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 ...
Very nice post. I think what the south had, and still has to a certain extent, was a graciousness, a pace, a way of living, manners, that the north never had and never will. That’s part of the reason blacks and whites get along better in the South.
Sez who?
Because they were part of the United States.
Of course we had armed forces stationed there, as we did in the North.
The Confederates were traitors and secession is treason. Deal with it.
???????????
Not any more.
The Civil War settled the question.
And the Union having answered the question on the battlefield by force, the SCOTUS answred it in law:
"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." -- Texas v. White
Then prove me wrong and convince me, Johnny Reb.
Sez who? Rebellion against whom? Does the amorphous, nameless, faceless federal bureaucracy own me? Does the president rule me? Today I guess I’d have to say yes, but the principal had not been established until the butchers lincoln and grant made Dixie howl.
Actually that's a picture of a former slave named Gordon. He was abused by his owner, ran away during the war and enlisted in the Union army. Harper's Weekly played it up in an 1863 article in their magazine. Link.
“The man took up arms against his country. That is textbook treason.”
You’d never understand, so I won’t even bother to take you to school on this part of yoru post.
“Plus he was a lousy field general. He refused to fight the kind of war that won like his counterparts Grant and Sherman did. He was stuck in the last century.”
That must be why soldiers all over the world study him, and the tactics he used in the Civil War - even to this day.
He was way ahead of his time - but again, you simply wouldn’t understand.
Lee was one of the greatest AMERICANS we’ve ever had, for a whole host of reasons.
You should be studying and admiring him, not denigrating a great man that you would do well to emulate.
As for getting rid of the Confederate flag, I think it's a good idea ... after the leftists agree to bans on the hammer and sickle, images of Che Guevara, the Chinese flag, Karl Marx' Das Kapital, and more. Because under these cultural or political regimes, far more evil was done to humanity than done under American slavery.
And I'm not a Southerner, and don't own a version of the Stars and Bars.
NEVER!!!! I stick my middle finger in your eye, ButtBreath!
Then again ... if you're really going to make an "ancestry" argument, it's best to recall that Pitts' ancestors were property, to be bought, sold, beaten, or killed at their owners' discretion. So I'd say he has as much right to play the "ancestor" card as you have.
The argument can be made that both sides were far too eager to march into war rather than resolving the matter diplomatically.
Exactly. The issue of secession itself is far more complicated than many think. The Founders did not oppose secession per se, though they DID think it a bad idea unless there had been a "long train of abuses", to borrow the terminology of the DoI. Madison, for instance, believed States had the right to secede, but that the act of doing so constituted a "revolution" - by which he meant the very technical and specific act of changing the political structure. Hence, secession is a revolution, but it is highly doubtful that the Founders would have viewed it as "treason" in the sense that many posters on FR use the term when discussing this issue.
The Founders, across the spectrum, held to a medial position on State's rights. They did not view the States as being absolutely sovereign entities as they had come near to being under the Articles. Nor did they view them as mere provinces, as they have increasingly became in post-1865 America. They intended, with the Constitution, a true Federal system, whereby external powers and those which factored across State boundaries were divided to the Federal government, while internal powers (the majority of issues) would be reserved to the States, and to the people, who are viewed as acting THROUGH their States (this is, for instance, why the Senators were originally intended to be appointed by State legislatures, not direct election of the populace).
Instead, the States were to be largely self-governing on their internal matters, and per the idea that the Constitutional system was acceded TO by States, they retained, per the 10th amendment, the unenumerated right to secede FROM this same union - though this act, because it changes the political system, would be considered revolutionary. In short, secession went right along with the classically liberal notion of self-determination - if a political body did not wish to be associated with a larger body, union, federation, etc., then it had the right to withdraw and form its own body, or associate with another. This is how they justified the Revolution against Britain, and (technically) it applies equally to the South's situation in 1860-1. The Founders, at the same time, felt that this right was a "last resort", it was only to be used if there was a grave and terrible harm being done to those who would then be wishing to secede.
Most people between the Founders' generation and the generation which fought the Civil War understood this. The only credible opposition came from the "National Greatness" types like Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and Joseph Story. But, for every Joe Story arguing that secession was not provided for, there was a Bill Rawle arguing that it was. The issue was determined (though not SETTLED) by the bogus Texas v. White SCOTUS case in 1869 in which a national greatness SCOTUS operating under the auspices of the Radical Republicans ruled that secession was unconstitutional. It's not, of course, but such were the times in 1869 that a decision like that could be rammed through with ease.
For the record, I am a Midwesterner, so I don't really have a dog in the Yankee-Southron fight. My main interest is in freedom TODAY, which includes the right for political self-determination. I would say that States TODAY still have the right to secede. I would also say that the South was technically right in asserting its right to secede in 1860-1. This is tempered, however, by the fact that I do not think the South had a "long train of abuses" to necessarily justify its secession, and I certainly don't think that slavery was a reasonable justification for it at all (though I also know that slavery wasn't the ONLY reason for secession).
I would not waste my time trying to convince you of anything. The fact that Lee was Lincoln’s first choice and Grant was Lincoln third choice says it all.
The United States.
Does the amorphous, nameless, faceless federal bureaucracy own me? Does the president rule me?
Are you not bound by laws?
Today I guess I’d have to say yes, but the principal had not been established until the butchers lincoln and grant made Dixie howl.
The idea that secession was, at worst, entirely illegal or, at best, allowed only with the consent of a majority of the states was an idea widely accepted in the U.S. prior to the rebellion.
“The Confederates were traitors and secession is treason. Deal with it”
Go ahead, finish your thought.....you know, how anyone who disagrees with you is also a traitor....
LOL! And Pitts predicted precisely that.... FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with him on many issues, but I do respect him as a writer.
“NEVER!!!! I stick my middle finger in your eye, ButtBreath!”
I probably don’t agree with your opinion, but I laughed when I read that.
In addition to the "reminder", Mr. Pitts is obligated to demonstrate that the North went to war to end the practice of slavery, demonstrably false. Lincoln tolerated slavery until it was tacticly advantageous to act against it. Might as well make the case we invaded Iraq to end the ban on the celebration of Ashoura or to empower Shiites, a predictable result but not the cause.
There’s actually a reason for that.
The South is still an agrarian society. The whole life there is based on growing seasons, which you just can’t rush.
The North is/was an industrial society, where people are paid by the hour and production schedules must be met, come hell or high water. There isn’t time for graciousness when the foremen are breathing fire to the guys on the line and the forecasts must come about no matter what.
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.