Confederate Memorial Day (Virginia)

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

We all know that today is a day to remember US troops that have fallen in battle.
In the state of Virginia today is also a day to remember our brave soldiers of the Confederacy.

The marching armies of the past
Along our Southern plains,
Are sleeping now in quiet rest
Beneath the Southern rains.

The bugle call is now in vain
To rouse them from their bed;
To arms they'll never march again--
They are sleeping with the dead.

No more will Shiloh's plains be stained
With blood our heroes shed,
Nor Chancellorsville resound again
To our noble warriors' tread.

For them no more shall reveille
Sound at the break of dawn,
But may their sleep peaceful be
Till God's great judgment morn.

We bow our heads in solemn prayer
For those who wore the gray,
And clasp again their unseen hands
On our Memorial Day.

-Author Unknown

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

LOL! You should know that the declaration was NOT talking about slaves. Also, did you know that the colony of Virginia wanted to stop the further importation of slaves from the slave trade in its borders? Britain would not let them.

Did you also know that when Britain tried to put some taxes and regulation on the New England rum industry, the New England states howled that it would ruin their economy. (Rum was used to trade for slaves in Africa) Did you also know that in the Declaration, one of the reasons the colonies gave for breaking with great Britain was that the King had encouraged domestic insurrections (slave revolts)? At that time there were slaves in EVERY colony. Did you also know that Britain offered freedom to all the slaves that joined them in their fight against the colonists?

By the very words of the Declaration of Independence, any change in government for the purpose of perpetuating and extending that ultimate denial of its basic principle, that "all men are created equal," chattel slavery, is not and cannot be legitimate. Any powers such a government might use could by definition not be "just powers."

If you take the words of the declaration to include slaves, then why didn't everyone free their slaves after it was issued? Why did the slave trade continued legally for twenty years after the constitution and illegally for many years after? The new England states fought Britain and it seems that one of their reasons was the protection of their slave trade and rum industry. Does that mean that their fight for government of the people, by the people, and for the people was not legitimate? And who are you to decide what just powers are? The importation of slaves and the slave trade continued for a while after the start of the union. Does that mean our government under Washington, Jefferson, Adams and etc. was not exercising just powers? It was not legitimate?

The Founders were not talking about slaves when they wrote the declaration. Trying to construe such is ridiculous. They considered slavery and the slave trade a legitimate practice and considered Britain's attempt to get the slaves to revolt against them to be despicable.

The point is, a people can separate themselves from an abusive government whether or not they have slaves. The founders didn't think having slaves was a problem when they declared themselves free from Britain. Your argument that having slaves disqualifies one from forming a new legitimate government is ridiculous.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Yankee slave traders who sold the slaves to the Southerners

Yep, and only 6% of the slaves sold by the Yanks ended up in the South. The rest went elsewhere, but the Yanks sure made a hell of a profit.

And if you think that states rights means slavery that is sad. The principle of states rights goes back to our countries founding. The states delegated limited powers to the federal government. All other rights were left to the states. Thus, states rights.

There should not have been slavery at all.

Then punish Massachusetts, the first state to legalize slavery!

Then there should not have been the slave trade at all! Punish the evil New England states who monopolized the trade and made themselves filthy rich from it!

Dude. So many more blacks died in the middle passage on the slave ships. About one third of any slave ship's cargo of slaves died on the trip. Yet nobody talks of this as much. It still has to be the South that is evil.

never mind that the North only freed their slaves when they had so much white labor that the whites would not tolerate their work to be done by slaves and would have rather killed the slaves as John Adams said? Never mind that Many Northern states then banned blacks from entering. The North, who started the Slave trade, they are the good guys! The South, which in the 1830s had about twice as many abolition societies than the North, are the bad guys. Never mind also that only 6% of white Southerners even owned slaves, and that half of these had 5 or less and often worked side by side in the fields with them. Never mind the facts, the slave trading racist North was good, the South was just eeeeeevil because they had some slaves that the yankee traders sold them!

[Sherman Logan]

AFAIK, not one of the Founders publicly stated that slavery was a positive good, all viewing it as a great evil, but one that couldn’t be eliminated at the moment without great risk to society and the Union. This is certainly true, by their own words, for Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others who owned slaves themselves.

In hindsight this refusal to boldly face the contradiction between their principle of equality and the practice of slavery was by far their greatest mistake. It would have been much easier to put in place a gradual system of emancipation in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, before the cotton gin made the institution wildly profitable and the South built its economy and society on it.

I hope you can comprehend the difference between recognizing that immediate full implementation of the principles of the Declaration is impractical and proclamation that those principles are obsolete and untrue. See the Cornerstone Speech and numerous other southern proclamations that the Founders had been mistaken. All men are NOT created equal. And to prove it we will spread slavery far and wide both in time and in space.

The root principle of the Declaration is that “all men are created equal.” By its very wording all the other principles grow out of this one. If you reject the foundation, as the CSA did, you are left with no solid base.

Either all men are equal or some are more equal than others. Once you start down the second road, on what basis do you draw the line on who is and is not equal?

In the words of a great man, some years before the War, “Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.”

Luckily the Know-Nothings never got control, and their spiritual brethren of the CSA were defeated.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

The root principle of the Declaration is that “all men are created equal.” By its very wording all the other principles grow out of this one. If you reject the foundation, as the CSA did, you are left with no solid base.

