Posted on 07/10/2015 5:28:19 PM PDT by bestintxas
Doodlebug - you seem awfully eager to rewrite historical records.
The War between the States was due, among other things, to the limiting of freedom in violation of the terms between the states called the US Constitution.
I explained to you that economic freedom was the paramount cause, but you seem to diss that somehow to back into some argument that does not require explanation.
I suggest you go reread some of the old history books before they went PC on the squelching of economic freedoms of the South by impositions by the federal government not based upon the what it was granted by the states.
All those PC guys have gone rampant on claiming it was 100% about slavery.
Here’s a bone to throw you as a beginner refresher.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
and please do not throw out the Lily White nature of all non-Southerners as being against slavery. Many in the North and many blacks owned slaves, and less than 1/3 of all Southerners did at the time of the War.
There's a lot of that going around.
The War between the States was due, among other things, to the limiting of freedom in violation of the terms between the states called the US Constitution.
In what way?
I explained to you that economic freedom was the paramount cause, but you seem to diss that somehow to back into some argument that does not require explanation.
No, I'd like some details. You mention tariff, which hit everyone North and South so I don't see how that can qualify as a reason. The federal government did not limit how the states could control their slaves, in fact they bent over backwards to help slaveowners. So I'm at a loss as to what you mean by "economic freedoms".
Here’s a bone to throw you as a beginner refresher.
So it was over slavery. Thanks.
l Haley is especially disgusting in the way she used the tragic death to get rid of the flag. I hope an investigative reporter will look more closely into her background and the scandals that surrounded her.
OK, so I was imprecise in the wording of my original question and I apologize. Let’s try again. What specific authority that the federal government had over “states’s rights” were the southern states attempting to end?
After you read the history lesson I gave you, then you can ask specific questions about it that you do not understand, and I will try to help out.
Ok.
Done.
What specific authority that the federal government had over “states’s rights” were the southern states attempting to end?
Obviously you do not read well enough to read what I last wrote you.
What specifically in your lesson that you are referring to in your question?
The South was correct in seeking to end the federal government’s authority over states’s rights.
My question:
What specific authority that the federal government had over “states’s rights” were the southern states attempting to end?
sorry, I sent the historical record to Doodlebug
use this to begin, then try to do some advanced stuff
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
2. States versus federal rights.Even if I agreed with them that doesn't answer my question:Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution.
Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
What specific authority that the federal government had over “states’s rights” were the southern states attempting to end?
‘What specific authority that the federal government had over “states’s rights” were the southern states attempting to end? ‘
Southern States were not attempting to end anything other to obtain freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution by ending a relationship with the other States.
They did not attempt to impose their will over the rest of the states or the federal govt as you insinuate. They wanted freedom.
the characterization of this as a ‘Civil War’ has always been a false one as that would mean the South wished to take over the North; however, the North did try to take over the North so they were the clear aggressor.
Was never the intention of the South to take over the rest of the country.
The strawman arguments you throwing out with abandon are the ways that libs ask questions, so you must be a troll.
And, BTW, this thread was about removing a, not all, Confederate flag from the public eye. That flag meant much, much more than just a war between the States. It stood for freedoms and independence well after the war ended.
The flag being removed was not even in existence when the war started.
The strawman arguments you throwing out with abandon are the ways that libs ask questions, so you must be a troll.
I've tried to be explicit in my questions in order to allow you to provide direct answers. The last thing I want to do is to put words into your mouth. Calling me a troll accomplishes nothing other than to make you look like an asshole.
You're not an asshole, are you?
Great post that keeps me believing in what I said about your intentions.
Trolling the threads to provide gotchas is the definition.
Go spend your time in another forum.
And your posts tell me everything I need to know about you. You make statements that you will not back up in honest debate. You’re quick to insult and quicker to being offended. You won’t answer sincere questions but have no compunction about sending people on wild goose chases. You never answered my first question but did provide an answer to my second.
I’m quite at home here thank you.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Phfft.
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.