Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Which line was that?
Thanks for another great link! I had not read this before, had not thought about it before, but naturally, I agree with Lincoln.
Please understand, Lincoln is here talking about the technical definition of the word "state." And what he says about it is true:
"Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show.
"The express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive.
"Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?
"Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions."
Lincoln goes on to talk about the exception, Texas:
"What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"?
"Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. "
Anyway, I think Lincoln makes a fair point -- and a point that ANY President of the United States would be likely to support.
laughing AT you (and AT anybody that you can find anyplace, who is STUPID enough to believe you.).
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
123 days.
instead, just laugh AT & RIDICULE their STUPIDITY, dishonesty & empty-headedness, as i do.
free dixie,sw
why not take you FILTH/stupidity over to DAILY KOOKS, where BIGOTS, FOOLS & LOUD-mouths like you are loved??? (NOBODY will miss you here.)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Not as hard as I’m laughing at you, loon.
laughing AT you, LYING DUNCE.
free dixie,sw
I’d also offer a thousand bucks for a unicorn, knowing full well that the alleged seller wasn’t going to be able to produce a unicorn.
I'm telling you again, these numbers are totally 100% bogus. Unless you are going to claim "adjusted for inflation," or some such nonsense, they are not even in the right ball park. And they are not the right ratios either.
Now, I already gave you one link to check me out, here is another. And this link is totally sympathetic to the South -- it's making your case for you, but at least it uses real numbers.
What does it say?
Total percapita in 1860, of all the South ($103) compared to all the North ($141) -- the North is about 37% more.
But if you just look at the free white populations, the South is about 27% more. And, within those overall numbers are some wide variations:
So, just what was going on in the "West South Central" region that made them relatively so prosperous? I'm guessing large plantations, with hundreds or thousands of slaves managed by just a few free whites. Naturally, those whites had very substantial incomes.
No more than you big mouth...
face it, "bubba", you are a SICK JOKE to everyone here & a KNOWN LIAR, but nothing more than that.
fyi, claiming on this forum that you OFFERED TO BUY a book & that you simultaneously claim does NOT exist makes you look STUPID, as well as DISHONEST.
laughing AT you, as MOST FReepers do.
free dixie,sw
you BOTH are considered GARBAGE by most intelligent forum-members & laughed AT & RIDICULED "behind you back" = i RIDICULE you "to your face".
free dixie,sw
Good ol “Positively Pavlovian” Stand Watie. You never cease to amaze. How have you possibly managed to survive this long being as dull-witted as you are?
you really should APOLOGIZE to EVERYONE for your VULGAR/FILTHY language/posts, RESIGN from FR & go to one of the LEFTIST/BIGOT websites, where your 'talents' will be roundly applauded.
free dixie,sw
If there were such a Union, there wouldn't have been any need for the Articles of Confederation to form a Union from separate sovereignties. As the Continental Congress said in its letter to the states asking them to accept the proposal of Union in the Articles of Confederation [Link; my bold and underline below]:
Permit us, then, earnestly to recommend these Articles to the immediate and dispassionate attention of the legislatures of the respective states. Let them be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities; under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils, and all our strength, to maintain and defend our common liberties; ...
What, they weren't already united in a Union?
Lincoln goes on to talk about the exception, Texas:
Hmmm. The Union accepted the 1845 Texas Constitution, which said, "SEC. 1. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient."
I am also reminded that Massachusetts declared itself seceded if Texas was admitted to the Union, then 15 or 16 years later said no, no, Texas can't secede. From The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, Dec 2, 1860 (one of those interesting tidbits I found in the old newspapers):
The New York Express has the following:
The Republicans and others in the North who denounce Southern secession, forget that the records of the Massachusetts legislation have them in resolutions to the following effect:
"Resolved, That the annexation of Texas is, ipse facto, a dissolution of the Union."These resolutions, we are told, stand unrepealed. With the personal liberty bill, these resolutions embody nullification in a two-fold form. Supposing now that Massachusetts repeals her "out of the Union act," and with it her personal liberty bill, and thus restores herself to the Union under the constitution.
"Resolved, That Texas being annexed, Massachusetts is out of the Union"
For all these years, Massachusetts has been out of the Union. Maybe this means Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry can't vote in the Senate anymore.
I don't think I offered a thousand dollars. As I recall, I simply emailed the seller "Tara Bankhead" saying I was interested and asking to see the unicorn, er, book. Of course, if you can prove differently, have at it. Since I think that you're the one who posted the original Craigslist ad that you so proudly came on here pointing at, I assume that you have the original email exchange, too.
fyi, claiming on this forum that you OFFERED TO BUY a book & that you simultaneously claim does NOT exist makes you look STUPID, as well as DISHONEST.
Like I said, if someone offers to sell a unicorn and I say, "I'm interested, show me the unicorn," it doesn't mean I ever believed that they had a unicorn. It means I called their bluff and that the "seller" had to come up with some story about how the unicorn escaped, or about how a nice old man showed up who paid the entire student debt of "Tara Bankhead" in much the same way a nice old man showed up to pay YOUR entire student debt in return for an old car in another story you told here once.
face it, "bubba", you are a SICK JOKE to everyone here & a KNOWN LIAR, but nothing more than that.
Tell us the one about the El Paso Thanksgiving again. What year was that in?
FWIW, Jefferson Davis also jailed those who disagreed with or criticized him. The book to read is Mark Neely's Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism.
The Lousiana Native Guards weren't really treated by the Confederate government as part of the army. They were never formally mustered into service. They were sent into the French Quarter at the last moment, though, as White Confederate troops withdrew to the north. Afterwards, the Native Guards did become part of the US Colored Troops, fighting for freedom and the union.
Really, leaving slavery out of the story of secession is like leaving Communism out of the Russian Revolution. It was around then, and a big part of the picture, though it may hurt some people to admit the importance of the defence of slavery to the secessionist leadership.
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.