Posted on 05/09/2006 8:33:28 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
WASHINGTON -- Back in the 2004 presidential primaries, when Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, suggested that Democrats should be competing for the votes of young men with Confederate flags on their pickups, politicians from both parties rushed to accuse him of repeating a vile Southern stereotype: the redneck with antiquated views on race. < SNIP >
''Howard Dean knows about as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday," quipped Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat who supported President Bush. ''Sure, we drive pickups, but on the back of those pickups, you see a lot of American flags. It's the most patriotic region in the country. And you see hard-working individuals that want to instill values in their children, and you see a very, very strong work ethic in the South. He doesn't understand the South." < SNIP >
Many Southerners express outrage at Northern depictions of Confederate-loving Southerners, even as they accede to the idea that the flag has a place in their regional heritage. Only those inside the Southern family circle can truly understand the region's complicated relationship with its own history.< SNIP >
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It doesn't take a legal scholar to figure that almost everything that The Constitution says the states are prohibited from doing those states that seceded from the United States during the Civil war did even though in joining the United States they gave up their sovereign right to do so. That's where the state rights argument really falls apart, states are not mini nations, they give up all sovereign rights as a nation to be part of a greater nation.
Which is something all the little confeder-buddies just don't understand or comprehend.
That's the lovely thing about the truth....it always manages to defend itself.
http://www.usconstitution.com/lincoln-douglasdebates7.htm
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1858
Seventh Joint Debate
Alton, October 15, 1858
Mr. Lincolns Reply
Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is said: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
(snip)
I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions.
(snip)
I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a "barren right" which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guarantied. And as the right is Constitutional I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it and that not that we like the institution of slavery.
(snip)
I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a Constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that Constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the Constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the Constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct.
------------
And of course nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one man is allowed to own another man as property.
Yes it does. The right to have slaves returned implies the right to own them in the first place, just as Mr. Lincoln stated in the above debates.
------------
A person held to service or labor is not a slave
Lincoln said it was
---------
So why didn't the founding father abolish slavery in the beginning of this country when they clearly wanted to
Because they were creating a centralized government with authority over the states ONLY within strictly enumerated areas, not a dictatorship.
---------
but can you prove it was ever enacted as law and signed by the president or that it was ever considered by the Senate?
ROFLMAO!
Good grief. I guess denial ISN'T just a river in Egypt.
---------
I think that should be clear enough for you, but since we at it and I have supplied you with the location of where the president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I didn't ask who was in command, I asked where his authority was to exercise that power over the states.
---------
Do you need a link to the US Constitution or can you find it by yourself?
Ah yes... the classic condescending parting remark.
The sign of a narrow, closed mind exposed to a fact it just can't accept.
The 'representatives' of which you speak were from the States, so how could the states NOT have created the US?
The People 'ordained and established' the Constitution, which means it had their approval......they didn't directly create it.
-------
Washington was the 17th President. As he took his oath, the 16th stood next to him, though the 16th president has been elected by the terms of the Confederation.
Congress before the Constitution
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented, and in which each state had a veto over most action. States could, and did, ignore what did pass. The ineffectiveness of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon the Convention of 1787. Originally intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, it ended up writing a completely new constitution.
The above reason was why Washington was considered the first President. While a good part of the Articles of Confederation was used, it was still changed enough to be considered an entirely new Constitution.
When people talk about how vindictive or punishing Reconstruction was, they're talking about two things. The first is that those who'd been in the Confederate government or forces were for a time excluded from holding office or voting. That seems to have been a temporary measure. Pardons were available to those who asked for them.
There are two considerations here. The first is that soft, easy Reconstruction plans simply allowed the same people who'd governed before the war to take power afterwards -- the same people who pushed the region into secession and war. You wouldn't have gotten any real reforms if those plans had been implemented. The second factor is that passions were roused by four years of Civil War. Those who'd lost an arm or a leg, a son or a father wouldn't stand for simply putting the same people back into power. Southerners who put their own passions first in political discussions don't always recognize that other people have similar emotional reactions that influence their political thinking.
The other thing people objected to in Reconstruction was the degree of equality granted to African-Americans. During those years when Southerners and other Americans deplored the harshness of Reconstruction many of them objected to votes for Blacks, to Blacks in the legislature and to Blacks not showing deference and "proper respect" for Whites. Today, the attacks on Reconstruction live on but we forget the mentality of many of those who were critical. A lot of the "harshness" and "vindictiveness" of Reconstruction did involve extending citizenship, voting rights, and eligibility for higher office to Black men.
Corruption was also a factor in the distaste for Reconstruction. It was a real problem, but I don't think one can argue that it was intended by the Republicans to punish the South.
It may be that Lincoln's more moderate plan would have worked, but it's far from certain. The idea that later Southern policies were a reaction against the excesses of the Radical Republicans may have some substance as well, but after four years of war and Sherman's March resentments did exist and were going to be acted on in any case. After all that had happened whatever Washington did would seem excessive or punitive to some Southerners.
In retrospect the Reconstruction of 1865 to 1877 does look flawed, awkward, and wrong-headed from today's point of view. But that's because we've learned and experienced so much since then. We know now how important economics and actual, physical rebuilding are, and how necessary it is to avoid ill-feeling. That's because we saw how Reconstruction and the Versailles Treaty ending the First World War failed, and how successful the Marshall Plan was after the Second World War was. So in the Middle East today we won't make the same mistakes that Congress made then.
I don't buy the argument that the Republicans were the liberals of the 1860s and the Democrats the conservatives, so the Democrats were automatically right. Washington and Jefferson were the radicals of the 1770s and the Tories were the conservatives, but that didn't make the Tories automatically right either. The issues were different then than they are now and so was the attitude one would take towards them.
Also, it's not clear how liberal Lincoln was by today's standards. In some ways he was liberal for his time. In other ways, he was a conservative leader confronting a species of radicalism that hasn't survived to our day, but that could have done the country much harm if it had won out. In other words, there was a radicalism in pro-slavery, secessionist, and state's rights thinking that shouldn't be overlooked.
Finally, the Democrats were becoming a factor in national politics again in the 1870s. They went from 30% of seats in the House in 1872 to 62% in 1874, largely because of the Grant administration's scandals. The handwriting was on the wall: the Republicans wouldn't be the majority party forever. In 1876, the GOP regained some seats, but the Dems still had a majority in the House (53%), and by many accounts, actually won the popular and even the electoral vote in the Presidential elections of that year.
Notice what I said, squattie:
Most Northerners were also opposed to racial equality, but it's wrong and a cop-out to assume that the problems with Reconstruction were all the fault of the Republicans.
People in those days certainly did have different views than they do now. It's only natural that they're plans, intentions, and reactions would differ from ours.
But if you wanted to get rid of slavery or segregation, you had to start somewhere. The abolition of slavery started in the North and could well have been taken up by the South. Attempts at racial equality may have started in the Reconstruction South, but they had to start somewhere, and where most African-Americans lived was as good a place as any.
But you distort history. In the postbellum years when Reconstruction was implemented some Northern states did away with earlier racial restrictions and did allow Blacks more rights. It wasn't all the way across the board, but it was significant.
There was backsliding later, as part of the general reaction to Reconstruction's problems and "failures," but it was a start that could have been conserved and taken further. I don't think one can make a case that the North -- or the South -- was all of one mind all throughout history.
I bothered to respond just in case somebody out there doesn't realize that you're actually a Bay area troupe of college-age radical performance artistes, and takes your rantings seriously.
It's a true honor and I pray I get back to my Southern roots before California goes completely to the devil. Our State Senate just passed SB 2437 (Requires the addition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history to Ca textbooks) and so far I haven't found a politically savy person who even knows this took place last week. I'm working on a notice to call Arnold's office and OPPOSE this horrible bill. It's still shocking no matter what you say. Leave the kids out of it...PLEASE! Sorry, as a Southerner in shock again, couldn't help myself.
Sorry...TYPO it's SB 1437...
