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 ...
Not that I've noticed.
You do realize that most of those Dem governors were conservatives, don't you? Or do you think Georgia elects nitwits like Kansas' abortion-loving, gay-friendly socialist Obama pal on a routine basis? The only left-wing governor Georgia ever had was Jimmy Carter, and he ran as a conservative.
But if you're a southerner then I don't expect you to know much geography.
Cute.
Probably a lot more than you.
You are also a piece of sh— and I am done with you.
Run away, little girl, and leave the adults in peace.
I thought this was a very fair and balanaced article. Confederate History Month commemorates an important part of our nations history.
Check out: http://confederateheritaagemonth.com
for information about our wonderful month of remembrance.
You are such a little b—ch.
“No, they did not. Their actions were illegal and unconstitutional.”
Really?
The U.S. Supreme Court, according to the Prize Cases decided on in December 1862,
ruled: “Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The President has no power to initiate or declare war against a foreign nation or a domestic state. Several of these states have combined to form a new Confederacy, claiming to be acknowledged by the world as a Sovereign state. Their right to do so is now being decided by wager of Battle.”
Why was it ok for the original thirteen colonies to forcefully secede from England, even though this was in clear violation of British law, but not ok for the Southern states to peacefully secede from the Union, even though the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, even though three of the original thirteen states specified in their ratification ordinances that the people of those states reserved the right to resume the powers of government, and even though Thomas Jefferson said he would allow a state that wanted to separate to do so?
Because they were not separate nations. They were 13 colonies who became 13 states under one country in 1776. And which later reformed their country under the Constitution.
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.
Sure it is, right there in Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Constitution does allow for states to leave the Union, just not unilaterally.
“The love of money” was at the root of Lincoln’s attempts to preserve the Union. - Charles Dickens
"Every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips should be boiled in his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should." - Charles Dickens.
You might want to check out the actual voting records of those Southern Dems and Northern Republicans. Southern Dems like Bailey, George, Connally, Byrd, Glass, Smith and others were FDR's strongest foes. Midwestern Republicans like LaFollette, Norris, etc. were quite concilatory towards him. Ever hear of Davis-Bacon, the New Deal prevailing union wage law that raises the cost of every federal project? Do a little google checking on who Davis and Bacon were (Hint: GOP Senator from PA and GOP congressman from NY).
Take a look at a color map from FDR's expansionist reign if you don't believe it.
Exactly who was the conservative candidate for president in 1940 and 1944, when some Midwest states went Republican? Dewey? Wendell Wilkie, the founder of the NY state liberal party?
No, but let's not pretend that the confederacy had any intent of bestowing liberty and republican values on that part of their population that they retained as property.
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?
I do not know what their conditions would have been like if they had been left in Africa, but at least their conditions would have been of their own making and not forced upon them. It was Milton who wrote, "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n." I personally would choose any fate over slavery. I can't speak for you.
But if you want to make the case that slavery was good for blacks, well you're not alone there. Men like Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis believed blacks were fit for nothing else.
Based on what I have read you believe strongly in the following:
Answer each allegation please.
“Because they were not separate nations. They were 13 colonies who became 13 states under one country in 1776. And which later reformed their country under the Constitution.”
A “delegation” clause cannot be seen as a compromise or surrender of sovereignty in any way.They are merely passed down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior principal authority, in order to provide that agent with representative “proxy” authority to carry out respective duties.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the early history of the Union, in the case of Ware vs. Hylton, 3d Dallas’ Rep., 199, in which it is held by Judge Chase, that the effect of the Declaration of Independence was “not that the united colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, but that each State of them was a sovereign and independent State”
You've got to be kidding. Today's Yankee Dems are mostly the descendants of the Yankees who elected Lincoln. The people who elected Cynthia McKinney and Ray Nagin are the descendants of the people enfranchised by the Yankee Carpetbaggers. Are you seriously trying to claim they were elected by us rebel flag waving "southrons"? You may have a small point regarding Jimmy Carter, who pretended to be a conservative and was able to bring some southern whites back into the Democrat fold in 1976, but that's about it.
And the original 13 acceded to and accepted the Constitution in toto, its provisions and its restrictions. The remaining states were admitted, acceding to the Constitution came along with that.
John Quincy Adams, stated, “our Constitution of the United States and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts.”
