Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
ATLANTA — In a cultural war that has pitted Old South against new, defenders of the Confederate legacy have opened a fresh front in their campaign to polish an image tarnished, they said, by people who do not respect Southern values.
With the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States in 2011, efforts are under way in statehouses, small towns and counties across the South to push for proclamations or legislation promoting Confederate history.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
Equating the end of the Civil War and reconstruction as the path to the current socialist efforts by the current Democratic Party is unsupportable. However, by your entire entry it is apparent your world view is so twisted and so invested in this view that you will disregard anything that challenges it.
But I do note that in your entire post of attacking everything else, you haven't stated one thing noble about the Confederacy.
Nor has anyone else I have interacted with on this thread.
“They south may need to change their 1861 Constitution of that slavery thing. A few updates are needed but the singe 6 year presidency and the line item veto are good.”
Americans living under the laws of the U.S. are, by definition, slaves. Artful legislative machinations have transformed the inalienable rights to pursue life and liberty and acquire property into statutory privileges that can be granted by government or taken away without recourse.
I guess trying to form a break away republic knowing the wraith of an arrogant, righteous and all together vindictive Federal invasion is coming, being out number 3 to 1, yeah, nothing to admire about that. Had your first drink this morning? Just checkin'
It's the "Yankee" way, see, they just know better. Smarter you see.
“But I do note that in your entire post of attacking everything else, you haven’t stated one thing noble about the Confederacy.”
What about the “Holy” Union?
The reasoning behind much of their anti-slavery sentiment was because even the presence of non-Whites was considered potentially dangerous, not because of religious conviction or sympathy. Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, for instance, expressed this viewpoint:
Quote:
From “An American Iliad: The Story of the Civil War,” Second Edition, by Charles P. Roland (Chapter 1, page 9):
“Many antislavery advocates opposed the institution not out of principle or compassion for the slaves, but out of concern over its perceived ill effects on the white population. Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, a leading advocate of halting the spread of slavery, explained that he felt “no squeamishness upon the subject of slavery, no morbid sympathy for the slave.” “I plead the cause of free white men,” he said. “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
This position was not at all unusual among the North, even though there did exist a fair quantity of religious fanatics and others who approached the problem from a more moralistic-emotional perspective. Even then, the movement for equality [at least in the political/legalistic sense] came about more from intense sectionalism than from the latter perspective. Just before the above quote Roland elaborates:Quote:
(Same Chapter and Page):
“Finally and paradoxically, a racial factor contributed to the northern attitude. Antipathy against slavery often went hand in hand with a racism that was similar in essence, if not in pervasiveness or intensity, to the southern racial feeling. Many northerners objected to the presence of slavery in their midst, in part, because they objected to the presence of blacks there.”
This brings to light a fact that is very ironic considering that most contemporary historians praise Northern anti-slavery sentiment as springing from egalitarian or otherwise anti-racist motivation.
“Be assured that if this new provision [the 14th Amendment] be engrafted in the Constitution, it will, in time, change the entire structure and texture of our government, and sweep away all the guarantees of safety devised and provided by our patriotic Sires of the Revolution.”
~Orville Browning, Senator for Illinois (1867)
This should be good.
The alleged President, Lincoln...
Nothing alleged about it. Lincoln was elected president in a legal and Constitutionally approved election in 1860.
...assumed un-Constitutional war powers and secession was labelled ‘rebellion’.
There was nothing unconstitutional about any of the powers he assumed. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the term 'rebellion' then I assume we can both agree on the term 'war'. The confederacy initiated the war, the Union fought it.
The war which followed could not be a ‘war’ - since the alleged Congress never declared war, as required by law - instead, it must have been a ‘police action’.
No, it would most properly be referred to as a rebellion. Since the Southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal, confederate independence was not recognized by Lincoln or, for that matter, the rest of the world. Declarations of war in such cases are inappropriate. Indeed, it would be ridiculous. Who was the U.S. supposed to declare war on? Itself?
This sham blossomed during the martial law period of ‘Reconstruction’ and the forced ‘ratification’ of the “14th Amendment” became the cornerstone of the new United Slaves of America.
Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, like the war itself, was self inflicted upon the South. Had the rebellious states not gone out of their way to negate the 13th Amendment and return the newly freed blacks to a state as closely approaching slavery as possible then reconstruction would not have happened. The 14th Amendment was needed to overturn the Dred Scott decision and make all black people citizens.
For your sake don't take your people down the same bloody rat-hole that they went in 1861.
“Dems were always racist and continue to be now.”
Lincoln’s own lifelong beliefs and clear, unambiguous statements. In his 1858 Ottawa, Illinois debate with Stephen Douglas, for example, he stated that “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I . . . am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”
Lincoln went on to declare that he had never been in favor “of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” He literally mocked the Jeffersonian dictum that “all men are created equal” by claiming that, with the possible exception of Siamese twins, “I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true.”
On the topic of emancipation Lincoln said, “Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot, then make them equals.”
The people of the individual States could either accede to, accept or reject the Constitution. They, by their accession did form a voluntary union not one held together by bayonet.
John Quincy Adams, stated, “our Constitution of the United States and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts.”
Over the past century nationalism has been the chief source of the wars that have killed millions of civilians; egalitarianism has helped create socialist and welfare states that have destroyed economy after economy; and unbridled democracy has decimated liberty.
Nemo me impune lacessit. . .
So will the United States and slavery, if people like you keep it up. Don't you get it? The crusade to demonize the Confederacy is just an opening battle in a war to demonize America. If you're too PC to have caught on to that fact, then try listening to the speeches of even "conservatives" such as Condi Rice.
A few years ago there was a New York Times art critic who dismissed an exhibit of Classical Greek art as unworthy because the Greeks practiced slavery. This is all part of an on-going effort to eradicate Western history. But didn't other cultures practice slavery even more vociferously than Western nations, you may ask? Of course, but that doesn't count. It's simply erased from history.
Want proof? How often have you sneered at African history on the grounds that it will always be connected and equated with slavery? The African people practiced slavery a hell of a lot more than we ever did, and they'd even be practicing it today if other nations hadn't stopped them. Practicing it legally, I mean, since there still is slavery in many black-controlled nations, practiced under the radar.
“Whose suspension? Lincoln’s or that of Jefferson Davis? The difference being Lincoln only imprisoned a suspected Copperhead bridge burner in Maryland while Tyrant Davis hung suspected Unionist bridge burners in Tennessee. So much for the freedom-loving Confederates.”
Lincoln’s was the tyrannical suspension of habeas corpus throughout the United States (see the imprisonment of George William Brown); Davis’s was the patriotic suspension throughout Richmond and for ten miles adjoining. Do not equate good and evil.
Three Dixie states went for Obama in the most recent election, thanks to Yankee migration into those previously ignoble states. You should be happy.
Got any examples of nations based on Republican values that were ever created by the remaining third? Or what their condition would have been if left in Africa?
“Since the Southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal, confederate independence was not recognized by Lincoln or, for that matter, the rest of the world”
I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand.
To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.
..But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?” —James Madison, from Federalist Paper No. 46
“The love of money” was at the root of Lincoln’s attempts to preserve the Union. - Charles Dickens
The word that describes Lincoln is “liberal”, and nothing has changed in 140 years—as is amply attested by current Northern voting patterns.
I posted it in my original response. They are much more conservative than their northern brethern.
Not sure what you are talking about. I was trying to present facts to one particular idiot poster. Why exactly do you feel the need to inject yourself into the conversation? Are you lonely or something?
A choice like this may have to be weighed against having somebody of your ilk being called my fellow countrymen. Free association. A hard decision... maybe not so hard.
No, they did not. Their actions were illegal and unconstitutional.
They entered into a compact (which is called the Constitution of the United States of America), by which they agreed to unite in a single government as to their relations with each other, and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified. They retained at the same time, each to itself, the other rights of independent government, comprehending mainly their domestic interests.~Thomas Jefferson
"The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." - James Madison
“That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation [...] Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act” (James Madison, Federalist Papers, Number 39).
"...I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison
And what actions did they take, prior to the South initiating hostilities at Sumter?
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.