I don't think anyone would have put the same pre-war folks back in power, but neither could they expect to purge everyone who touched the Confederacy. Just as Germany couldn't be run without former Nazi Party members after the war, Eastern Europe can't be run without former Communists, and Iraq can't be run without former members of the Ba'ath Party.
Corruption was also a factor in the distaste for Reconstruction. It was a real problem, but I don't think one can argue that it was intended by the Republicans to punish the South.
I think there's a credible argument that the Radical Republicans turned a blind eye to the corruption in the occupation, based on their belief that the people being screwed had it coming.
When I talk about the vindictiveness of Reconstruction, I'm not talking about loyalty oaths or civil rights for blacks. Those were bitter pills for Southerners to swallow, but could have been managed had the occupiers not been so thoroughly corrupt. And it would not have been so corrupt had the U.S. government insisted on "malice toward none, charity for all" as Lincoln called for.
Southerners could not expect the protection of the Union army, could not expect fair treatment in Reconstruction courts, and could expect broad latitude given to Union officers in charge, who would do things like raise property taxes in order to seize property which they could then sell to carpetbaggers at a profit.
And rather than address those grievances -- rather than make any serious effort at reconstructing -- the occupiers just tried to put out fires and then left abruptly without having addressed the serious issues in the region. What happened when Reconstruction ended in 1877 is analogous to what would happen if we cut and run from Iraq today -- the old bad guys, because they're better organized than the fractious opposition would slither back into power.
In retrospect the Reconstruction of 1865 to 1877 does look flawed, awkward, and wrong-headed from today's point of view. But that's because we've learned and experienced so much since then. We know now how important economics and actual, physical rebuilding are, and how necessary it is to avoid ill-feeling. That's because we saw how Reconstruction and the Versailles Treaty ending the First World War failed, and how successful the Marshall Plan was after the Second World War was. So in the Middle East today we won't make the same mistakes that Congress made then.
Several valid points there. Gen. Lucius Clay, the commander of the American-occupied zone in Germany, was a native of Marietta, Georgia; he had grown up hearing tales of Reconstruction from his grandparents. Some historians believe that is why the reconstruction of Germany was such a screaming success; Clay knew from childhood anecdote how not to run an occupation.
Of course, it also helped that the Soviets pulled the boneheaded moves of blockading West Berlin, which led to the airlift, and of building the wall. It only took a few years for Germans to stop seeing Americans (and, of course, Brits, and maybe even the French) as their conquerors and start seeing them as their protectors.
I certainly wouldn't judge, in a moral sense, 19th century politicians for failing to heed the lessons of 20th century history. In fact, I think that European arrogance kept them from learning by America's example, and that's why World War I was as terrible as it was; the Civil War was a beta test for trench warfare, and if the Europeans had glanced across the pond, they might have known better what to expect from modern combat.
Reconstruction and Versailles failed for the same reasons. They attempted to punish recent enemies, to force them to submit, and folks don't like that. If you beat someone in a fist fight, you don't keep kicking him when he's down. You offer him a hand up and buy him a beer. That way, instead of having a bitter enemy who'll sucker-punch you the minute you turn your back, you have someone who, with time and care, you might actually trust to cover your back.
I wouldn't call Reconstruction-era Yankees wrong or stupid for not knowing what we know now. I will judge their efforts a failure, which is pretty much empirical fact. I'm much more interested in learning the lessons than in calling out people who are long dead and few of whom are remembered at all.
I don't buy the argument that the Republicans were the liberals of the 1860s and the Democrats the conservatives, so the Democrats were automatically right.
I'm with you on this. On the opposite side of the coin are the folks who try to blame the Democrats for all the ills of the Civil War and Reconstruction, because they're so wedded to the "go, team!" approach to politics that they can't let it go.
In multi-parti democracies, governments are formed by coalitions of parties. In a two-party democracy like ours, each party *is* a coalition. If you define "liberal" as "favoring change" and "conservative" as "favoring the status quo or a return to tradition," the parties have switched sides several times over the years.
In the 1860s, the Republicans were the liberal party on the question of slavery. In the 1890s and early 1900s, the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans were the liberal party. both in terms of internal government power (the National Park Service) and projection of force abroad (the "Great White Fleet").
