Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

Townhall.com ^ | July 22, 2020 | Walter E. Williams

[DiogenesLamp]

Union might destroyed the Confederacy.

Four to one odds in a fight usually win. Nothing to be proud of. Really it should be shame felt that the one managed to whip so hard on the four for so long, and with a little different luck might have whipped the four.

Or was it five to one?

[DiogenesLamp]

The Southern states tried the former and lost. Has they tried the later they may well be separate today. Next time make the right choice.

The Founders made the same choice. In fact, they declared that they didn't have to ask permission to exercise a right given to them by God. The only difference was that George III was not as willing to shed so much blood as was Lincoln.

George III could have won. He chose *NOT* to keep killing people. Lincoln made the opposite choice.

[DiogenesLamp]

but nullification carried to an extreme becomes de facto secession.

This.

[DiogenesLamp]

That struggle is likely to break out into wide Civil War with every faction striving to co-opt the institutions that will sustain them.

I am contemplating whether I would rather have a Civil War than a Democrat Presidency won by fraud and corruption.

The critical question will be, whether the American military?

I would like to believe the Military would do the right thing, but after seeing what Obama was allowed to do to them, I now have no illusions that they will follow the orders of the American dictator if he has a "D" after his name.

[DiogenesLamp]

The alliances the South would have made with other nations would have become alliances against the north and a threat to the north in trade, freedom of the seas, expansion west and other international matters.

They were already so, and I have long argued that this is the primary reason why Lincoln sent a war fleet to trigger a war, and thereafter sent armies to invade them.

A confederacy left alone would have quickly have taken over the border states, (Through economics alone) the territories and become a horrible financial threat to the Robber Barons of the North East.

The Civil War was fought to keep the money power in Northern hands, and those hands alone. "Slavery" was just tacked on later to keep people from seeing the real reason for invading the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

...15th Amendment had the added benefit of adding many new Republican voters to the roles, ensuring their continued political power.

I have come to believe that was it's only intended purpose. I seem to get more cynical with each passing year. It's about power. It's always about power.

This existing election is about *POWER*. Not about what is best for the nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s why we still question the legality and morality of secession. The South did it to preserve slavery.

You were doing so well up to this point. In what way was secession intended to "preserve" slavery? Was it not legal in the United States at the time? Did not Lincoln urge the passage of an amendment to keep slavery legal so long as any state wanted it?

The point here is that "slavery" did not need to be preserved, it was already preserved. It was not under threat of any sort. (Other than Antifa like lunatics such as John Brown, deliberately staging attacks.)

So did the South secede to "preserve" that which did not need preserving, or did the secede for some other reason?

(Such as getting back the 60% of their export value that currently went to New York City and Washington DC.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Not true for the 13th Amendment. That amendment passed the Senate April 8th 1864. It passed the House Jan 31, 1865. It was forwarded to the States for consideration Feb 1 1865. Lincoln lobbied both Houses of Congress quite heavily for the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Indeed, and he clearly told his armies to point guns at the people of the Southern states and *FORCE* them to do his bidding on ratification.

Which pretty much makes the ratification illegitimate so far as I can tell, but some of you probably think it's okay for Armies to force people to "vote" for something if you happen to agree with whatever it is they are being forced to do.

[DiogenesLamp]

Notice they didn’t reserve the right to resume the powers to the people of Virginia, but to the people of the United States.

Now New York and Rhode Island also do not say the people of New York or Rhode Island, it only says to the people. As in “We the people”.

None of those ratification documents reserve any right to “secede” and are perfectly in line with this supreme court decision;

You are experiencing cognitive dissonance here. What you are claiming their words mean, makes no sense. It only makes sense if those powers go back to their respective states.

You just want to believe what you want to believe, and you have a mental block preventing you from seeing it any other way.

And Rhode Island had to have it's arm twisted hard by the other states to force it to ratify the US Constitution a year after other states did so. They didn't want to ratify it at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you hate America so much you should probably leave. I’d be very happy to help you pack.

If Biden's party cheats him into office, I can't wait to see how much you are going to enjoy America. Biden's America is going Soviet, and I dare say you are going to start thinking seriously about secession yourself at some point.

Either that or follow your own advice and "leave", though I don't know where you would go that would be less socialist than here.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did South Carolina follow the procedures laid out in the Consitution for withdrawing from the United States?

The US Constitution listed no such procedure because the topic was quite amply covered in the Declaration of Independence 11 years previously.

No further thing needed to be said about it in the US Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Tolerated is the correct verb, at least among the Founders’ generation. Many of the Founders were well aware that slavery was morally wrong.

I'm wondering if you are aware that at the time of this nation's founding (July 4, 1776) every single state was a slave state?

Thomas Jefferson's efforts to introduce anti-slavery commentary into the Declaration were rejected and overridden by the other members of the committee because that would have blown apart the coalition before it even tried to form.

So "Tolerated" isn't quite right. "Accepted with misgivings" is probably more accurate.

[DiogenesLamp]

Imagine how things would have turned out if the Founding Fathers had put a specific paragraph in the Constitution as to whether slavery was legal, or illegal .

If you accept the meaning in place of "words", they absolutely did. Article IV, Section 2 uses the word "Labor" as a euphemism for "slavery", but the meaning is clearly intended to be "slavery."

Accept the reality as it is, not as you would have it be.

[rockrr]

Did you escape from rehab?

[DiogenesLamp]

They did not have that power because of their ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

You are aware that the participants in holding a "constitutional convention" absolutely broke and violated the requirements of the Articles of Confederation which required Unanimous approval by all states? (Rhode Island refused to participate.)

If they would not obey their own laws regarding the Articles of Confederation, then you cannot claim the Articles of Confederation as some sort of governing authority over the powers of the States.

[DiogenesLamp]

The constitution is fundamental law with no procedure for leaving.

The procedure for leaving was explained in the Declaration of Independence, which *IS* the founding document of this nation. The US Constitution is the second addendum to it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well than you’re calling me a ‘’Paddie’’ as that is where my ancestral people came from. Names, sticks, stones.. etc.

I've noticed people of Irish descent often tend to be obnoxious pricks. They can also be very enjoyable people. Sometimes both at the same time.

Did a DNA test on my mom a few years ago. She's 42% Irish. I guess that's where I get some of my stubborn pig headedness.

[DiogenesLamp]

19th century Democrats who wanted limited government, balanced budgets, decentralized power and a non interventionist foreign policy? Proud to side with all of that.

I keep pointing out to people that 1860 Republicans were big city liberals connected to Robber Barons and willing to use government power to not only "Tax and Spend" but to reward their powerful business contacts with lucrative laws that greatly benefited them to the detriment of everyone else.

In other words, 1860 Republicans had most of the same ideology as 2020 Democrats. 1860 Republicans created "the Swamp", and the "Deep State" corruptocracy. There is a reason that the worst period of government corruption occurred right after the Lincoln Presidency. He brought all that corruption in with him.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dred Scott was later nullified. That does not mean it was correct at the time.

The holding was correct. Dred Scott could not be freed by the laws of a "Free" state. The reasoning to justify the holding had a lot of holes in it, but the holding itself was factually correct under the existing constitutional law.

And it was nullified by a "constitutional amendment" which was forced through the Southern states by the points of guns.

[DiogenesLamp]

They would not recognize themselves based on your description.

Perhaps this helps?