns in resisting the rebuffs of non-white societies.
Do tell, what hack wrote this....
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Lincoln proposed this 13th amendment in March 1861. The first shots of the civil war wasn't fired until April 9, 1861. If secession was about slavery, why go to war. Secession was about money, plain and simple. The South was already paying around 75% of the taxes, most of which were used to finance Northern infrastructure. But that wasn't enough, Lincoln wanted to add an additional 40% tariff. The same type of act that got a bunch of tea dumped into the Boston Harbor, but you don't hear that called treason. That's because we won the Revolution. If we had lost, you'd be sitting here eating crumpets bitching about those traitors to the crown.
-
And I guess this guy is a white supremecist, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t Furl the Flag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by W. Earl Douglas
Alas, it has also brought heartburn to this black writer, who cannot buy the socialist philosophy of the Garrisons and Sumners of yesterday or today, and would rather wave a Confederate battle flag as a symbol of striving for independence than a food stamp or welfare check, which symbolize the hell of defeat more pronounced than that received in any war.
I cannot be convinced that Southern independence meant only the perpetuation of slavery, because history of the truthful kind tells me otherwise. The Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederacy forbade the importation of slaves. How then was slavery the motivating force behind the thrust for Southern independence? How did black and white slave owners exist side by side in this region, which was painted by abolitionists as one of black and white hostility? Why were there always more free Negroes in the slave South than in the so-called free North of the abolitionists? Such questions remain unanswered . . . Whites and blacks were partners in the destiny of the South and not (as the Uncle Tom’s Cabin mentality of the abolitionists would have had us believe) only as master and slave.
Today over a century since that much heralded emancipation, it is here in the land of the unfurled Confederate battle flag where Negro progress stands above that achieved in any other region of the country. For it is here, in the heartland of the old Confederacy, where over 70 percent of all black-owned housing is to be found and where this nation’s only viable black economic middle class exists—the Southern black farmer.
. . . The real tragedy of the Confederate battle flag is that Southerners, white and black, have permitted it to be driven between them like a wedge, separating them from a common goal. The racism so evident in this controversy is not the flying of the flag but that we’ve permitted it to be designated as pro-white and anti-black. I am reminded that it was my grandfather and grandmother who kept the home fires burning while the Confederacy waged its war. Which is why I cannot view loyalty to the South or the desire for independence as being monopolized by either race.
. . . If hate had been the prevailing emotion between the races, then it is a safe bet that the Confederacy never would have been born. Fortunately, there was love, understanding and compassion. And the two greatest lies ever perpetrated by history [are] that the South instigated the war and that it was fought by the North for the purpose of freeing slaves. The Negro was merely used as the excuse for that war, while the real reason for it is reflected in every area of our lives, where the tentacles of government form the bars of a new slavery.
No! Don’t furl that Confederate battle flag. Let it wave all across the South to remind Americans that there exists here a yearning for liberty, freedom and independence that will not be denied. Let it fly as a testimonial to real men and real women who would rather work and fight than shed tears and beg for government charity. Finally, let it act as a cohesive force, drawing all Southerners together in the cause of freedom.â€
-
Rebel,
The only the government was becoming destructive to was the institution of slavery, as attested to by the southern declarations of secession, so your citiation of the DoI depends on whether or not one views the destruction of slavery. The DoI is not a willy-nilly call to anarchy. Consider:
* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?
* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?
* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?
Also, as Madison so richly pointed out that your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is obviously overbroad. The 10th refers to legislative matters; not the power to come and go at whim. For example, healthcare is not a constitutional mandate so congress would be outside its delegated powers but if an indiviual state decided to enact socialized medicine it is their perogative. That is all the 10th is about, nothing more, nothing less.
If secession was about slavery, why go to war. Secession was about money, plain and simple. The South was already paying around 75% of the taxes, most of which were used to finance Northern infrastructure. But that wasn't enough, Lincoln wanted to add an additional 40% tariff. The same type of act that got a bunch of tea dumped into the Boston Harbor, but you don't hear that called treason. That's because we won the Revolution. If we had lost, you'd be sitting here eating crumpets bitching about those traitors to the crown.
Who are you going to believe: some brainless quasi-racist hack who posts at Lew Rockwell or the ACTUAL AUTHORS of the declarations of secession?
So Lincoln offered mollify the south with the 13th Amend. and the CSA refused; Lincoln also proposed to his cabinet tht the Union buy the slaves at $400/head to assuage the south and end the war...very slave-centered and non-agressive.
Hm-m-m...
-
Rebel,
The only the government was becoming destructive to was the institution of slavery, as attested to by the southern declarations of secession, so your citiation of the DoI depends on whether or not one views the destruction of slavery. The DoI is not a willy-nilly call to anarchy. Consider:
* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?
* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?
* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?
Also, as Madison so richly pointed out that your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is obviously overbroad. The 10th refers to legislative matters; not the power to come and go at whim. For example, healthcare is not a constitutional mandate so congress would be outside its delegated powers but if an indiviual state decided to enact socialized medicine it is their perogative. That is all the 10th is about, nothing more, nothing less.
Really? Maybe you can answer why this:
C.S.A. Constitution
SECTION 9.
1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Was entered into the CSA Constitution. You know, since slavery was so damned important to the secession as you so erroneously put it.
Slavery was legal in northern states as well as southern states so, kinda blows your argument out of the water. Shall I tell you the northern slave-holding states? Or are you already aware of them? I'm not a DUmmie, Snugs, I work on fact. Not revisionist history.
Your bullets mean nothing because it essentially IS comparing apples to oranges. You're speaking of individuals. In the case of the secession, it's referring to people, represented by elected state governments in a time where state's rights were the primary concern of the Union. Madison, while having issues with Hamilton, was essentially just like him. A strong federal government guy. Jefferson's points were why this country was founded, and that is state's rights, with a weak federal government.
It's funny to me, really, how anyone can call themselves a "conservative" and fawn over Madison, who was more like a Democrat of today.
-
Rebel,
The only the government was becoming destructive to was the institution of slavery, as attested to by the southern declarations of secession, so your citiation of the DoI depends on whether or not one views the destruction of slavery. The DoI is not a willy-nilly call to anarchy. Consider:
* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?
* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?
* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?
Also, as Madison so richly pointed out that your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is obviously overbroad. The 10th refers to legislative matters; not the power to come and go at whim. For example, healthcare is not a constitutional mandate so congress would be outside its delegated powers but if an indiviual state decided to enact socialized medicine it is their perogative. That is all the 10th is about, nothing more, nothing less.
Really? Maybe you can answer why this:
C.S.A. Constitution
SECTION 9.
1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Was entered into the CSA Constitution. You know, since slavery was so damned important to the secession as you so erroneously put it.
Slavery was legal in northern states as well as southern states so, kinda blows your argument out of the water. Shall I tell you the northern slave-holding states? Or are you already aware of them? I'm not a DUmmie, Snugs, I work on fact. Not revisionist history.
Your bullets mean nothing because it essentially IS comparing apples to oranges. You're speaking of individuals. In the case of the secession, it's referring to people, represented by elected state governments in a time where state's rights were the primary concern of the Union. Madison, while having issues with Hamilton, was essentially just like him. A strong federal government guy. Jefferson's points were why this country was founded, and that is state's rights, with a weak federal government.
It's funny to me, really, how anyone can call themselves a "conservative" and fawn over Madison, who was more like a Democrat of today.
That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system. It doesn't say "there will be no slaves." It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."
You need to read for both content and comprehension.
-
That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system. It doesn't say "there will be no slaves." It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."
You need to read for both content and comprehension.
...but, even though Snugs contended that the war wasn't about slavery, he came back to the point and seemed to make it a case for the war. I have already stated that there were 2, well, actually 3 slave-holding Northern states when the war started. Now, your point?
-
That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system. It doesn't say "there will be no slaves." It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."
You need to read for both content and comprehension.
...but, even though Snugs contended that the war wasn't about slavery, he came back to the point and seemed to make it a case for the war. I have already stated that there were 2, well, actually 3 slave-holding Northern states when the war started. Now, your point?
That slavery was not OUT of scope in the reasoning for the Southern Insurrection.
-
That slavery was not OUT of scope in the reasoning for the Southern Insurrection.
Insurrection? Show me the constitutional provision prohibiting secession. Not some bullshit written afterwards, something that was on paper BEFORE. As for slavery, do you think it was the reason the North invaded?
I'll await your response.
-
That slavery was not OUT of scope in the reasoning for the Southern Insurrection.
Insurrection? Show me the constitutional provision prohibiting secession. Not some bullshit written afterwards, something that was on paper BEFORE. As for slavery, do you think it was the reason the North invaded?
I'll await your response.
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
-
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
-
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
Its attempt to divorce itself fro the Law of the Land was a clear declaration of war. Treason is as treason does.
-
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
Its attempt to divorce itself fro the Law of the Land was a clear declaration of war. Treason is as treason does.
Law of the land? Show me IN that law where secession, which this country was founded on, was illegal. So far, you're doing a pretty poor job.
-
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
Its attempt to divorce itself fro the Law of the Land was a clear declaration of war. Treason is as treason does.
Law of the land? Show me IN that law where secession, which this country was founded on, was illegal. So far, you're doing a pretty poor job.
