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 ...
Wow, you made it through the entire thread pretty quickly!
Always appreciate reading your comments.
Sorry about that trumandogz. I should have sent my little history lesson on the 3/5th compromise to RegulatorCountry.
That simple and practical compromise between competing factions has been distorted far too often by demagogues from both the radical left and the radical libertarians who share a disdain for both the Constitution and the Republic it created.
Unfortunately, their demagoguery has taken hold even among many who should know better. I suppose if you tell a lie often enough, people start to believe it.
Thanks for the info!
same here along with a rebel flag sticker on my cars plus a front plate saying Dixie on top of a confederate battle flag plate.
Just got back from down town and saw a bunch of battle flags on trucks etc.
If the tourists do not like it then tough.
You’re out of your mind, but I applaud your efforts. Keep the faith and good luck.
Facts are stubborn things. ;-)
How is that a related rebuttal to his post?
I think you are confusing Madison with Jefferson. At various times in his life, nearly any faction today could find a Jefferson quote to back up their arguments. Madison, on the other hand was to my knowledge pretty consistent throughout his life.
but [Madison] was in agreement with St. George Tucker, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and many others in later years.
Well, I don't know what you mean by 'later in life' but here is an excerpt from Madison's letter to Daniel Webster in 1833 (3 years before he died) where he shoots down any constitutional basis for 'secession at will.' I'd say Madison was diametrically opposed to any idea of unilateral secession.
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
That was kinda my point. How is that song a credible rebuttal to the point of your response?
Lol! Well I sure hope you can do better than an unsourced wikipedia entry to support your claim partner. The Louisiana Native Guard issue has become a textbook example of how confederate revisionists "manufacture" evidence to support their claims. They even sell a t-shirt with a doctored photograph on it.
How embarrassing is that?
Anyone that is pro-queer marriage and thinks queers in the military is a good thing is a liberal. Don’t bother to reply. I understand what you are saying. It’s JR’s forum, he sets the rules. If you want to fight with liberal trolls, you need to talk to him, not me.
Where did you get the information that they were not santioned?
BTW, you argue like a liberal.
Close. Very close.
There are others who are social conservative to the exclusion of all else, even to the point of supporting big government types like Huckabee.
_______________________
That CERTAINLY does NOT describe me. I can’t stand Huckabee. I detest big, all encompassing government trying to control every aspect of our lives. I am vehemently opposed to DC usurpation of states rights.... so I’m probably a bit of a libertarian as well but I am also socially conservative and I have no intention of backing down on my views. That is the goal of the Marxists. Destruction of morals and social values is their goal. Once they achieve that the rest is easy. I won’t give them an inch.
Surrounding oneself with nothing but yes men leads to isolation and confusion
______________________
Talk to Jim about that if you don’t like it. He said made it clear the pro homo agenda was not welcome on FR. Obviously you fee differently so I don’t know why you are preaching to me. His rules, his forum, I think you miss some of the zotted progressives.
The somewhat more accurate term is The War for Northern Dominance.
Thank you, suh!
Military cooks and truck drivers in todays military are not real soldiers? Are you nuts.
Keep it up pal. :-)
“What a crock! One of my Confederate Ancestors from Texas, didn’t own a slave, he was a RANCHER! He could have given a d*mn less about slavery, one way or the other. He fought to stop Yankees from invading!”
I’m a Texan too and if it were not cloudy and raining at the moment, I could go up on my deck and see the rotunda of our beautiful capitol building.
However, as a Texan, who received two degrees from that University here in Austin, I understand that succeeded from the Union because of slavery. I know this from reading documents that were written at the time of the Civil War.
I find it quite interesting that your screen name is TexConfederate1861, so interesting that I’m going to post text from “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union” which was written and adopted in 1861.
“She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery— the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits— a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”
Texans wanted slavery to exist for all future time.
“Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.”
Here Texas acknowledges that slavery was the primary connection the state had with the confederacy.
“The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.”
The Texans seemed very concerned not only that their institution of slavery was threatened, but also that they would not be able to expand slavery to the Pacific.
“Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.”
The Texans were not happy that there were states that would not return people who had escaped slavery to Texas so that the Texans could again hold them in slavery.
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color— a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. “
In one long rambling sentence, the Texans use the Bible to justify their enslavement of human beings and their succeeding from the Union.
“They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”
And again, the Texans express their belief that the races are not equal and object to the abolition of slavery.
“For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.”
Apparently the Abolitionists are spreading hatred while the confederacy is spreading love and friendship. Well, love and friendship as long as you happen to be white.
“They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...”
In citing yet another reason for leaving the Union, the Texans are upset that people are encouraging slaves to escape into freedom.
“They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.”
Apparently, the Texans were not advocates of the First Amendment.
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”
In 1861 Texans believed that Texas was by white people and for white people and others had no rights. Furthermore, and if ever blacks were to become equal to whites, Life Would Become Intolerable!
“That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator..”
Here again, the Texans use God to justify slavery!
And even today, there are people today that maintain that Succession for the Union and the Civil War was not about slavery!
If it was not about slavery, why is it that the Declarations of Succession primarily mentions slavery and the superiority of the white man as the reason for leaving the Union?
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
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.