Yes, but we both know that the Founders were not talking about slaves. One can try to construe it that way, but it doesn't work. And what makes you think the CSA rejected this principle? Because they had slaves? All the colonies had slaves when the Declaration was passed, were they rejecting the principle? Sure, most recognized slavery as an evil, but so did most Southerners. Most Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation. For a long time the South had more abolition societies than the North. Many Southerners freed their slaves. Washington did. My great x5 grandpa did. Many others had no slaves at all, such as Generals Lee, A. P. Hill, J. Johnston, and J. E. B. Stuart. Do you think they were somehow fighting for slavery? Does that make logical sense to you?

Your attempt at trying to make the issue that 6% of the white population had slaves a reason why the South could not form a legitimate government is lame. Here is what Lincoln had to say about secession:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. "

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848 Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

[Sherman Logan]

More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. "

I don't think Lincoln intended to propose that a minority has no right to fight back against such a revolution.

Or do you propose that if liberals manage to cobble together a 51% vote to get rid of the Constitution, the rest of us have no right to resist them?

BTW, your 6% number is wildly inaccurate. That is the percent of the white population that held title to slaves. Of course, when a family owned slaves title was held by the head of the house, but we wouldn't say his wife and children were not also slaveowners.

Actual percentage of white families that owned slaves in 1860 in all slave states was 26%. The percentage ranged from 3% in DE to over 50% in SC.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

The first part of the quote was the important part, not the second part.

And lol at you trying to stretch the numbers. If having one person in a family own slaves makes everyone else like slaveowners, then when I was little living under my father's roof I was a house owner. I profitted from it for a short time in my life, so I must be just like an owner. Never mind that I didn't actually spend any money on it or that I didn't get to keep it when I got older, I owned the house too!

Also, don't forget about the free blacks who owned slaves too. :-)

[jmacusa]

The Declaration isn’t a binding legal document. It’s a statement of intent. The Constitution is a legal document, bud. And what is particularly you don’t like about this system? Barack Obama not withstanding.

[jmacusa]

No it isn’t a ‘’red herring ‘’ pal, trust me. Your entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

[central_va]

And what is particularly you don’t like about this system?

The "system" was supposed to be a weak Federal Govt and strong state governments. i.e. a republic. EVERYTHING IS BASS ACKWARD.

[jmacusa]

“Bass Ackward’’. Yeah, Irony isn’t lost on you. So then, In your mind secession is the answer, right? To what, is secession the answer to dude? Good luck with that. How big of a majority following do you have in the support of this ‘’secession movement’’? If the federal Government is too big and strong than maybe you should make your ‘’weak’’ state stronger. All politics is local bud, maybe you should start your secession movement closer to home. But this is a stupid conversation to have with a fool like you. You aren’t seceeding from anything. You’re going to sit on your ass in your parents basement fulminating at “Yankees’’ till the day you die.

[central_va]

How big of a majority following do you have in the support of this ‘’secession movement’’?

The guys on my side are named Washington, Jefferson, Henry and Mason. The guys on you side, Stalin, Mussolini, Caesar and Hitler.

[central_va]

But this is a stupid conversation to have with a fool like you. <

I, like many intelligent American students of history, understand the framework for the republic the founders gave us. Keep licking that Federal Boot boy one day maybe you to will get a clue; then you'll be a man. BTW this web site is named FREE REPUBLIC in case you forgot, not FREE FEDERAL DICTATORSHIP.

[jmacusa]

Um, actually dude,’’ MR History’’ guy, people like you have more in common with the names you listed last than the one’s listed previous.

[central_va]

Lets see, I want a weak centralized government, like our founders set up in 1787. Hmmm, which one of these guys, Hitler, Mussolini, Caesar or Stalin, EVER wanted that? Can you show me the historical reference to that?

[x]

Hmmm, which one of these guys, Hitler, Mussolini, Caesar or Stalin, EVER wanted that?

Well, they all were pretty soft on slavery. Or pretty harsh on slaves. Either way.

[central_va]

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."

             -- Pres. Jefferson Davis CSA

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

The Declaration isn’t a binding legal document.

Of course not. But the princiles in it are still as true today as they were then. The right for a people to break away and form a new government still exists just as much as the rights to life liberty and happiness. You don't dispute that, do you? ;-)

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Yes it was. People here gave you hard facts and since you couldn’t answer them well you just attacked them about donating to battlefield preservation (donating is a good thing to do, but it was not what we were talking about). Fail.

[rockrr]

One can judge a man by his words, but it is better to judge him by his actions. Foolish, venal, selfish men sought to tear our nation apart out of petty vindictiveness and wrought unprecedented misery upon it in the process. You would think that people would learn from history but apparently there are some so weak-minded that they can’t see past their ears.

The (not so) funny thing about the confeds is that they pissed & moaned about their pathetic lot in life - even though they dominated American politics for most of the nation’s preceding history - and then in a fit of pique cut~n~run only to devise a structural order virtually identical to that which they had run away from. Well, with one distinct difference - the memorializing of a permanent and perpetual institution of slavery.

And that so-called confederation? It was worse, more disorganized, more cruel, more “F’d” up than anything they had experienced to date. If the United States was so bad why did they create a cheap imitation?

And have you taken notice of the south in the last hundred years or so? So much for “getting back to the country” - they adopted everything that they eschewed (not that that is a bad thing!).

The fact is the south is infinitely better without the confederacy than it EVER would have been with. They are the envy of much of the country and I couldn’t be prouder. Dolts like cva are the exception, not the rule.

[jmacusa]

Facts? You call your bullsh!t argument facts? I can never understand what it is you’re going on about- the present state of affairs or 1861. Which is it?