Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.
But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...
“The Supreme Court ruled on that”
So you agree with queer “marriage”?
Feel free to post your “documentation”. All I’ve ever seen so far is 3rd hand anecdotes.
Do you agree with Heller v. D.C.?
No, I think it's an abomination, but it's also the law of the land. I think it rates right up there with Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade in terms of offense, but they're the law of the land as well.
If we go picking and choosing which parts of the agreement we're going to abide by and which ones we're not then we are no better than the left. If you don't like the law then change it.
s. We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South; and to hold, in consequence, that the former, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the latter; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral. To this error, his proposition to exclude slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio may be traced, and to that the ordinance of ’87, and through it the deep and dangerous agitation which now threatens to ingulf, and will certainly ingulf, if not speedily settled, our political institutions, and involve the country in countless woes.. John C Calhoun Speech on the Oregon Bill.
Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”. Alexander Stevens cornerstone Speech.
1775 rebels fire on government troops
1861 rebels fire on government troops
1776 rebels declare independence
1861 rebels declare independence
1775 government wages war to crush the rebellion and to force the rebels back into union
1861 government wages war to crush the rebellion and to force the rebels back into union
1775 & 1779 emancipation proclamations
1863 emancipation proclamation
FRiend PeaRidge wishes us to forget about those four official "Reasons for Secession" -- move along, nothing to see here.
He wants us instead to focus our attention on those 11 ordinances of secession, because in them, words like "slavery", "domestic institution" and "property" appear only rarely.
Therefore, PeaRidge wishes us to understand, slavery was not really the problem for those Deep South Fire Eaters.
But as in everything else, PeaRidge is here just taking a blind eye to the historical evidence.
Of the seven original Deep South seceding states,
But PeaRidge wishes us to ignore those, and focus instead on states which produced no Reasons documents, or listed no reasons in their secession ordnances, and so we should understand that particular absence of evidence is evidence of absence of slavery as important to them.
Won't wash.
Your sarcasm is habitual.
Try to imagine a building without a foundation. Upon what would it stand?
The Declaration of Independence is the foundation upon which the United States of America was built. Without the Declaration, we would not exist!
But usually justified.
The Declaration of Independence is the foundation upon which the United States of America was built.
But it is not law.
Your “density” is also habitual. What a pain it must be to be as blind as you appear to be. Comprehension is not your long suit.
And if ignorance truly is bliss then how happy you must be.
1775 Virtuous independence
1861 evil domination
Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)
You keep saying it is unwritten, and I keep telling you that it is written in the Declaration of Independence. I think you know this, you just don't want to accept the fact that you are wrong.
How can you beat that?
I would think that you can't, but apparently you are trying to beat it by pretending it doesn't exist.
Well it is my opinion that it does not have to meet with their approval in order to remain valid.
Yes, if nothing else you are repetative.
As for homosexual “rights”, one would have to have been blind and foolish not to expect that development.
Some children are not smart enough to get it the first few times you show it to them.
No, it is higher than mere "law." It is the thing which gives "law" the authority which it posses.
Thanks.
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.