And what in it gives some states more powers than others? Madison wrote, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is he right? Could we get together and turn out California against its will and without any say on their part? If not, why not?
Nemo me impune lacessit. . .
Goes both ways.
Yep! They won’t be happy until every Dixie state is made liberal via Yankee migration and foreign immigration.
If your hand or your foot 7 or 8 states causes you to sin political and economic calamity, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life have a smaller republic maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire inflation and ruin.
One postwar Southern commentator remarked that “the dead Lincoln was worshiped because the living one had no admirers.”
“And what in it gives some states more powers than others? Madison wrote, “An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.” Is he right? Could we get together and turn out California against its will and without any say on their part? If not, why not?”
The original intent of an unquestioned right of secession was established by the Founders, took root, and “flourished for forty years,” then later a “perpetual Union” counter-argument developed. That argument was spawned from political necessity when Northern states began realizing their wealth and power was dependent on the continuation of the Union and its exploitation of the South.
Secession was not only considered a legal, constitutionally sanctioned act, the principles of secession were taught at the anti-bellum U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
For “Non-Sequitur” steeped in the propaganda and folk lore of the American Empire, and relatively unfamiliar with true American history, this would come as somewhat of a shock.
It was universally understood by the Framers——and the State governments that ratified the Constitution——that the States were the supreme governments and that the federal government was the subserviant, limited agent of the States, authorized to carry out only the specific and enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution. If the President wanted to Proclaim something (especially something not specifically authorized in the Constitution), he had to ask the Governors or legislatures of the States for their approval and assistance.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” —James Madison, author of the Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 45.
I see in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the People or the States. I see from the prevailing debate as documented in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist papers that the consensus was that the States “are, and of Right ought to be, free and independent States” (per the Declaration) and therefore, those States do not relinquish their sovereignty by ratifying the Constitution.
Let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence and look at the substance of the last two paragraphs. “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; … and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
You're correct, the Confederacy didn't intend to bestow liberty and republican values on that segment of the population. But it's a little much to constantly use this to browbeat those of us who honor our ancestors, when the segment you're supposedly sympathizing with never once bestowed liberty or republican government on anyone.
I do not know what their conditions would have been like if they had been left in Africa..
Take a look at conditions in Africa today, the most miserable living conditions of any continent on earth, and imagine what things were like there in the slave-trading days before any Western ideas and innovations had ever been introduced.
...but at least their conditions would have been of their own making and not forced upon them. It was Milton who wrote, "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n." I personally would choose any fate over slavery. I can't speak for you.
So let me get this straight. I asked you for an example blacks bestowing liberty and republican values on a nation, and you admitted you have no example. Yet you then argue that if the slaves hadn't been brought over here, they'd have been free men living in conditions of their own making. Poor perhaps, but at least living in conditions of Jeffersonian liberty.
Might I suggest that if they hadn't been brought over here as slaves, they'd been slaves over there, under far worse conditions?
But if you want to make the case that slavery was good for blacks, well you're not alone there. Men like Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis believed blacks were fit for nothing else.
They were right about the part that slavery was good for blacks, because American blacks have the highest standard of living of any blacks on earth, something they wouldn't have if they hadn't been imported here. They also eventually got their liberty, something they wouldn't have gotten if they hadn't been brought here in the first place. In fact, I dare say that American blacks had the highest standard of living of any blacks on earth even during slave times. Do you doubt that? And don't try to argue that at least they'd have been free men back in Africa because surely you know that's a joke.
Why not, when that's what it is? Sovereignty is supreme power over the body politic or, more importantly, freedom from external control over your actions. The states were not sovereign, at least not in the way you mean it. They could not treat with other nations, establish their own army, coin their own currency, or retaliate against their fellow states. There sovereignty began and ended at their borders, and was limited even then. The were not itty bitty sovereign nations, they were states. Subordinate to the country as a whole. Free to run their own show so long as they didn't violate the law.
Ware vs. Hylton
But in the end the Court held that federal courts had the power to determine the constitutionality of state laws. And that the Virginia law confiscating the debts owed to British subject as enemy aliens was unconstitutional under the Supremacy clause. And that the money was owed. If Virginia was truly sovereign in the manner you think she was then how would that be possible?
And should we ever become a theocracy then you can rule from the Bible instead of the Constitution and cast out all the motes you wish. Until then the Constitution is supreme.
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.