Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What about those states who did not ratify the Constitution but were instead admitted by a vote in Congress? In other words all but the original 13? It was hardly an agreement on their part; in fact the Constitution doesn't give the people in the territories any say in the issue of statehood or not. How can they void an agreement that they didn't agree to? If your point is that for the original 13 states leaving should be the same as joining, an agreement entered into can also be opted out of, then for all the states that came later shouldn't leaving require the agreement of those states that let them join in the first place?
Confederates at the time considered their slaves to be sub-humans.
Who else, within 80 years of the Civil War, considered people to be sub-humans? hmmmmmm....history seemed to repeat itself in Europe about 80 years later, and the side that LOST was the aggressor then as well oddly enough.
You would think after all the bloodshed and all the misery, that the stupid Yankees could have cobbled together an amendment to make secession illegal, post war. No, the USC is STILL silent on the issue, as it should be.
This proves the utter hypocrisy of the entire "preserve the Union" BS.
(fist bump)
I think we're about to get a second chance.
“...Would you agree to a proposal from California that all illegal immigrants in that state should be counted by the census for the purpose of determining Congressional delegations?...”
-
I hate to have to be the one to break the news to you, but...
that is; and always has been the case.
The census enumerates “residents” not “citizens”.
Illegal immigrants are counted in the census.
Even prisoners in the state penitentiary are counted.
Hence the problem with how to enumerate slaves...as 1;
or as 0; or shall we compromise on 3/5ths...
(I wonder where the 3/5ths came from...why not 3/4 or 1/2?)
Why not? An illegal immigrant is not a citizen and has no rights to representation in Congress. It would be foolish to count them for Congressional representation as a result. But a slave was not citizen, either. They had no access to the courts and no rights that a white man was bound to recognize, as that Southern jurist Roger Taney wrote in 1856. They were property, not people. So why should they have any expectation of Congressional representation, any more than an illegal immigrant should? The obvious answer is that they shouldn't, and the fact of the matter is that the intent of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention was to give their white population an increased representation in Congress. Their slaves didn't need representation since it couldn't do them any good anyway.
Can you quote the legislation that required that?
He also said in that same letter that if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves he would do that.
...and he know without him freeing the slaves the Union would fall apart into total anarchy while at the same time fighting a war with the South....
And how did he know that?
Because the southern states perceived slavery to be so vital to their economic interests that they seceded and went to war over the likelihood that it would be abolished.
All that crap from the neo-confeds about it being about something other than slavery is just silly.
Good post.
And for some reason you do not see any reasonable people in Germany celebrating their Nazi Heritage.
“...history seemed to repeat itself in Europe about 80 years later...”
“...And for some reason you do not see any reasonable people in Germany celebrating their Nazi Heritage...”
-
Are you comparing southerners in 1860 to nazis?
I just want to make sure I’m hearing you right.
The enslavement of a people is reprehensible whether it be in the 19th or 20th century.
And, the belief that one’s race is superior to another race is disgusting today as well as in 1861 and 1939.
Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?
Was the revolutionary war primarily about tea?
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.