Posted on 05/12/2015 3:00:03 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
We Sons of Confederate Veterans are charged with preserving the good name of the Confederate soldier. The world, for the most part, has acknowledged what Gen. R. E. Lee described in his farewell address as the “valour and devotion” and “unsurpassed courage and fortitude” of the Confederate soldier. The Stephen D. Lee Institute program is dedicated to that part of our duty that charges us not only to honour the Confederate soldier but “to vindicate the cause for which he fought.” We are here to make the case not only for the Confederate soldier but for his cause. It is useless to proclaim the courage, skill, and sacrifice of the Confederate soldier while permitting him to be guilty of a bad cause.
Although their cause was lost it was a good cause and still has a lot to teach the world today.
In this age of Political Correctness there has never been a greater need and greater opportunity to refresh our understanding of what happened in America in the years 1861–1865 and start defending our Southern forebears as strongly as they ought to be defended. There is plenty of true history available to us. It is our job to make it known.
All the institutions of American society, including nearly all Southern institutions and leaders, are now doing their best to separate the Confederacy off from the rest of American history and push it into one dark little corner labeled “ Slavery and Treason.” Being taught at every level of the educational system is the official party line that everything good that we or anyone believe about our Confederate ancestors is a myth, and by myth they mean a pack of lies that Southerners thought up to excuse their evil deeds and defeat.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
You know that it isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that unilateral secession is expressly unconstitutional and illegal. That leaves only a negotiated settlement in congress or the Supreme Court - or revolution.
In other words, might makes rights.
Or in the case of the Civil War, Right makes right.
“You know that it isn’t.”
Yes, I know that.
“. . . unilateral secession is expressly unconstitutional”
Where is it expressly expressed?
Texs v. White
Texas v. White
“Texas v. White”
This case (1869) was after Lincoln’s optional war.
Victor’s justice.
You’re missing the point (I suspect intentionally). The south knew that it was a matter in contention. They knew that they could choose negotiation or confrontation and war. They chose war. Doesn’t that make them advocates of “might makes right”?
“The south knew that it was a matter in contention.”
You are right there. But being a matter in contention is far different than being something something “expressly unconstitutional.”
And too, Southerners knew about the speech given on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1847 in which Congressman Abraham Lincoln said: “Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”
What do you suppose Ol Abe meant by "being inclined and having the power..."? Here's a helpful hint: He was referring to the God-given right of rebellion against tyranny - conditions that did not exist in 1860-61. He understood that rebellion and civil war were the last options - not the first.
“If I knew that it was a matter that was hotly contested and to possibility of tens of thousands of lives (not to mentions hundreds of thousands of lives) my conscience would not allow me to go forward just because it might make me feeeeeeeeel better.”
You seem oblivious to how your words repudiate Lincoln’s decision to fight an optional war.
Because by mutual agreement they were not required to pay for anything. When did the North agree that the South could leave and take everything they could get their hands on?
I don’t think you have come to terms with natural law: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle . . .”
Yeah, how'd that war work out for them?
In other words if you start a revolution don't cry and complain if you lose it.
The South was inclined to rise up but apparently lacking in the will and power to win.
“Because by mutual agreement they were not required to pay for anything.”
I’m not familiar with that part of history. To be clear, are you saying Britain told the colonies they could take all the crown property before the war?
Lincoln had no options - certainly not your insipid notion of an optional war (although the notion does fit the confederates). The decision was thrust upon him by the actions of the slavrocracy. Once they set on that course Lincoln, honor bound to his oath of office, had no other choice. There is no repudiation of Lincolns actions - nor should there be.
No, your question in reply 375 was how much did the colonies pay Great Britain after they won their rebellion. And the answer is nothing, because the Treaty of Paris agreed to by both parties did not require any payment.
I was trying to make the point that belligerents don't usually pay for anything until the contest is decided and successful belligerents usually don't pay anything.
“Lincoln had no options. . .”
Lincoln could have imposed economic sanctions without immediate war. Lincoln could have worked with the international community to mediate a peaceful resolution to the disputes without immediate war. Lincoln could have ordered the naval blockade of the South without an immediate land war. Lincoln could have negotiated with the South without an immediate war. There were several steps Lincoln could have taken to avoid an immediate war. I mean, if he wanted to avoid an immediate war.
Yep, too bad Beauregard had to fire the first shots at Ft. Sumter.
Beauregard was chivied into firing the first shots in the Gulf of Tonkin - er, I mean Ft. Sumter.
“In other words if you start a revolution don’t cry and complain if you lose it.”
I saw a comment in an unrelated article and thought of you: “Derision, rather than refutation, seems to be the norm of discourse in mainstream politics as well.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293145/posts
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.