The reality of the Antebellum South:
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 ...
Was the civil war about slavery? Sure it was. Was it only about slavery? Not at all. Was it even the largest reason for the civil war? Not even close. It’s a bit part in a grand play, and it doesn’t matter if someone owned slaves or not, as the people who go after the battle flag are in it for only their own desires. They want to do as the author has already declared: turn it into some form of a symbol of shame.
But this is how liberals tend to argue; they claim everyone else is unreasonable, they blame the media for it (while /being/ the media at the same time, go figure), declare it’s who shouts loudest longest and then launch into the loudest screams they can.
Which is why I said it was a "complicated issue."
And I'm a Southerner, so you know who's sahd Ah-ma takin'.
i.e. forcing the southern states to comply, like it or not. That is the antithesis of states rights. In fact, it could be argued that we are still held hostage.
An implied right?
Where would that be found? The same place the Supreme Court found the implied right to privacy that "justifies" abortion? Somewhere in those penumbras Lee found a right to rebel against his country?
Slavery is not the worst of all human conditions. It's not even close. Your comparison to the Nazi flag is obscene. The Nazis killed, k-i-l-l-e-d, some of my ancestors. Actually they did more than kill them. They robbed them of their humanity. Have you seen the pictures? Were any of your ancestors reduced to skin and bones before they were gassed? Or even just reduced to skin and bones? Or just gassed? STFU. You haven't got a clue about the depths of depravity and your BS is really sickening.
ML/NJ
Wrongo, bongo. Lee used ground and maneuver to twist the North’s head all the way off and all the way back on again, and he did it for years. He never had the resources to fight the kind of war that Grant did. If anybody was stuck in the 18th century during that war it was Grant’s predecessors.
I will grant you Pickett’s Charge was foolhardy and unexplainable in light of Lee’s other battles.
What he said. Secession is not necessarily the same thing as Treason. The South believed they had a right to secede, and viewed the North as aggressive invaders.
The argument can be made that both sides were far too eager to march into war rather than resolving the matter diplomatically.
No argument that it was a complicated issue. My family settled in Virginia sometime after coming here from England (1600’s), and I’m not sure whether that is considered part of the North or South. In either event, I’m not choosing sides in this debate - there’s no winning the argument. I’m just a student of history.
Of course they did. At the time.
But part and parcel of State's Rights is the right of a state to change its mind on an issue without having to get permission from the Federal Government. The People of Florida might have decided on their own to outlaw slavery in 1866, but the CSA's Constitution did not give them that right.
The Confederate states just traded Washington telling them what they could do for Montgomery telling them what they could do.
Not trying to entice an argument here. Just making a comment on what each side’s point of view was.
You don’t know when this man got those wounds,could have been when the Slave Trade Ships from the north hauled the man over here from his land,,maybe Africa..
Aggressive invaders?
Who fired the first shots on Fort Sumter?????????
It's called the 10th amendment. Maybe you've heard of it?
You still haven’t proved that it wasn’t a States Rights issue that caused the Secession. You can make the criticism against the central Confederate government for not being much of an improvement over Washington, but State Rights was still the issue that caused the Secession to begin with.
No, this wouldn’t be the same sort of implied right. That one was made up out of whole cloth. This one would be based on the idea that if a state was free to agree to become part of the union, they are free to stop being part of the union, any language in the constitution to the contrary not being in evidence.
Read Jonah’s new book “Liberal Fascism”. It’s fascinating.
“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.”
I live in Rome and am fond of the Ceasars and their monuments. The French are okay with Napoleon and even I am, though his French hordes carted off half of Italy’s artworks. I wouldn’t dream of knocking down ancient Roman heritage or the Arc of Triumph just because I no longer share the politics of the Caesars or Napoleon. Patriotism is a sort of warts and all thing. Those Southern flags don’t JUST represent slavery, a lost war... but home, foodstuffs, mannerisms, turns of phrase, attitudes. Should the New York flag represent only the evil or unsavory things that happened or were legislated in that fine State? When the Stars and Stripes were patched together there was slavery, women were not enfranchised, and bla bla bla... Should it be despised? Only if you’re a political fanatic with a big slab of ham in front of your eyes!
That war had been brewing for fifty years.
"Technically, it's not treason if you're exercising an implied right under the Constitution..."
An implied right?
Where would that be found? The same place the Supreme Court found the implied right to privacy that "justifies" abortion? Somewhere in those penumbras Lee found a right to rebel against his country?
Taking this out of the Civil War context, I feel compelled to remind you that the Constitution is not a list of rights. It is a complete list of exactly when the federal government may encroach upon our rights.
If a right is not listed in the Constitution, then it is retained by the people. Period, end of story. Or so our Founders thought, though many people have been willing to give up those rights either through fear, laziness or just such a misunderstanding of the Constitution.
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.