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 ...
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
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)
The South SHALL rise again!
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.
“That is a non-sequitur....”
ROTFLMAO— Ain’t it the truth?
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.
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?
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.
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?"
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
“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.
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
I wonder how the original TEA Party participants would have answered your question...
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.