Posted on 03/07/2015 11:30:33 AM PST by Repulican Donkey
Ladies and Gentlemen, I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the Southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. (Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilwartalk.com ...
Just as long as you recognize that it wouldn’t have been any different had the war turned out different.
As well you should be. The myth of the South has been taught many times to those in the north, to the extent it has been accepted as gospel.
Listen to "Southern Man" by Neil Young. Try "Texas Love Song" by Elton John. Those were my images of the South when I moved from Washington state in 1983 to Texas.
I was immensely pleased to find out it was total bullshit.
Folks like crim are still stuck in the myth. They have no real knowledge of what the heritage of the South actually is. They believe that the north and south fought the Civil War over slavery - notwithstanding Lincoln's pronouncements on blacks and slavery, or the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation left northern slaves in chains, and was merely a wartime weapon against the South.
To the OP, thanks for some insight on Nathan Bedford Forrest I never had and never dreamed existed.
Just as soon as they start going Republican on presidential elections.
Which is why they turned out in such vast numbers for stalwart conservatives like William Jennings Bryant, FDR, Adlai Stevenson, and Jimmy Carter?
Nope. The blue on the map is titled “Right-to-Work state”. Wisconsin became one today.
The Southern states did not fight to solely defend the institution of slavery. In fact they fought for states’ rights. The issue of slavery was NOT among the main causes of the war.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did NOT end slavery. It in fact only ended it in the states that were “in rebellion.” Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing every slave he would do it, but if he could preserve it and not free any he would do that too. His main goal was to preserve the Union, not end slavery.
So glad to hear you have moved from myth to facts and although it’s somewhat late - WELCOME Friend, sit down and stay a spell ! !
Snoot ;o)
Which “states rights” in particular do you believe that they went to war to preserve?
You can find communists and democrats everywhere. You just find them in lower concentrations in the South and in much higher concentrations in the North. Look at any political map.
Good questions.
Why not? They were also struggling for the right of self determination. Or is self-determination a right that only applies in some cases and not in others?
The articles of confederation do NOT remain as part of US law. How could they? They were written for a different government than we have today.
You said the south was always a conservative stronghold. Yet some state went for Bryant with over 90% of the vote, Roosevelt with over 80% of the vote, and Carter with over 60% of the vote. The south was solidly Democrat until they realized they could switch to Republican and still keep their big government, big spending heritage.
Baloney. They had self-determination before. If they had wanted amicable separation they wouldn’t have gone about it the way that they did. Their actions begged for response and retaliation.
About that "perpetual" union. It is only mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. The AoC stated how the union of the states was to act and how it could be changed. The only way it could be changed was by the unanimous approval of the members of the union. When the states changed from a union under the AoC to the Union under the Constitution, it was done not by unanimous approval , but rather by approval of nine of the thirteen states of the old union. When theses nine approved the new union, the other states were left as they were under the old union, the two unions existing simultaneously. This means that from one to four states would be under a different type of national government that the other nine. Can anyone pretend that those two groups were the same? Remember that North Carolina and Rhode Island did not join the new union for over a year after it had been in effect among the other states. They were treated as independent states. The union of the states under the Articles was disbanded by the secession of nine states from the articles. The states, in doing so, were acting as sovereign entities. They were not acting as states of the present Constitutional Union do when they ratify a constitutional amendment because such an act requires a three-fourths majority to pass, and the amendment becomes binding on all the states. Not that the act of ratifying the Constitution required the approval of each state, acting on its own, not in concert with anyone else, and that this act was binding only on the states ratifying the constitution. The two unions could be considered the same only if the second union under the Constitution had the same member states and the same form of government as the first under the Articles of Confederation. This was not the case. No one ever suggested that the other states of the union should wage war on North Carolina and Rhode Island to "save the union." Why not? Because this was a new and different union, and each state had the right to decide for itself if and when it would become a member state.
The idea that to withdraw from the Union was an illegal act is based upon the false notion that the Union was to be perpetual--that in America, government was to have some form of everlasting life. Yet when we look at the first union of American colonies, we find that even though this union was styled as perpetual, it died a natural death.
In 1643 four New England colonies formed the first union in North America, the United Colonies of New England. This union was declared to be "firm and perpetual." This union existed for more than forty years, but even though it was declared to be perpetual, it was not.
Just in case you didn’t know, the democrat party used to be the conservative party and the party that supported less government and lower taxes. This changed over time, but it took many southerners (who had voted democrat all their lives) a number of years to realize this.
Take it up with the Supreme Court. Their considered and published opinion is that unilateral secession is illegal.
Dhimmicrats have always been dhimmicrats. The southern ones wanted stuff just like they do now and they wanted someone else to pay for it......just like they do now.
You obviously don’t know your history. The democrats of the 1800s who were fighting for lower taxes and against big government have no relation to the modern democrats who are covert communists.
You mean like T. Jefferson who was against it before he was for it? That kind of “conservative” dhimmicrat?
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.