Posted on 04/14/2005 6:40:53 PM PDT by kellynla
But a 'rebellion' is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. By that definition then "War of Southern Rebellion" is the most accurate term.
The Southern States exercised their lawful and reserved Powers to withdraw from the Union. Once they passed their secession acts in convention assembled, or once their peoples ratified the acts by plebiscite, those States were no longer party to the Union and their People were no longer responsible to the Peoples of the other States in the Union; and individually, they were no longer citizens of the United States of America.
There was no rebellion. Italy doesn't rebel against France by telling France to stick it. The Southern States were free to withdraw without asking anyone's opinion, just as the original 13 States ratified the Constitution and joined the Union by individual sovereign acts unreviewable by anyone not named Y_H_W_H.
Hope that clears up your picture for you.
But then, you need it dark and muddy, if you're going to rob and rape someone in an alley, right?
Thank you for making my point. New Orleans is French cuisine. I know how much you people love the French, heh?
Well, the Louisiana people I grew up with were mostly French, that's right -- there were Theriots and Thibodeaux's and Fontenots; there were LeJeunes and LeBlancs and even the odd Cazayoux and Hollier, and several Dufrenes and Daigles. I dated a girl named Daigrepont from suburban New Orleans when I was in college.
So what's your point?
Oh, and you've never heard of General Beauregard's Louisiana Tigers? They were very Southern, and very French, and very Confederate.
Yes, my mother was English. I really liked her roast beef with Yorkshire pudding and roast baby potatoes.
Anything else you'd like to try?
Everywhere the Union Army marched, slaves were set free.
Everywhere the Confederate Army marched, ....
Go ahead, finish the sentence.
Go ahead, finish the sentence.
Everywhere the Confederate Army marched, they were free.
Notwithstanding that your first sentence is incorrect.
Such a "power" never existed.
By ratifying the Constitution [of 1787], the states agreed that they would no longer be separate as they had been with respect to the laws of their common government. Yet the government would still not have jurisdiction over what from the beginning had been regarded as "internal police." The states would remain separate in all those matters with respect to which the Constitution did not delegate powers to the United States nor deny powers to them. Thus was created a system of government that has come to be called "dual federalism," but which might as well be called "dual sovereignty" - a system with no precedent in human history, but one that was essential to the empire of freedom the United States was destined to become ....[T]he Constitution of 1787 became the government of the United States in virtue of the right of revolution proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. It is impossible to understand the quarrel over the right of secession that Lincoln addresses on July 4, 1861 - as it is impossible to understand either the American Revolution or the Civil War - without understanding the divergent interpretations of this doctrine of the Declaration as applied to the transformation of the Union from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution....
Fully aware of this, the [Philadelphia] convention deliberately set in motion a ratification process that would ground the constitution on a more authoritative source than that of the government it intended to replace. In providing for a "more perfect Union," it transformed the Union itself. When a state ratified the Constitution of 1787, its people consented thereby to become, for certain specified purposes, fellow citizens subject to a common government,... these citizens now formed a single political community, acting and being acted upon without the intervention of state government authority." Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom
Once the people of the states had formed a "single political community," to break that bond they had but two alternatives: the natural right of revolution, or the consent of the other states which were party to the agreement. That is what the Calhounian apostasy denied. They argued they had novel "legal" rights, where none existed.
If your southern "revolution" of 1860-61 was based on natural law, and that they sought to protect themselves from tyranny and oppression, then it could be similarly argued that millions of African slaves had the equal right to overthrow their oppressors.
Otherwise, the southern position is philosophically and politically untenable, and the northern response to the rebellion was both proper and just.
Thanks for the laugh.
Oh yea...and I think you're a freak, but now that we know what we think of each other, yes, I had kin than died in that war.
Any time, laughing boy.
"Oh yea...and I think you're a freak, but now that we know what we think of each other, yes, I had kin than died in that war."
Well, join the club. Most everyone did. But somehow I manage to get to sleep at night without mourning the loss of my great-great-great whatever.
The running joke is your unsupported theory that it was allowed.
Yeah, but Lee got better terms from Grant.
Yes it is. The power to approve changes to the status of states is a power delegated to the United States, and the power to act unilaterally where the interests of other states are concerned are powers denied to the states.
You've been hanging around with stand watie too long.
The Southern States exercised their lawful and reserved Powers to withdraw from the Union.
They had no such unilateral powers.
There was no rebellion. Italy doesn't rebel against France by telling France to stick it.
France and Italy are both sovereign nations. The confederacy was not.
Other than the original 13, states did not join anything. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the other states.
Hope that clears up your picture for you.
Nope, the picture remains as fuzzy as it always has been.
Texas v White was issued several years after the rebellion was over.
Answer: he didn't have any -- he just delivered the goods in a blatantly political decision that needs to be revisited and overturned.
Your opinion. But until the decision is overturned or modified, or until the Constitution is amended, unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is not Constitutional and never has been.
Emeril Lagasse was born in Fall River, MA. Even your heroes are yankees. Jeez.
I guess that explains the crabs.
Crabs, clams, oysters, lobster, we use a lot of shellfish.
Well, good for you, but what you & so many people don't seem to understand is that 140 years in the scheme of things is not very long at all. My Great-Grandmother who died in 1985 and I were close. She told me stories of HER Grandfather who was a Confederate Soldier, who spent 2 years in Rock Island, Ill. in a Yankee Prison Camp. She told me stories of his brother, who died at Chancellorsville. I honor their memory, but more importantly, I mourn the loss of States-Rights, which directly affects events today. EXAMPLE: In Texas, if we had not raised our drinking age to 21 years, the Federal Government cuts off our highway funds. May not sound like much, but it is an example of how the states have lost their power since that war. And that is a SMALL example.
The problem with Southern cuisine isn't that its no good, but that its too good!
From Charleston Perlau to Frogmore Stew, with all the butterbeans, crab cakes, jumbo, fried chicken, and BBQ in between, the South knows how to cook. If you haven't sampled good down dome cuisine then you just don't know what you're missing.
I don't know where you're from but Georgia Brown's in Washington DC would be an excellent place for you to expand your epicurean experience.
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.