Posted on 01/20/2016 5:03:47 AM PST by Kaslin
Last July, Anthony Hervey, an outspoken black advocate for the Confederate flag, was killed in a car crash. Arlene Barnum, a surviving passenger in the vehicle, told authorities and the media that they had been forced off the road by a carload of "angry young black men" after Hervey, while wearing his Confederate kepi, stopped at a convenience store en route to his home in Oxford, Mississippi. His death was in no small part caused by the gross level of ignorance, organized deceit and anger about the War of 1861. Much of the ignorance stems from the fact that most Americans believe the war was initiated to free slaves, when in truth, freeing slaves was little more than an afterthought. I want to lay out a few quotations and ask what you make of them.
During the "Civil War," ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels" (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861).
"For more than two years, negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as Rebel soldiers, and had paraded with White troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union." (Horace Greeley, in his book, "The American Conflict").
"Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number (of Confederate troops). These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde" (report by Dr. Lewis H. Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission).
In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia, newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity" had been "assigned to them" in defense of Virginia.
Those are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served as soldiers, freemen and slaves on the side of the Confederacy. The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite so simple as the nation's race "experts" make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag as their symbol, but racists have also marched behind the U.S. flag and have used the Bible. Would anyone suggest banning the U.S. flag from state buildings and references to the Bible?
Black civil rights activists, their white liberal supporters and historically ignorant Americans who attack the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic Southern black ancestors who marched, fought and died not to protect slavery but to protect their homeland from Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a black professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
You are speaking of Jefferson Davis & company, of course.
They could not have stopped the war with a word. The butcher's bill was under Lincoln's control, not under the control of anyone else.
The list of grievances were a courtesy, not a requirement to exercise the right. The right is non conditional. People can leave for whatever reason suits them.
Listen to you. Apply your ideas to individual people. Do you think someone has to provide a reason for why they no longer wish to be with someone? That they can't break off a relationship unless they have a reason that meets the approval of the person with whom they are breaking up?
Since no such conditions existed in November 1860, any "right to leave" was still superseded by obligations accepted with the US Constitution of 1787.
The exercise of a natural right is not contingent upon what a majority of delegates wrote, nor what a majority of legislature's passed. These are acts of man. They hold no weight against natural rights.
The US constitution is no more binding on the states than was English law (which forbade separation) binding on the colonies.
You would think that the principles upon which one's own nation is founded would be recognizable to a government four score and seven years later.
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Not a requirement.
But such an alleged unlimited "right" does not exist, never did, not in 1776, not in 1787 nor in 1860.
So regardless of how often, or how loudly, you proclaim it, such an unlimited right was never, in fact, proclaimed by our Founders.
Except, except under two conditions:
In 1776, our Founders certainly had no "mutual consent", but they just as certainly did have many serious breaches of contract by the Brits, including a formal declaration of war against colonists, and actual waging of war by the Brits.
These breaches are listed in detail in the Declaration of Independence.
By stark contrast, Fire-Eater secessionists in 1860 had neither "mutual consent", nor any serious breach of contract they could point to.
Instead, they seceded, as you so often proclaim their right, "at pleasure", meaning without any particular legal justification.
And while "at pleasure" may be plenty enough reason for DiogenesLamp, it was never considered legal justification by our Founders.
Still, regardless of the legalities -- or illegalities -- of 1861 declarations of secession, none of them caused Civil War.
Instead, Civil War was provoked, started and declared by the Confederacy against the United States long before even one Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
No, if any, the higher principle was whether the United States was constitutional or lawless.
The issue, if any, was whether a self-proclaimed secessionist power could militarily seize United States property assault the US Army AND formally declare war on the United States, without suffering just consequences.
Turned out, the answer was "no".
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
Pure rubbish.
Lincoln's choices in April 1861 were three, none of which necessarily meant war:
Like Buchanan, Lincoln refused to simply surrender Fort Sumter.
Instead, he offered to trade, "a fort for a state", Virginia.
These negotiations went on for weeks, but in the end failed.
Virginia's secession convention would not promise to adjourn after voting to remain in the Union.
So Lincoln simply attempted, as Buchanan had, to resupply Fort Sumter.
The decision to use Lincoln's resupply mission as their excuse for starting Civil War against the United States was strictly in the hands of Confederate President Davis.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a good analogy: Commie Cubans claim the US has no right to be there and demand our withdrawal.
We dispute their claims and continue to resupply or reinforce Guantanamo at will.
If Cubans launch a military assault on US forces at Guantanamo, then Cubans have started war, not the USA.
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
Nonsence.
The Confederacy could have asked for peace, and received it, at any time between their formal declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861, and their ultimate Unconditional Surrender on April 9, 1865.
I have mentioned before the Hampton Roads Conference, barely two months before ultimate Unconditional Surrender.
At Hampton Roads Confederates could have negotiated much better terms than they got, just two months later.
But Confederates refused to negotiate, continued fighting, lost thousands more killed & wounded, before surrendering with no serious terms whatever, resulting in:
Refusal to negotiate is prima facie evidence of Confederate President Davis' raving insanity.
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
So says DiogenesLamp, but that's not what any of our Founders said, ever.
The Declaration's key words are "necessary" and "necessity", it's key argument is a list of dozens of major breaches of contract by the King, offenses which make separation necessary.
