Posted on 02/12/2007 7:40:34 PM PST by BnBlFlag
A cartoonish over-simplification used to insult tens of millions of Americans.
Refreshingly original.(see: Pelosi, Chavez, PETA, etc...)
bttt
Right you are! A drugged flag is an unsafe flyer and it shouldn't surprise us when it slams into the MSM and everything else.
Robert E. Lee stated that his reason for fighting was to defend his people and his state, not to uphold the institution of slavery. He further stated that he disapproved of slavery. (The slaves on his property, btw, were owned by his wife.)
I don't see how these facts square with your contention that everyone fighting for the South was in it to preserve and extend slavery.
To Bledsoe, and many African Americans, the answer is no.
I am completely confident nearly all liberals would agree with "many African Americans".
And now for what I like to call the continual "lack of logical continuity" charicteristic of liberals: Tell me please, how the liberals in this country distain the war in Iraq but "support the troops"?
That's easy; they don't.
On the other hand, he said that it was good for them and that God would get around to freeing them in a thousand years or so.
The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.
Lee's disapproval of slavery, much hyped by the Southron contingent, was tepid at best. In the same 1856 letter where he is said to condemn slavery he also calls it necessary and firmly opposes taking any steps, other than prayer, to hasten the end of it. As late as 1865 he was calling the condition of slavery "the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country..."
I don't see how these facts square with your contention that everyone fighting for the South was in it to preserve and extend slavery.
I don't think anyone is saying that. However, there can be absolutely no doubt that defense of the institution of slavery from what they saw as threats from the Republican administration was by far the single most important reason for the Southern Rebellion.
Wrong it was over taxes(protectionist tariffs) and Northern Aggressive policies that hurt the Southern economy. Its about power, and all the lies you quote about "its about slavery" will never hold water in the light of history. Look at Jefferson Davis' inagural speech - he does not talk about slavery, rather he mentions other factors. Lincoln wasn't about to let the South go, he wanted his tariffs, and he wanted to consolidate power in Washington in direct contravention to the Founder's belief in federalism - which by the way does include States Rights. You are deluded by the Lincoln cult, and just think - Lincoln was all about denying States Rights. He is in some pretty notorious company there - Lenin, Stalin, Bismarck, Hitler! Study history, not the lies the "official history cult" prints.
Since I'm not a Southern American (or any American) my opinion means little I'm sure, but it appears the men in the picture understand FREEDOM 100%.
Then why did the Declarations of Causes issued by the secession conventions barely mention tariffs (if at all), while giving a great deal of space to slavery? Why was South Carolina's message to the other southern states, asking them to leave the union and join them entitled, "The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States"?
Look at Jefferson Davis' inagural speech - he does not talk about slavery, rather he mentions other factors.
And 11 days later, speaking to the provisional confederate congress, he says,
In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented form about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.
So, any progress on explaining how Massachusetts "nullified" Jefferson's embargo two years before it was enacted? You said last week that you'd get back to me on that.
You were right on the date of the embargo, and Massachusettes along with the other New England states formally nullified it in 1809. They cited States Rights in their declaration of nullification.
www.southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/13_hkedgerton.htm
He's a great guy i met him at Dixie Days this year
P. S. = and so is his brother Terry .
I don't think that you can really call what they did "nullification." Here's the entire text of the bill:
18. Resolutions of the Enforcement Act, February 15, 1809.The report and resolutions of the joint committee on petitions from the town meetings was made February 1, 1809. The same were adopted by the Senate, on the 11th inst., by a vote of 19 to 18. (MS. Senate Journal, 1808-09, vol. 29, pp. 196-209.) The House concurred, on the 15th inst., by a vote of 205 to 139. (MS. House Journal, May, 1808-March, 1809, pp. 278-282. The Report and Resolutions are also given in Patriotick Proceedings, pp. 41-53. *******
On viewing these provisions of the act under consideration, the committee do unequivocally declare their solemn conviction, that it is in many particulars, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. They would by no means contend that this opinion, if confirmed and adopted by the legislature, would be decisive of the question. While the laws continue to have their free course, the judicial courts are competent to decide this question, and to them every citizen, when aggrieved, ought to apply for redress. It would be derogatory to the honour of the commonwealth to presume that it is unable to protect its subjects against all violations of their rights, by peaceable and legal remedies. While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government.
