| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
I'm so sorry, you poor thing. Go ask your grandfather if guns pointed east can ever be pointed west. He may open your eyes.
Slavery began to be defended as a positive good instead of an evil that eventually would be eliminated.
The South started defending it as part of her culture.
Most Southerners were not fighting for slavery but to defend their states.
It is definitely an interesting subject..
It would seem so, we are still fighting about it!
If you would like to read some good books on the subject freep mail either Capitan_Refugio or Non-Sequitur, they can give a good list of books to read.
Lincoln's plan was to limit it and stop its growth.
This is something that the South would not accept.
Lincoln wanted to return to the original intent of the Founding Fathers to put slavery on the path of extinction.
The South believed if slavery did not grow, their way of life would die along with it.
Slavery was the issue that led to the Civil War.
You are absolutely right. But the South didn't revolt. Revolt is what we hear sometimes on this board, people want to take over the government and change it to their liking. That is not what the CSA had in mind. They wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union and, at the time, it seemed reasonable. For even Lincoln himself had delivered a speech in 1848 that declared that the people could throw off the shackles of government and reinstitute a more proper one. What is wrong with that? OH BOY is NS going to make up all sorts of law and such. But if he were really a conservative who belonged on this board he wouldn't be arguing. Fact is, a day may come when the US gov becomes so oppressive that there are those who may rise up. They would be wrong. Those who would vote to secede would be the peaceful ones. Am I not hearing a lot of talk about that right now? Aren't we hearing the blue staters advocating it? Well let's put ourselves back in 1861. If the mood of this country can be so outraged as to call for secession after one peaceful presidential election in 2004, how is it that Non-Sequiter and his ilk are so sure of themselves about what happened a hundred and 45 years ago? Could it be self infatuation?
Did they riot so they could own slaves?
They rioted because they did not want to be drafted.
They had no love for the black man who they saw as competition in the labor market.
First, they were built pointing outward, which shows they were for the state, not to control the state.
Second, it was the South which pointed guns at it first.
Third, it was a Federal installation, not a State one and thus, the State had no right to it.
The Americans did not attempt to take over the British government, yet it was a revolt since they threw off the British representives and formed a new gov't without the Brits.
The South were in revolt, taking over federal property, firing on the US flag, and forming its own gov't without the other states.
Yes, and Lincoln said that was the right of revolution the ultimate appeal to natural law.
The same natural law that the South had rejected when they accepted the theory of John Calhoun.
Calhoun did not believe in individual rights but that rights were found in the states (hence 'states rights')
What is wrong with that? OH BOY is NS going to make up all sorts of law and such. But if he were really a conservative who belonged on this board he wouldn't be arguing.
Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that revolution is the last thing that should be done and that only after all else fails.
The South had other options sincethey were still represented in the Congress.
Fact is, a day may come when the US gov becomes so oppressive that there are those who may rise up. They would be wrong. Those who would vote to secede would be the peaceful ones. Am I not hearing a lot of talk about that right now? Aren't we hearing the blue staters advocating it? Well let's put ourselves back in 1861. If the mood of this country can be so outraged as to call for secession after one peaceful presidential election in 2004, how is it that Non-Sequiter and his ilk are so sure of themselves about what happened a hundred and 45 years ago? Could it be self infatuation?
If a 'blue state'attempted to secede it would not be secession but an act of revolution which would have to put down.
We can be sure of what happened 145 years ago because we have the history of it.
We can read the debates that argued over this issue over decades.
The conservative view is the one held by the Founding Fathers, that revolution is only legimate when the alternative is tyranny.
Lincoln pledged to the South that he would defend the Constitution which included their rights as well as those of the North's.
If you prefer.
Congressional Globe (Thirty-Seventh Congress, Third Session), 9 December 1862, pages 50-51.
Addressing the Congress regarding the proposal to admit the new "State" of West Virginia to the Union, Thaddeus Stevens stated:
Mr. STEVENS. ... I do not desire to be understood as being deluded by the idea that we are admitting this State in pursuance of any provisions of the Constitution. I find no such provision that justifies it, and the argument in favor of the constitutionality of it is one got up by those who either honestly entertain, I think, an erroneous opinion, or who desire to justify, by a forced construction, an act which they have predetermined to do. By the Constitution, a State may be divided by the consent of the Legislature thereof, and by the consent of Congress admitting the new State into the Union.Now, sir, it is but mockery, in my judgment, to tell me that the Legislature of Virginia has ever consented to this division. There are two hundred thousand, out of a million and a quarter of people, who have participated in this proceeding. They have held a convention, and they have elected a Legislature in pursuance of a decree of that convention. Before all this was done the State had a regular organization, a constitution under which that corporation acted. By a convention of a large majority of tho people of that State, they changed their constitution and changed their relations to the Federal Government from that of one of its members to thatof secession from it. Now, I need, not be told that that is treason. I know it. And it is treason in all the individuals who participated in it. But so far as the State municipality or corporation was concerned, it was a valid act, and governed the State. Our Government does not act upon the State. The State, as a separate and distinct body, -- was the State of a majority of the people of Virginia, whether rebel or loyal, whether convicts or freemen. The majority of the people of Virginia was the State of Virginia, although individuals had committed treason.