By the time Woodrow Wilson came to office, the Democrats had co-opted much of the Progressive Party's agenda, and had become the party of the center-left. By the time Franklin Roosevelt came to office, the left-right lines were drawn essentially as we still know them today, with exceptions as new issues arise.
In 1876, the GOP regained some seats, but the Dems still had a majority in the House (53%), and by many accounts, actually won the popular and even the electoral vote in the Presidential elections of that year.
I don't think there's much controversy that Tilden actually won that election. The deal struck in the smoke-filled back room was that the Democrats would endorse Hayes in exchange for an abrupt end to Reconstruction. When Hayes took office, that's exactly what happened, and Southern whites had to find slightly more subtle means to keep Southern blacks servile.
Once again, the lesson as projected into our own time is clear: if you pull out troops because of a political deal rather than based on the achievement of clear goals, clearly stated, bad things happen.
One theory of the failure of Reconstruction is that working-class whites and blacks got along reasonably well during the Reconstruction years; but once the Union troops were withdrawn, the monied classes were able to drive a wedge between them and win the votes of whites to regain their power base.
I don't buy into that entirely -- it smacks of a Marxist class-based interpretation of history -- but it was a factor. White sharecroppers and black sharecroppers, despite having everything but skin color in common, were in opposition to each other in the Jim Crow South, with the whites voting for the folks who exploited them.
I count John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress in 1776 as first president. When do you think the country became independent?
The South didn't fund the government. Tariffs did, and those tariffs were mostly collected by goods coming to the northern states.
I don't see how you think the North paid lower prices for cotton than the rest of the world, except for the lower cost of transport. Cotton was untaxed, like all exports.
Imports were taxed via the tariff.
Well, the addition of appreciation for homosexuals means that Baron von Steuben will finally get his due. He was, tis rumored, a dashing gay blade, who was run out of Germany based on his base affections for one of the King's male sweethearts.
All of the "union" states that had regions with slavery were the SAME places that were sympathetic to the "confederate cause" during the civil war...especially Maryland as you pointed out.
Even the "yankee" areas that did NOT have slavery and were pro-confederate had very pro-slavery feelings...for instance the "Little Egypt" region of southern Illinois. That was a bastion of former slave owners who serious mulled over seceding from the rest of Illinois during the civil war. They would have still had slavery if Illinois hadn't outlawed it in 1828.
Funny how that works, eh? All those "northerner" areas supported the confederacy also though slavery was a great system. Must be a coincidence, eh? I'm sure the fact they were pro-slavery and pro-confederate was completely unrelated and just mentioned by evil yankees to make "the south" look bad. Riiiiiiiiight.
All of the "union" states that had regions with slavery were the SAME places that were sympathetic to the "confederate cause" during the civil war...especially Maryland as you pointed out.
Even the "yankee" areas that did NOT have slavery and were pro-confederate had very pro-slavery feelings...for instance the "Little Egypt" region of southern Illinois. That was a bastion of former slave owners who serious mulled over seceding from the rest of Illinois during the civil war. They would have still had slavery if Illinois hadn't outlawed it in 1828.
Funny how that works, eh? All those "northerner" areas supported the confederacy also though slavery was a great system. Must be a coincidence, eh? I'm sure the fact they were pro-slavery and pro-confederate was completely unrelated and just mentioned by evil yankees to make "the south" look bad. Riiiiiiiiight.
Hillary? No way. For one thing, she's not a Southerner.
Jeb? Come to think of it; he's not a real southerner either.
You know, the great irony here is the confederate "leaders" you worship and believe walk on water disagree you with. Davis, along with Robert E. Lee, though Lincoln and Grant were good, honorable men and very effective leaders. Jefferson Davis said the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was second "darkest day the south has ever known" (the first being the end of the confederacy), because he knew Lincoln had planned a conciliatory reconstruction policy to embrace the south as fellow Americans.
I suppose the difference between confederates and neo-confederates is the original "confederates" didn't have 1/10th the amount of vitrol and hated as you guys.