You are inventing rights where none exist. And none existed. As S.Bunny pointed out, you don't get to invent new States rights from the 10th Amendment just because you don't like the deal you (as a State) signed up for. The Supremacy Clause clearly says the USC is the Law of the Land and applies to ALL States and People:
Article VI Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
How much clearer can it be? It says all States shall be bound by the USC they attached themselves to.
-
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
To levy war. To impose war.
The CSA attacked the United States of America. They used force to overrun military bases established by the Federal Government. Soldiers of the United States Military where killed in an act of aggression all across the CSA. How is that not an act of war?
-
That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system. It doesn't say "there will be no slaves." It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."
You need to read for both content and comprehension.
...but, even though Snugs contended that the war wasn't about slavery, he came back to the point and seemed to make it a case for the war. I have already stated that there were 2, well, actually 3 slave-holding Northern states when the war started. Now, your point?
Want me to post the declarations of secession?
I've provided the links, you obviously remain ignorant of their content because if you did read them there is no way you could make such claims.
I also like how you keep ignoring:
* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?
* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?
* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
freedumb and djones answered well.
Consider also: Thomas Jefferson (most beloved president of all pseudo-secessionists) and his congress considered the sawing down of a flagpole at an embassy to be a declaration of war (First Barbary War).
So your point of invasion with the intent to conquer as the sole grounds for establishing a state of war is grossly unfounded.
-
* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?
If the Marxists were here first, then yes. Strictly going by the DoI, we had no right to revolt against England.
* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?
Hell, I'm not even allowed to build a shelter in my own back yard without gettnig a permit from the government/paying a pennance to the current throne. If the people had done it they would have been well within their rights. People actually had property rights before Lincoln formed his federal super government.
* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?
If they couldn't get the relief through the legislature, then yes.
Now answer my question. Why does everyone blindly overlook the fact that:
A. The South was fed up with footing the vast majority of the bill (taxes) and getting little benefit. Southern tax dollars were going to build the northen infrastructure.
B. After the war Lincoln allowed hid top General (and future President) to keep his slaves.
Face it the Republican Party of the 1860's were the equivalent of today's Democrats. BIG Government, more taxes, less individual rights.
-
ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Thanks for waiting.
I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.
Well there was that whole shelling Federal troops at fort Sumpter but that may have in fact been over a late milk delivery payment.
-
Well there was that whole shelling Federal troops at fort Sumpter but that may have in fact been over a late milk delivery payment.
They were ordered to vacate the premises. That land, just as most other military installations, was only leased to the federal government.
-
Civil War, Civil War....hmmmm....let's see.....who won that?...hmmm....it's on the tip of my tongue....
:rotf:
Are you sure about the lease thing, there, Reb? Federal property generally is ceded back to the Feds by statutes (normally uncodified ones like session laws) in most states, and I don't believe gunfire is a normal means of eviction even when a lessee is actually in arrears.
I like the way one South Carolinian I know put it last week when I was touring Fort Pulaski: "Well, dang, we were from SOUTH CAROLINA, y'all shoulda KNOWN better than to follow OUR lead!"
-
* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?
If the Marxists were here first, then yes. Strictly going by the DoI, we had no right to revolt against England.
wha--?!?!
That's not even coherent.
* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?
Hell, I'm not even allowed to build a shelter in my own back yard without gettnig a permit from the government/paying a pennance to the current throne. If the people had done it they would have been well within their rights. People actually had property rights before Lincoln formed his federal super government.
Local building permits come from local government, not the feds.
* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?
If they couldn't get the relief through the legislature, then yes.
You claim--quite falsely--that the south rebelled over taxes.
Taxes can be relieved legislatively. It wasn't until JFK that the taxes of FDR were reduced, yet in the intervening
Now answer my question. Why does everyone blindly overlook the fact that:
A. The South was fed up with footing the vast majority of the bill (taxes) and getting little benefit. Southern tax dollars were going to build the northen infrastructure.
No one has overlooked anything except blatant falsehoods.
Accordiong to the Declarations of Secession which were actually written by the actual traitors to justify their actual treason (and not some hack historian):
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
B. After the war Lincoln allowed hid top General (and future President) to keep his slaves.
Who were freed at abolition which took its natural legislative course once the unlawful rebellion was put down.
They were ordered to vacate the premises. That land, just as most other military installations, was only leased to the federal government.
Gitmo is leased from the Cubans. Castro's not allowed to order us off his island.
-
Russian ships docked in our East and West Coast ports waiting patiently for their prey -- which would be the collapse of the Union.
It never happened, but we were so dangerously close to losing everything.
Revisionism in History is common and disturbing.
-
I guess the winner is automatically right. Just like in the movies, the good guys always win. Good thing we won the American Revolution, or they'd all be talking about the traitors to the crown.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Plus, this north/south argument is spilling all over the site. And I'm sure I'll get blamed for that. So, I'll let it go.