The South is rising again

OneNewsNow/Perspectives ^ | 3/15/2010 | Peter Heck

[Leader_Of_The _Conservatives]

LOL if the south wouldve won it would be a third world country??? Well why do people here believe in the majority of what the south stood for. Lesser government, family values, importance in Christian values, patriotism. Will america become a third world country if conservative values succeed?? I think not

[IrishCatholic]

Well, as much as I was in the mood to nettle someone here.
(My blood is a bit up from coming off the Catholic bashing threads here)
I really shouldn’t. I don’t care that much about sloppy blogging. But, I don’t like revisionist history no matter who is doing the revising.

So, I will let it alone except for one final remark.

Given the choice between Hank Williams Jr., country music in general, and the Confederacy rising again....I’m torn, really torn. :-)

[TheDon]

When the North invaded the South during the 1860s, it was to deny the southern states the ultimate expression of their sovereignty – the ability to withdraw from a union they had voluntarily joined.

It is revisionist crap indeed! The above leads to the obvious, and damning, question: Why did they want to withdraw? The South did not want slavery ended.

[ALPAPilot]

Sadly, too many in our country possess the superficial and ignorant perception that the only impetus behind southern secession was to perpetuate the abhorrent practice of slavery

When the state of Mississippi's Secession Resolution reads as follows, what else are we to conlclude?

Whereas, The Constitutional Union was formed by the several States in their separate sovereign capacity for the purpose of mutual advantage and protection;

That the several States are distinct sovereignties, whose supremacy is limited so far only as the same has been delegated by voluntary compact to a Federal Government, and when it fails to accomplish the ends for which it was established, the parties to the compact have the right to resume, each State for itself, such delegated powers;

That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the Federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter, and all efforts to impair its value or lessen its duration by Congress, or any of the free States, is a violation of the compact of Union and is destructive of the ends for which it was ordained, but in defiance of the principles of the Union thus established, the people of the Northern States have assumed a revolutionary position towards the Southern States;

That they have set at defiance that provision of the Constitution which was intended to secure domestic tranquillity among the States and promote their general welfare, namely: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due;"

That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies and State legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slave-holding States;

That they have enticed our slaves from us, and by State intervention obstructed and prevented their rendition under the fugitive slave law;

That they continue their system of agitation obviously for the purpose of encouraging other slaves to escape from service, to weaken the institution in the slave-holding States by rendering the holding of such property insecure, and as a consequence its ultimate abolition certain;

[Nosterrex]

I am a Southerner although I have lived most of my life in the Midwest. I know that whenever the term, South, is used in discussing the Civil War, it conjures up all sorts of baggage. Maybe it is better to discuss the principles rather than the fight for southern independence. I make no defense of slavery. It was wrong even though it had been practiced throughout human history, even by the Founding Fathers. The issue deals with the authority of a central government over against a state’s authority. It is plain from the Constitution that the federal government was to be a limited government and that individual states were tasked with providing for the needs of the people in those states. The Civil War created a situation in which the Union’s interest superseded the interests of an individual state. It marked a dramatic turn in which America was no longer a nation composed of sovereign states, but a unified central government. Washington became America. As we have seen, the expansion and intrusion of the federal government into the lives of everyone living in the nation’s borders has all but destroyed state’s rights. We have an imperial hegemony sitting in Washington. More and more power is distributed amongst fewer and fewer people. It is truly closer to a dictatorship than a republic.

[allmendream]

Slavery is not a Conservative value, nor a family value, nor a Christian value, nor a patriotic value nor a limited government value.

Firing upon U.S. soldiers defending land that was, and hopefully always will be, sovereign U.S. territory - does not display Conservative value, nor a family value, nor Christian value, and certainly not patriotic value.

[Leader_Of_The _Conservatives]

Do you think the Yankee’s invaded because of slavery??

The south saw that federal government was becoming increasigly large and robust.

This country was suppose to be a loose Republic with free states.

Regardless of what your history book says why the war was started or not. The south, per their constitution was moving away from the slave trade internatioally. There was also religious pressure to begin removing slavery.

I don’t know about you- I will be in Texas when they secede and if NC gets worse. I don’t think Texas will be doing this because of one issue either

[rae4palin]

The North started the war by trying to resupply a Fort in southern land.

Pah-leeze.

Lincoln actually never cared about slavery...

Read the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Jackson threatened to "hang from the highest tree" any South Carolinian who spoke of secession. Was he a tyrant too?

[Non-Sequitur]

The Confederate flag is used by the Klan. The largest march ever staged by the Klan was in 1925 Washington, D.C. Thousands of American flags were carried, but not a single Confederate flag. The Klan, when it does march, still carries the U.S. flag.

Wanna bet?

Note to Klan. If you want people to take you seriously then don't hold your "White Power" signs upside down.

[TheDon]

Do you think the Yankee’s invaded because of slavery??

Nope. They invaded to preserve the Union. Thank goodness they did! However, your question is a rather transparent attempt to deflect the point that the Southern states seceded to perserve that "peculiar institution", slavery.

[Leader_Of_The _Conservatives]

That land was not US territory at that time. It was CS territory.

Also one must be dense to think when I talk about values I was referring about slavery. Do you think the war was about a bearded man saving black people? Do you want crayons to help you highlight the facts??

[OneWingedShark]

>And don’t forge that there is a God in Heaven. The grievous sin of slavery needed attonement.

But is slavery itself a sin? Abraham himself possessed slaves, as did Isac and Jacob. Paul, in I Cor 7, speaks about Christians being bought with a price: that of Christ’s blood & life, even His death. Paul says that the slave [socially-seen] is free [spiritually] in Christ and also that the free [socially-seen] is a slave [spiritually] in Christ as well.

To take a step back, in Proverbs [12:10] it says:
“A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”

Now, God did not send Jesus to die for animals; Jesus even says “you are worth more than many sparrows.” [Mat 10:31, Lk 12:7] So, doesn’t it make sense that the actions of any slaveholder will be held to his account on the grounds that every one of his slaves carries the Image of God? {The same justification for the capital punishment of murderers.}

IOW, I think that God is more neutral on the issue of Slavery than he is on the issue of Men’s Hearts.

[allmendream]

That land was, is, and hopefully always will be U.S. territory. CS was an legal fiction with no legitimacy to take U.S. territory or to expel U.S. troops from U.S. territory.

Slavery was the value that the South went to war to defend. That was the reason for their rebellious and seditious actions against these United States of America. It certainly wasn't to defend Conservatism or Christianity or family values.

Why do you suppose that the Conservative Hillsdale College was historically anti-slavery? There is a direct line between anti-slavery and Conservative thought; the natural rights of man and individual liberty and freedom of conscience are consistent with Conservatism (inasmuch as they are the foundational ideology) - while slavery is antithetical to it.

[OneWingedShark]

>Same question then, how many would they own?

Why would it matter?

[Sherman Logan]

Well why do people here believe in the majority of what the south stood for. Lesser government, family values, importance in Christian values, patriotism.

You have any particular reason for believing the CSA believed more in "family values, importance in Christian values, patriotism" than the Union?

I'll give you a partial on "lesser government." Although it's only fair to point out that one of the major things objected to by the South in the years leading up to the War was northern states using state rights to protect freedom of escaped slaves. In this case the South insisted federal power be used to override State law.

[Leader_Of_The _Conservatives]

He has stated many times slavery was not the cause of the war.

Lincoln was opposed to racial equality. He said whites were superior to blacks

He opposed sufferage for blacks, to serve on juries, or to intermarry

He advocated sending blacks back to their homeland

He opposed the extension of slavery in territories so blacks wouldn’t compete with free whites for jobs

He opposed black citizenship in Illinois

He said state soverignty never existed to justify war

He refused to meet with confederate peace commisioners before war.

He started a war with out the cosent of congress

He illigally declared martial law

He confiscated private property

Lastly he destroyed the system of federalism and states’ rights crated by the founders, destroying the volutary union

[IrishCatholic]

Silly rabbit. You brought it up.

No, don’t worry. I won’t get involved in the thread anymore. I am worn out from the Know Nothings on another thread. Just more of the same popping up here.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah let's look at this statistic for a moment:

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

The 1860 census available on line shows 10,940 free blacks in Orleans Parish in 1860. According to your story, 3000 of them owned slaves. Now 4700 of those 10,000 were under 19 so the chances of them owning slaves was nil. That means that of the 6000 remaining, 3000 of them were slave owners. But it's likely that most of those remaining free black men and women were married so that would mean that of about 3000 married black couples in New Orleans all of them owned slaves. Does that make any sense at all to you?

The census also states that there were only 4187 slave owners in Orleans Parish out of a total free population of 160,00. So out of 6000 free black adults we're supposed to believe half owned slaves. But out of approximately 100,000 free white adults only 1187 owned slaves. Again, does that make the slightest bit of sense to you?

Feel free to check my math. Link

[OneWingedShark]

The question is whether or not we are a Federal Country, or a National Country. The difference is in the role of the State in relation to the federal/national government; in one it is fully subservient and inferior to the federal/national government, while in the other the State is a sovereign entity which has given the federal/national government s specific list of powers and agrees to abide by its rulings on those powers.

To put it another way:
In the National model the National government is the slave-owner of the state and the state MUST comply with its commands/rules/decrees.
In the Federal system the Federal government is like unto an expert given free-reign over his field of expertise by the manager/project-lead who is the State.