StandWaite's main "rebuttal" to facts and logic is accuse everyone of being a liberal, then type the words "DAMNyankees", "SCALAWAG", "FOOLS", "SOUTH-HATING", "TYRANT", and "FreeDixie NOW" in caps lots of "!!!!!!!!" and "???" thrown in for good measure. I don't think he's capable of posting replies without incorporating one or more of the above.
It would nice to see these guys get their just deserts someday if a hispanic-majority in Texas takes control of the legislature votes to "secede" from the "DAMNyankees" and form a new, spain-speaking Republic. With guys like StandWaite around, I'd be sure we "DAMNyankees" don't "interfer" with the Atzlan reconquista.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
The Republicans really haven't changed their positions much more over the years, whereas the Scumocrats have pretty much flipped 180 degrees on race and ethnicity since the 1860s, manly because of public opinion. The 19th century Dems openly supported treating blacks as 2nd class citizens, the 21st century Dems openly support treating whites as 2nd class citizens. Go figure.
The GOP has always been the party of those naughty "coroporations", the party of tax breaks, the party of traditional morals and values. The RATs have always been party of "labor", the party of the plantations, the party that favors feel-good ideas over moral principles. The Dems today make the same case about abortion that their equivilents made in the 1860s about slavery. The more "moderate" northern Dems of the 1860s said "well, I'm PERSONALLY opposed to slavery, I'd never own one, but I'm not gonna enforce my views on other people because they have a constuttion right to decide to do what they want their property", and the more radical Dems actually argued slavery was a good systemd and ranted and raved about the evil Republicans trying to outlaw slavery.
The only place where the 1860's GOP veered significantly from today's GOP is Lincoln and the civil-war era Republicans were defintiely left-wing on immigrats and amnesty, but since the late 19th century (1880s or so), the Republicans have favored less immigration and support deporting illlegals... so that changed in a mere 20 years, not the 1960s.
The Dems of the 1890s were the left-wing party for the most part, especially in big cities. Illinois Governor Altgeld, for instance, was considered one of the biggest socialist nuts on the planet. Dem presidential nominee William J. Bryan was a hard-core left-wing populist. McKinley called him a socialist. (the election of 1900 was descibed by the Dems as being an election between the working-class masses and the evil, wealthy Republican corporations)
Teddy Roosevelt was a "progressive" Republcian (who would be a New England Olympia Snowe type today), but even he was not as far-left as Wilson. Both he and Taft described Wilson's railroad policy as "rank socialism". An election between Taft, TR, and Wilson would be like an election between Sam Brownback as a Republican, Arlen Specter as an "Independant", and Russ Feingold as leftist nut.
It's true that were lots of solid conservatives in the south who were Dems in those days, due to the south being a one-party system where you HAD to be a Democrat simply to be elected. As a result, southern conservatives prior to the 1960s and 70s would put a "D" next to their name if they wanted to have any type of power and influence in the south. This certainly does NOT mean the Dem party as a whole was "conservatiev" prior to the 1970s. It has been overrun with socialists since the 19th century.
Finally, it's clear "The south" as a whole, was not the hard-core states right crowd that opposed govermment expansion. Some neo-confederates watn to pretend the south has always been that way and the Dems they voted for were always "Conservatiev" Dems, but if that were true, "The south" wouldn't have given Woody Wilson, FDR, and Jimmy Carter landslide "mandates" in election after election.
Truth: Every Klansman ever elected or selected for public office has been a democrat.
Again an undeniable fact.
Which is fine. Counting Hancock as the 1st President is your opinion, as is your statement 'Washington was the 17th President'.
When do you think the country became independent?
As soon as the People decided they would no longer be ruled by the Crown.
True? How do you figure? Tariffs were applied equally to the North and the South, so the Northern consumer paid exactly the same for a tariff-protected item as the Southern consumer did. And since tariffs were placed on imports then how did the North pay less for cotton that was exported? What Southern producer would willingly sell his crop to Consumer A for less than he could have gotten from Consumer B?
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.