Now, to say that the Legislature which called this seceding convention was not the Legislature of Virginia, is asserting that the Legislature chosen by a vast majority of the people of a State is not the Legislature of that State. That is a doctrine which I can never assent to. I admit that the Legislature were disloyal, but they were still the disloyal and traitorous Legislature of the State of Virginia; and the State, as a mere State, was bound by their acts. Not so individuals. They are responsible to the General Government, and are responsible whether the State decrees treason or not. That being the Legislature of Virginia, Governor Letcher, elected by a majority of votes of the people, is the Governor of. Virginia -- a traitor in rebellion, but a traitorous Governor of a traitorous State. Now, then, how has that State ever given its consent to this division? A highly respectable but very small number of the citizens of Virginia -- the people of West Virginia -- assembled together, disapproved of the acts of the State of Virginia, and with the utmost self-complacency called themselves Virginia. Now, is that not ridiculous? Is not the very statement of the facts a ludicrous thing to look upon -- although a very respectable gentleman, Governor Pierpont, was elected by them Governor of Virginia? He is a most excellent man, and I wish he were the governor elected by the whole people of Virginia.
The State of Virginia, therefore, has never given its consent to this separation of the State. I desire to see it, and according to my principles operating at the present time, I can vote for its admission without any compunctions of conscience, but with some doubt about the policy of it. My principles are these: we know the fact that this and other States have declared that they are no longer members of this Union, and have made, not a mere insurrection, but have raised and organized an army and a power, which the Governments of Europe have recognized as a belligerent Power. We ourselves, by what I consider a most unforfornate act, not well considered -- declaring a blockade of their ports -- have acknowledged them as a Power. We cannot blockade our own ports. It is an absurdity. We blockade an enemy's ports. The very fact of declaring this blockade recognized them as a belligerent Power, entitled to all the privileges and subject to all the rules of war, according to the law of nations.
* * *
But, sir, I understand that these proceedings all take place, not under any pretense of legal or constitutional right, but in virtue of the laws of war; and by the laws of nations these laws are just what we choose to make them, so that they are not inconsistent with humanity. I say, then, that we may admit West Virginia as a new State, not by virtue of any provision of the Constitution, but under our absolute power which the laws of war give us in the circumstances in which we are placed. I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, and upon that alone; for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the constitution for this proceeding.
Oh, come on in, groanup. Say anything you please. This isn't Non-Sequitur Land, where you have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell you whether it's okay to speak up. This is Free Republic.
Still looking for some kind of entering-wedge argument to give you an excuse to put your boot down someone else's throat, I see. Mafia logic -- "this is my neighborhood, you just live here", that kind of thing.
Well, historically you are on firm ground. That's precisely what Lincoln did. Beat up on someone for violating his invented rules -- which he invented as an excuse to beat them up for something else, which was really an excuse to beat them up over money.
Like Cee asked Carmine in A Bronx Tale -- "was it really over a parking space?" (Carmine's answer: smile and shake head. "No".)
You're a true American -- Yankee division.
Both W.Virgina and the blockade were Constitutionally problematic, to say the least.
They had the same title everybody else did -- and they didn't steal anything. Unless you deem eminent domain and tax collection to be "stealing".
[You, quoting me] As for access to the sea, the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal certainly provided that -- the latter paid for by everyone.
Which did the people in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys no good. Or can't you read a map?
I'm probably better at it than you are, pal. And if you look closely, you'll notice a blue line on the map, denoting the canal that connects the Chicago River to a tributary of the Mississippi River system: the Des Plaines River rises near the small town of Bristol, Wisconsin and falls into the Illinois River at Joliet; the Illinois in turn falls into the Mississippi a few miles upriver of St. Louis. The Chicago River used to be the outfall of Lake Michigan, before isostatic rebound began rearranging some of the northern rivers. Even before the canal was dug, the overland portage from the Chicago to the Des Plaines amounted to all of about six miles along Cermak Road through Cicero and Berwyn.
That's assuming that nobody could hack the 20-mile portage from the upper Allegheny River and the French River to the town of Erie, on the lake.
Really? Explain why. Step right up.
No, they invaded because Abraham Lincoln ordered them to.
The Consititution states that no state has a right to form a confederation with another state or states.
That's correct, as far as it goes. Of course, the States so bound have to be in the Union.
Some of them weren't.
A legend in your own mind, I see.
I say, then, that we may admit West Virginia as a new State, not by virtue of any provision of the Constitution, but under our absolute power which the laws of war give us in the circumstances in which we are placed.
Notice the disingenuous "in the circumstances in which we are placed". This from the senator whose State had trained, fully-equipped troops in the field less than 24 hours after Lincoln's call.
Wonder how many of the Sixth Mass's roll were recently-enlisted Wide Awakes? Interesting speculation.
Notice, too, that Stevie's use of the idea that "war lets you do anything" begins to point a long, bony New England finger at Abe Lincoln. Makes you wonder if some of these New Englanders hadn't been telling Honest Abe the Railsplitter that all he needed was a war, and then he could do whatever he wanted.
Does that mean we can't kick the U.N. out of their comfy digs on the East River if they hack us off?
Nor is this Lentulusgracchus Land, where something is wrong or right simply because he says it is. But by all means, if you have something worthwhile to contribute then jump right in.
Constitutionally I'm on firm ground, too.
Like Cee asked Carmine in "A Bronx Tale"
Can the quotes from "Gods and Generals" or "Gone With The Wind" be far behind?
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.
