So do liberals...
Posted on 03/03/2008 10:37:49 AM PST by Rebeleye
They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the so-called "Confederate States of America" both said it was. They will tell you that great-great grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders - not grunts - who decide whether and why a war is waged. They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
After all the New England families made their fortunes on the slavey trade, they said “free them”
Wonder if they wanted them sent back to Africa, so they could export them again?
The Confederate states just traded Washington telling them what they could do for Montgomery telling them what they could do.
Yes and no. State's rights, at its most basic level, has to do with political self-determination, not any temporary issue like slavery. The Confederate States joined the CSA knowing what the Confederate constitution stipulated - the State's rights aspect of it comes in with their right to make that choice of association, not the subsequent restrains which they acceded to.
All the same, it is ironic that given everything else, the South's interest in slavery would actually have been MORE protected by remaining in the Union than by leaving it, once all the factors are weighed.
Not widely accepted in the half of the country that seceded.
Could you explain that, please? I have a degree in History, many advanced credits beyond that, and in general am somewhat of a history bug, and I have never before this heard that the South wanted to and fought to end up being a British economic colony.
A great man would honor his oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
The domestic enemies were Jefferson Davis & Co.
And we know who’s side Lee took.
So do liberals...
Not ever. George Washington settled the question long before the Civil War.
Surely Lee went into the war with a good reputation as a soldier, therefore of course Lincoln wanted him. He had th highest pedigree and credentials. During the war, he did the only thing he could do ... take mammoth risks.
Grant came into the war with very little acclaim, but he proved over and over that he was a great general, and in fact the only general in the north who really knew how to win the war.
I don’t think you can compare the two.
No, I'm arguing that the 10th amendment provides, as an unenumerated right, for States and their residents to voluntarily dissolve their association with the Federal Union. What the Federal government decides to do about it will largely determine if there is a subsequent taking up of arms.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“A great man would honor his oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
The domestic enemies were Jefferson Davis & Co.
And we know who’s side Lee took.”
Too late, he’s already one of the greatest Americans......
No, but one of them gave his life for our liberty at the Boston Massacre.
From a Texas point of view, this either/or debate is rather curious. We didn't agree on why we seceded and why we fought.
Many of the boys called to fight believed it was a war waged on behalf of the slaveowners, but they fought for the right of Texas to decide the issue.
A goodly number of the Germans wanted no part of it and sent their young men to Mexico to sit it out.
You'd be surprised:
Editorial titled “The True Question” which appeared in the Richmond Enquirer on November 1, 1814.
The Union is in danger. Turn to the convention in Hartford, and learn to tremble at the madness of its authors. How far will those madmen advance? Though they may conceal from you the project of disunion, though a few of them may have even concealed if from themselves, yet who will pretend to set the bounds to the rage of disaffection? Once false step after another may lead them to resistance to the laws, to a treasonable neutrality, to a war against the Government of the United States. In truth, the first act of resistance to the law is treason to the United States. Are you ready for this state of things? Will you support the men who would plunge you into this ruin?
No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes. Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the ‘Federal Republican’ that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is abominable heresy – which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of Federalist.
We call, therefore, upon the government of the Union to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it – and seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of the convention of Harford. This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it.
Countrymen of the East! We call upon you to keep a vigilant eye upon those wretched men who would plunge us into civil war and irretrievable disgrace. Whatever be the temporary calamities which may assail us, let us swear, upon the altar of our country, to SAVE THE UNION.
;-)
How?
I suggest that all Southerners admit:
1. that their cause had its functional, human roots in slavery.
2. that they lost the Civil War.
...and get on with leading a redeemed life, like all of us need to.
Confederate flag = American swastika???
Ouch!
Never heard that comparison before!
I think I just discussed this last week and said the same thing Leonard said, except it was MY great grandpa whatever who died, blah blah blah.
I’m not saying racists haven’t highjacked the symbol, but I don’t agree with all he says here.
Yep, and Northern Democrats in 1864 ran on a platform of surrender, and allowing slavery to continue.
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.