So there is no sense, anywhere, in any Founder's writings that disunion "at pleasure" is "A-OK" by them.
DiogenesLamp: "Apply your ideas to individual people.
Do you think someone has to provide a reason for why they no longer wish to be with someone?
That they can't break off a relationship unless they have a reason that meets the approval of the person with whom they are breaking up?"
Yes, "no fault" divorce laws in many states are not what they used to be, way back when.
But certainly in our Founders' time, contract law & divorce required "mutual consent" or some major breach of contract, such as infidelity.
They also required a legal process in court.
DiogenesLamp: "The exercise of a natural right is not contingent upon what a majority of delegates wrote, nor what a majority of legislature's passed.
These are acts of man.
They hold no weight against natural rights."
But DiogenesLamp's declaration of some unnatural right as "natural" does not make it so.
You are simply mistaken in asserting our Founders' Declaration, Constitution, Original Intent or other writings somehow authorized an unlimited "right of separation".
They don't, and your words have no effect on that.
DiogenesLamp: "The US constitution is no more binding on the states than was English law (which forbade separation) binding on the colonies."
But English law was binding on the colonies, until the Brits themselves broke, abrogated and breached their own contract-laws.
Our Founders never asserted an unlimited "right of separation", only the "necessity" when under extreme conditions.
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
And while we're at it, let's look at other statements:
The key words in the Declaration are "necessity", "necessary" "impel" and "must".
There is no sense, anywhere in our Founding documents -- none -- of justifying secession "at pleasure".
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
Seems to me our FRiend DiogenesLamp wishes to not just redefine & refight the Civil War, but also the Revolutionary War.
Indeed, the sense I'm getting is that DiogenesLamp is actually a British sympathizer, whose major conceptual achievement is to "grasp" that our Founders' Declaration of Independence should apply to all times and all places anyone for any reason, or for no reasons at all, wishes to declare their independence from whatever authority they're subject to.
I suspect DiogenesLamp thinks that is a great idea for destroying the United States as we know it.
Then his true love, the Brits, could perhaps return to their rightful position atop the world, it seems.
Of course, I too love the Brits, but would not wish to return to our Revolution's ante-bellum.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. We come at this thing from completely different foundational assumptions.
There are no "limits" or "conditions" on a natural right. It is inherent, granted by nature and nature's God, and no one may gainsay it.
Read some John Locke, or Samuel Rutherford. Read some of the natural law philosophers our founders studied when they asserted their independence, contrary to England's consent and contrary to England's established law.
DegenerateLamp’s assertion is framed as a strawman. If you look at it’s assertion sans context it makes sense: “the right to form a free and independent nation is NOT DEPENDENT on whether you agree with their morals or not.”
Should a person find a corner of the earth that isn’t inhabited and wishes to set up their own little empire they should have the “right” to do so (I’m deliberately leaving out the natural consequences of such an endeavor if it is toxic to its neighbors).
The part he conveniently leaves out is the context to which the saner amongst us have been speaking. There is no right to form a nation at another nation’s expense. None. The only (singular) exception to this is the formation of a state through force of arms. That is what the slavers attempted (and failed) to do.
Like all lefties, DL likes to split hairs. I bet it’s got a yuge bald spot!
“Johnny Reb’’ is a comique nom de guerrre I’ve given to DiogenesLamp’’ and all the other “Johnny Reb wannabes. I call ‘’’centra va;; “General’’ He is the Little General . That and his veneration of general lee. That’s all. Heck of lot tamer then what I’ve been called from them. What do you suppose America wold look lie today if the South had won the war. What are your thoughts on that?
So repeats DiogenesLamp, endlessly.
But no Founder ever asserted such a natural, unlimited "right of separation".
Instead, the 1776 Declaration was in response to an itemized list of dozens of, in effect, British breaches of contract, including a formal declaration of war and launching of war against the colonists.
By 1776 Benjamin Franklin alone had spent ten years in Britain trying to negotiate better conditions for colonies within the British Empire.
He was in no sense eager for separation and accepted its necessity only reluctantly, after many years.
Of course, DiogenesLamp's assertion that you believe in an unlimited "right of separation" is just fine: believe whatever you wish, so long as you obey the laws.
But there's no evidence suggesting that's what our Founders believed.
And, it's not just a straw man, it's also a huge red herring.
That's because it implicitly asserts, and so is argued on the grounds that Lincoln's Union started Civil War to suppress the alleged unlimited "right of separation".
That's the reason pro-Confederates keep throwing this out.
They of course didn't believe a word of it, as demonstrated by the Confederate war to prevent western Virginia from seceding Virginia.
But they hope it works to force d*mn-dumb-Yankees into arguing that our Founders shouldn't have declared independence in 1776, since they had no natural "right to secede".
Two general points can be made in response:
Something like this, plus CSA colonies in the Caribbean, Central & South America.
And the world would look more like this:
So repeats BroJoeK endlessly.
Let me make it clear for you. No one has a right to force someone to associate with them. That would be slavery.
No one has to have a good reason to refuse to associate with someone else. It is simply enough that they no longer wish to associate.
I would prefer not to be a member of a coercive state that imposes it's current fad of morality on me.
"Gay Marriage" is but a recent example.
Sorry for the typos. Middle aged eyesight.
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.