Posted on 06/27/2004 12:37:31 PM PDT by VRWCer
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:16:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Debate what? You spend countless hours defending the indefensible. The Confederacy was about slavery. The South lost. Blacks are free. You can't own one. They can move where they want and marry who they want.
Debate? You just name call whenever anyone gets under your skin. Even in this short exchange it is all you have.
Great. I am glad you finally concede the point it was all about slavery.
"Free dixie" There you go.
All I want to see is a defensible argument based on your statements.
I don't doubt that there are some who have a racial agenda as far supporting the confederacy is concerned. However, after my own research and interaction with people, there are plenty of racists who support the American flag. I'm sure that you know the British outlawed slavery before the United States, and that alone doomed the slave trade to the US so the WBTS just hastened the inevitable.
I will submit to you that the only places where slavery disappeared were the nations dominated by western european christians. Hence, that's why you see slavery continued to this day in muslim run countries.
Me, whose ancestors hail from Missouri fire back at you with - then obviously you didn't mind Lawrence and Capt. William Clarke Quantrill's visit.
Me, whose ancestors hail from Ireland, fire back with these words from Samuel Adams " If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude rather than the animating contest of freedom, go in peace. we seek neither your arms nor your counsel. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
The statement, if you reread it, was about fanatical adherence to a position regardless of fact or reason. The analogy was apt. What it wasn't was a comparison of Islam and a failed rebellion.
Well said.
If you choose not to continue the debate, perhaps you will find better company with Jesse Jackson hunting down the Confederates at Wal-Mart.
What straw man? Or is this more of your "Oh yea, says you!"?
And over bi-state sales taxes.
In the words of James Madison (co-author of the Constitution)- "If South Carolina secedes it will be on the avowed grounds of her respect for the interposition of Virginia, and a reliance that Virginia is to make common cause with her throughout. In that event and a continuance of the tariff laws, the prospect before us would be a rupture of the Union, a Southern Confederacy, mutual emnity with the Northern, the most dreadful animosities and border wars springing from the case of slaves, rival alliances abroad, standing armies at home to be supported by internal taxes, and Federal Governments with the powers of a consolidating and Monarchical tendency than the greatest jealousy has charged on the system." - written to Andrew Stevenson on 10 Feb, 1833. How prophetic are his words!
And if you believe that Lincoln had all powers to prevent the Southern Secession then I offer this for your enlightenment about Constitutional Interpretation by that same co-author of the Constitution - " I,sir, have always conceived - I believe those who proposed the constitution concieved; it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers - but, a LIMITED government tied down to the specific powers, which define and explain the general terms." - James Madison's speech in Congress, 6 Feb. 1792
Lastly for you Yanks who believe that the Fed had unlimited power to do what it wished - " It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please; and then, that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress the power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumerations which limits and details them, or they convert the government from one limited as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a government without any limits at all." - James Madison, speech in Congress 6 Feb. 1792
Buy a book, read up on it, and eat your toast.
Given that this bizarre "rebuttal" is the sum total of your remarks, I can only assume that you are unable to answer the question to which you responded. I'm sure you can imagine my astonishment.
These "attacks on the flag" are hardly news. Over a hundred thousand Northerners spilled their blood on the battlefield to attack that symbol of ignorance and tyranny. Now that it has been relegated to a historical curio and a symbol of an ever-fading past, reminders of why the war was fought in the first place certainly aren't "new" or "re-writing".
You say it was all about slavery, if that were the case, then many Southerners would've never taken to the field. What did slavery concern the 90% of Southerners who didn't own 'em?
What did slavery concern the tens of thousands of Confederate conscripts? Very little, one can imagine. As they said at the time, "rich man's war, poor man's fight". At least the Union conscripts had the consolation of knowing that they hadn't started the war, but they also weren't claiming to be preserving the local aristocrats' sacred heritage.
And we can't forget the often-recited black Confederate volunteers. Given that the Southern state governments had made it illegal for slaves to learn to read, serious doubts emerge about these "volunteers'" mastery of the situation.
Lastly for you Yanks who believe that the Fed had unlimited power to do what it wished
Please state the number of a post in this thread where anybody has claimed that.
Try stopping some of them and asking how much they know about the Crittenden Amendment, the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or the Peninsular Campaign. Teenaged boys often have a remarkably hazy idea of what it is that they are claiming to be part of or supporting.
I give kids a lot more credit than most adults do. Sometimes they teach ME.
It has been stated before in other discussions about the same subject to the effect of "It didn't state that he (Lincoln) couldn't." To that end it lends to the perception that Yankees tended to view everything the government (and Lincoln) did as Constitutional. And it wasn't!
As to your other assertions, you don't know squat about what the CBF means, you only believe what you're told by the PC crowd. You make a good little PC puppet. You must be one of the "useful idiots" that Lenin referred to as useful in the attempt to undermine American society. Like I told you before, go back and study up on the Constitutional Debates.
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.