Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; southern
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 541-547 next last
To: K-Stater
Ignorance begets ignorance I see.

The Articles were ratified BY THE STATES. The ratification process itself demands the states had their sovereignty to ratify or reject the agreement BEFORE they could do so, and the Articles themselves acknowledge the "sovereign and independent states" entering into the agreement. So if that's too complicated, from 1776 to 1781, what political entity was Maryland if not a State? Did the Constitution or the Articles CREATE Maryland as you and Lincoln insist?

Vermont, yes. They were an independent, sovereign state until 1791 when they were admitted as a state.

So when Lincoln said "NO ONE of them ever having been a State out of the Union" was he correct "strictly speaking" or not? Did VT reserve the right to secede but no other? Or MD? Or did the fact that many of the states explicitly reserved the right in their State Constitutions become null and void 80 years later because some autocrat said so?

Sure, we can leave MD and TX and VT and RI and any other States and inconvenient facts aside as you wish until you can "validate" your point. I stand corrected once again.
181 posted on 04/12/2011 4:59:42 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf; phi11yguy19
Yet you can NOT even read the tenth Amendment correctly at all which makes clear secession is illegal

Dear Mr. Madison,

Question: What is the 10th Amendment for?

Answer: First, thank you for waking me from my rest. Second, who is this TheBigIf? Kinda reminds me of our old maid.

“[The Constitution] was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the [10th] amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, ‘that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’

Furthermore

The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition

182 posted on 04/12/2011 5:02:14 AM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

No, no. The “Articles” won their independence from Britain, and then carved out the States as subjects of the new crown in D.C. (eventually). How is it that you don’t understand such basic U.S. history??? (/sarc)


183 posted on 04/12/2011 5:03:10 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck
"The War is Over", my a$$!!

The South SHALL rise again!

184 posted on 04/12/2011 5:05:19 AM PDT by Logic n' Reason ("I'm an expert on life...after shit happens." (Dead Like Me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
I think the brain hemorrhage is that he fails to understand that in the sentence "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by IT to the states" that "United States" and "it" both refer to the same singular entity - the new common/federal government being created by the document.

I think he also believes that since the States fought for independence together, they were therefore a "union", and as such, that union "created" them. Of course following that logic also means that France is part of the Union, which I hadn't realized until now. Learn something new every day.
185 posted on 04/12/2011 5:15:35 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19; K-Stater
Did VT reserve the right to secede but no other? Or MD? Or did the fact that many of the states explicitly reserved the right in their State Constitutions become null and void 80 years later because some autocrat said so?

Virginia's ratification:

We the Delegates of the people of Virginia . . . declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes. . .

Mr. Madison, during Virginia's ratification:

That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.

186 posted on 04/12/2011 5:20:11 AM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“That is a non-sequitur....”

ROTFLMAO— Ain’t it the truth?


187 posted on 04/12/2011 5:27:56 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19
1. Those who were for it or with the ancestral fortunes invested in it would vote their lives away.

So when you say that the South had slavery forced upon them and that they were reluctant slave-holders throughout the existence of the U.S. then you were just joshing with us, is that it?

3. Those who opposed it often reluctantly maintained it (Jefferson, Lee, etc.) because they had no answer for the question "And then what?" with regards to the newly freed slaves (which the North DEFINITELY didn't answer).

Jefferson had an answer. He wanted them forcibly removed to Haiti. What do you think of that? Change your opinions of the man any?

Many were essentially "family" with their masters, helping raise and school children, attending church, etc. and all were provided for cradle-to-grave.

You make it sound so altruistic. You forget that slaves were property and not people. They had no rights and could be sold at a whim. And that the cradle ended young and the grave tended to arrive early. Is that the kind of existence that you would like?

Also, most Southerners understood first-hand that throwing them out to the wolves would be cruel, and they'd be turned into unskilled paupers and political pawns, but that was the North's answer.

So instead they planned on keeping them as property for generations to come. Pure altruism at its finest. </sarcasm>

Do you need me to give you page numbers and references for you to ignore again or is that enough for now?

No, I can dig up Durand's fairy tales on my own. Thanks for offering though.

188 posted on 04/12/2011 5:39:04 AM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
I correctly pointed out that the Northern states didn't end the practice for humanitarian reasons.

But they did end it. If the South were such reluctant slave-owners why didn't they end it, too?

You know as well as I do that the Northern states which ended slavery phased it out over a period of years and sold their slaves to the South. Was the South supposed to sell them back to the North after, oh, say, a 10-20 year phase like those Northern states used?

Hyperbole aside, if the South hated the institution of slavery to the extent that you and Philly claim then surely somewhere along the way the learned leaders of the South had come up with proposals for ending that vile institution that the North crammed down their throats and solving the problem of the slaves? So you should be able to point us to some of their ideas? That is, if the South really hated slaver to begin with.

You also know that if the Southern states were so determined to keep their slaves, all they had to do was remain in the Union.

And you also know, or should know, that had the Southern states remained in the U.S. there would have been restrictions on where they could take their slaves. So they left, and adopted a Constitution which guaranteed them the right to own slaves in every corner of the Confederacy, regardless of what a state or locality might have thought of it. So why have half the loaf in the U.S. when you could have the whole loaf on your own? Can you answer that for us?

