Posted on 03/15/2010 10:08:18 AM PDT by bubbacluck
Actually, we are 50 sovereign states, a number of protectorates, and other territories under the umbrella of a large federation, an empire, if you will. If we were, indeed, one nation, there would be no need for individual state (as in nation-state) governments and bureaucracies; the federal government would simply administer everything. It is within our charter as sovereign states the ability to withdraw from the Union. Don't believe the bullshit you were fed in school.
Lincoln was a tyrant and a white supremacist, as can easily be gleaned from his own writings. He would not allow the Southern states to go their own way because that would diminish the power of the federal government, his government. His Emancipation Proclamation was an effort to begin an insurgency within the South as a means to force the CSA military to fight two wars. It remains an effective strategy.
Lincoln had every intention of sending freed slaves back to their land of origin, which the Nation of Islam has been demanding for years, by the way. His intention was to ship them to Liberia failing identification of the land of origin. Lincoln did not want them as slaves, true, but he also did not want them here.
If you want to know the role the South will play in America’s future after democracy reaches end game this Friday or Saturday, I would suggest you read William W. Johnstone’s “Ashes” series. And then prepare to follow Ben Raines!
>Silly rabbit. You brought it up.
I was addressing the assumption you seemed to be making regarding the dependence of race on slave-holding...
>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.
Ah, now that’s no fun. I was hoping to see the WHY/HOW of your argument.
Not so. The south seceded from the Union. They just wanted to be left alone. Why would they try to force slavery on all the states when slavery was legal, alive and well in the northern states already? Lincoln wanted no part of the slavery issue at the time. He just wanted to keep the Union together. He even stated words to that effect.
Not all southern people owned slaves and not all northern people were against slavery. The liberals have made the war about slavery when it wasn’t. It justt isn’t meant for one man to own another and if left alone, slavery would have collapsed of its own weight.
Good point. But there’s still the problem that there WERE black slave-holders... my point is that slavery is, in itself, a separate issue than ‘race.’ The correlation, however, may be strong or weak; that, however, is a different issue.
No, much better to believe the bullshit you're trying to feed us now.
Lincoln was a tyrant and a white supremacist, as can easily be gleaned from his own writings.
OK, so if being a white supremacist makes Lincoln a bad person then shouldn't that also mean that Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, and any Southern leader you would care to name was also a bad person? Should we not condemn them in equal measure?
Lincoln had every intention of sending freed slaves back to their land of origin, which the Nation of Islam has been demanding for years, by the way.
Let me post a quote for you from a U.S. politician who pre-dated Lincoln by several decades:
"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before. Insomuch, that our Governor has ventured to propose one to the legislature. This will probably not be acted on at this time. Nor would it be effectual; for while it proposes to devote to that object one third of the revenue of the State, it would not reach one tenth of the annual increase. My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to recieve them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions."
So what do you have to say about this person, who wanted to free slaves and ship them off to Santo Domingo? Are they an evil, vile, racist in the mold of Abraham Lincoln? Or are you going to let Thomas Jefferson slide on that whole white supremacy thing? That quote was from an 1820 letter of his to Albert Gallatin. So apparently Jefferson didn't want them as slaves, and he sure didn't want them here as well.
Not nearly as many as you all would have us believe. But what I posted is an indication on just how outrageous Southron myths can get to be.
But regardless of whether there were 10 black slaveholders in the pre-rebellion South or 10,000. Free blacks had no rights. They were severely limited as to where they could live, what trade they could practice, or where they could travel. Every Southern state at one time or another had laws prohibiting free blacks from entering, and many debated forced deportation of free blacks within their borders. The fact is that as bad as life was for free blacks up North - and it was pretty grim, no doubt about it - it was as bad if not worse down South.
>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.
You’re conveniently forgetting Lexington/Concord, where British Citizens fired upon British Soldiers. {Though, to be fair, it is unknown who fired the first shot.}
This thread is getting scary crazy.
Eph.6
[5] Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Actually it’s pretty tame as Civil War threads go. A lot of myth. A lot of Lincoln bashing. But I’ve seen a whole lot worse.
And if memory serves that kicked off a seven year period of unpleasantness called the "Revolutionary War". Why should the South expected Sumter to be different?
According to the quote you posted, the claim is that the Klan marches under the U.S. flag today. Obviously the book is wrong. In oh so many ways.
But we did not go to war against England to preserve Conservative values, family values, nor Christian values, or (British) patriotism; and I would scoff at anyone who claims we did; we fought to be free from being ruled ineffectually and for the benefit of others from several thousand miles away.
The Confederacy had neither legal legitimacy, or the legitimacy that comes from prevailing through force of arms.
Neither do I see them as the defenders of Conservatism, family values, Christianity or patriotism. They defended States Rights, specifically the “right” to keep people as slaves.
Yep, and you are selling all of your land to Yankee corporate transplants/retirees who don’t give a damn about your precious heritage.
And you base that on one picture?
Regardless, - for anyone to use the Confederate battle flag or the American flag to promote their racism is one of the great blaphemies of the modern age.
> Not nearly as many as you all would have us believe. But what I posted is an indication on just how outrageous Southron myths can get to be.
I think that’s true of myths in general.
>But regardless of whether there were 10 black slaveholders in the pre-rebellion South or 10,000. Free blacks had no rights. They were severely limited as to where they could live, what trade they could practice, or where they could travel.
But that is NOT a slavery issue; it’s a race issue. The Declaration of Independence is written in the man-in-general has rights from God mindset. There is no delineation based on ‘race’, and if someone were to try to the mere fact that Abraham fathered Isac and Ishmael would mean that that race must be descended from one of the two as per Abrahamic Covenant.
>Every Southern state at one time or another had laws prohibiting free blacks from entering, and many debated forced deportation of free blacks within their borders.
So, using “laws” to justify the morality of something is foolish. It was legal in Ancient Rome to leave an unwanted baby in the wilderness to die, the early Christian Church recognized this as immoral and took in these unwanted children.
>The fact is that as bad as life was for free blacks up North - and it was pretty grim, no doubt about it - it was as bad if not worse down South.
I’m not disputing that. I think that to delineate, legally, based on ‘race’ is immoral given that God made man in His image. .. and God only made one ‘human race.’ {Rights/privileges based on parentage [or Citizenship] is another matter entirely.}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.