Any forcible resistance, therefore, by individuals, to the execution of this act of Congress, is not only unnecessary, but would be highly inexpedient and improper; it would endanger the public peace and tranquility, and tend essentially to injure and put at hazard that cause, on which nearly the whole people are now so zealously united. The committee are deeply sensible of the accumulated distress which has so long oppressed the whole community, and borne with aggravation on some particular parts of it. They cannot too highly applaud the unexampled patience and forbearance which has been already exhibited under this pressure of undeserved calamities. And they would earnestly recommend the exercise of the same forbearance, until all those peaceable and orderly means which the constitution and laws of our country will permit, and all those political expedients, which our habits and usages can suggest, shall have been exhausted in vain.
It is to be regreted that no immediate and efficacious remedy can now be proposed for these numerous and aggravated evils. The committee, however, consider it their duty to recommend, without loss of time, all such measures as have appeared to them to be now practicable, and calculated to remove or alleviate the publick distress; they therefore ask leave to
Report in part, A bill to secure the people of this commonwealth against unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional searches in their dwelling houses — and also the following
Resolutions.
Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the ninth day of January in the present year, for enforcing an act laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the legislature, in many respects, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally binding on the citizens of this state. But notwithstanding this opinion, in order finally to secure a certain and permanent relief, it is earnestly recommended to all parties aggrieved by the operation of this act, to abstain from forcible resistance, and to apply for their remedy in a peaceable manner to the laws of the commonwealth.
Resolved, That a suitable remonstrance be prepared, and immediately forwarded to the Congress of the United States, from this legislature, expressing their opinions and feelings on the several subjects of complaint contained in the said petitions, and particularly urging the appeal of the said act of Congress, passed on the ninth of January last.
Resolved, That the legislature of this commonwealth will zealously co-operate with any of the other states, in all legal and constitutional measures, for procuring such amendments to the constitution of the United States, as shall be judged necessary to obtain protection and defence for commerce, and to give the commercial states their fair and just consideration in the government of the Union; and for affording permanent security, as well as present relief, from the oppressive measures under which they now suffer.
Resolved, That the honourable the president of the Senate, and the honourable the speaker of the House of Representatives, be requested to transmit a copy of this report, and the resolutions thereon, to the legislatures of such of our sister states, as manifest a disposition to concur with us in measures to rescue our common country from impending ruin, and to preserve inviolate the union of the states.
Clearly Massachusetts is expressing their displeasure and indicating that they think the act unconstitutional, but they're also going out of their way to say that, instead of disregarding the law, they " earnestly recommend the exercise of the same forbearance, until all those peaceable and orderly means which the constitution and laws of our country will permit, and all those political expedients, which our habits and usages can suggest, shall have been exhausted in vain." In other words, let the legal process take it's course. And later they say, "it is earnestly recommended to all parties aggrieved by the operation of this act, to abstain from forcible resistance, and to apply for their remedy in a peaceable manner to the laws of the commonwealth." Again, let the courts take their course.
By contrast, South Carolina's Nullification act not only says that the tariff is "utterly null and void," but also explicitly refuses to submit their action to the Supreme Court, "in no case of law or equity, decided in the Courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in question the authority of this Ordinance,... shall any appeal be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States; nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be taken, the Courts of this State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgment, according to the laws and usages of the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt with as for a contempt of the Court." There's more as well, in a similar vein, but you can easily read it yourself. But the point is that Massachusetts did not nullify the embargo. On the contrary, they merely state that they think the law unconsitutional tell everyone to let the court system and the congress handle the situation. South Carolina's true attempt at nullification specifically declares the law null and void and refuses to allow the courts to do anything.
Finally, there's that whole "Jefferson declaring areas ignoring the embargo to be in insurrection" thing.
Amen Sister! :)
General , thanks for the link
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.