189 posted on 04/12/2011 5:44:59 AM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater

The sad part of your logic is that you find it acceptable to judge past generations through modern glasses and treat your own unsubstantiated opinions as equivalent to documented evidence of that time. People who cast themselves on such a moral pedestal don’t have to travel far to portray heinous acts as a “duty” or “right” to justify themselves in spite of the law. History has too many examples to list.

So, was the economic and ideological agenda of “preserving the union” (Lincoln’s self-declared motivation for invading the South) then so morally superior as to justify 600,000 casualties? Since he stated AFTER starting the war that he’d re-accept the states WITH slavery intact so long as they’d return to the union, and in ‘65 was working to deport the slaves to Panama, you can’t genuinely weigh the half-million deaths against the abolition of slavery since that was never the motivation. Slavery = bad. Hundreds of thousands dead in the name of “union”=good.

In light of the atrocities in the name on “union”, the North had to come up with a palatable narrative, and slavery it was. Forget that northerners had zero first-hand knowledge of the social dynamic in the South. Forget that many abolitionists realized the horrors of war and begged to let the South secede peacefully. I guess in the world according to your morals, the two wrongs of slavery plus 600,000 deaths makes a right and that’s that.


190 posted on 04/12/2011 5:56:58 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
And you also know, or should know, that had the Southern states remained in the U.S. there would have been restrictions on where they could take their slaves. So they left, and adopted a Constitution which guaranteed them the right to own slaves in every corner of the Confederacy, regardless of what a state or locality might have thought of it. So why have half the loaf in the U.S. when you could have the whole loaf on your own? Can you answer that for us?

Did you make those history channel documentaries? You're forgetting your blind spot, again!! Lincoln was concerned about tariffs, not slavery. That is why he 'winked' at the proposed 13th Amendment - protecting slavery - forever!!

As Lincoln said, "What, then, would become of my tariff?"

191 posted on 04/12/2011 6:00:14 AM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
But they did end it.

When, exactly? They started and continued the trade even past when trade was banned in 1809 (RI and NY were the biggest traders in our history), and moved slaves South because of climate. The U.S. Constitution never outlawed expansion of slavery. The CSA one did. Just repeating an inaccuracy doesn't make it accurate.

So you should be able to point us to some of their ideas

Already have (ie VA protesting since the early 1700s...actually they were the first State in the WORLD to protest the institution when it was at it's peak, but you knew that). But overall, North and South alike didn't believe in integrating the races at the time. When slaves were "freed" in the north, they were conscripted, abandoned, sold south or sold back overseas. Which of those solutions are you saying was morally superior to anything in the south?

As for the "moving around" theory you present for the CSA, the Dred Scott decision sorta nullifies that whole argument, no? Nice try though.

Also, please add "hyperbole" to the list of words you don't understand how to use.
192 posted on 04/12/2011 6:12:29 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

The question is equally absurd to ask, “So, was the economic and ideological agenda of “preserving the Particular Institution” (the south’s self-declared motivation for invading the secession) then so morally superior as to justify 600,000 casualties?


193 posted on 04/12/2011 6:19:19 AM PDT by rockrr ("Remember PATCO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly; K-Stater

Before you say “hyperbole” again or ask for a quote, just look up the Corwin Amendment. It wanted to make in unconstitutional to abolish or even restrict slavery anywhere in the states. 3 states had ratified by the time of Lincoln’s inauguration (including his home Illinois), at which point he said:

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

What a saint.


194 posted on 04/12/2011 6:23:11 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Your analogy might be valid IF the South attacked the North in hopes of spreading slavery. Which they didn’t.

What does “invading the secession” mean?

Serious question: do you and K-State go to the same school?


195 posted on 04/12/2011 6:25:52 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
Slavery was an issue but not the cause.

As for the cause? Republican Form of Government

..."The people of North Carolina, more perhaps than those of any of the eleven seceding States, were devoted to the Union. They had always regarded it with sincerest reverence and affection, and they left it slowly and with sorrow. They were actuated by an honest conviction...that their constitutional rights were endangered, not be the mere election of Mr. Lincoln, as others did, but by the course which subsequent events were compelled to take in consequence of the ideas which were behind him. The Union men of the State, of whom I was one, whatever may have been their doubts of the propriety of secession, were unanimous in the opinion that it was neither right nor safe to permit the general government to coerce a State." Zebulon B. Vance

196 posted on 04/12/2011 6:38:27 AM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Probably. That idiot was a major liberal that just didn’t want to self-identify as one. BTW, he was a project manager with an MBA, the worst ignorant idiot type I meet.


197 posted on 04/12/2011 6:57:49 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

“It is so amusing to see Lost Causers argue to defend their side’s position on continuing slavery for economic and social reasons as a so-called state right.”

Funny, the North had slaves, too, yet, you argue that only the South had them and wanted to keep them.


198 posted on 04/12/2011 7:00:39 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; K-Stater; cowboyway
April 15.

Governor John Willis Ellis to dishonest abe Lincoln:

Your dispatch is received, and if genuine, which it's extraordinary character leads me to doubt, I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South, as a violation of the Constitution, and as a gross usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to this war upon liberties of a free people. You can get No troops from North Carolina

199 posted on 04/12/2011 7:17:49 AM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

I wonder how the original TEA Party participants would have answered your question...


200 posted on 04/12/2011 7:59:11 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 541-547 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson