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 ...
But it helps as a reminder that all this brave talk about liberty and rights and freedom and justice are linked to a cause primarily devoted to continuing to deny those freedoms and rights to a significant part of their population.
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.
So? Are you suggesting that they could benefit from the return of slavery?
At the time, the blacks were chattel and if either man had his way they would remain chattel in the future. That's the higher living standard you speak of? I can only respond with the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
As you and your like minding ilk be-spoil the Constitution, the Bible may be the last vestige of civilization.
However, I still hold out some small hope. Please answer my post 310. I know you're busy defending the indefensible, an Lord knows that is hard work, but for a Red Leg, you got spunk.
“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.”
Sherman himself certainly did not believe that “each man is as good as another.
For example, in 1862 Sherman was bothered that “the country” was “swarming with dishonest Jews”
Sherman and General Phillip Sheridan were associated with the statement that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” The problem with the Indians, Sherman said, was that “they did not make allowance for the rapid growth of the white race”
Sherman planted a racist tautology: Some Indians are thieving, killing rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some we must eliminate all . . . deduced from this racist tautology . . . the less destructive policy would be racial cleansing of the land . .
He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all Jews from his army. As Fellman writes, “On December 17, 1862, Grant . . . , like a medieval monarch . . . expelled ‘The Jews, as a class,’ from his department.” Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to Sherman, the Jews were “like ni!!ers” and “like greasers (Mexicans) or Indians” in that they were “classes or races permanently inferior to his own.”
You mean I refuse to accept your Southron myth, don't you?
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.
And where does it say that pray tell?
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.
You see things. I look at the Constitution and I don't see the word specific in the 10th Amendment. Or the 9th. I see "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And I look at the Constitution as a whole and I see that the power to admit states to the Union and to approve changes of status once they've been admitted is a power delegated to the United States. And by implication that includes leaving the union altogether.
Let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence...
Let's remain with the Constitution since that is the basis for our laws.
Answer Madison's question.
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.
Obviously it didn't take root:
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble,49 and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . ." -- Robert Lee, January 1861
You picked the word 'destroy' out of Forrest's quote and proposed to us that when he said 'destroy' he actually meant 'overthrow' and that crap just ain't gonna fly around here.
You apparently missed my point that there were honorable, principled men on both sides of the issue.
I got your point and it's wrong. There were NO honorable, principled men on the northern side of the issue.
Oh well, have fun with the "yankee" hating if it gives you some comfort.
You yankees bring it on yourselves. You're loud mouthed, arrogant, boastful piles of human dung. I mean, what's not to hate?
And I never said he did, nor did I ever defended Sherman's views on the races. But Sherman didn't launch and fight a bloody rebellion, allegedly for freedom and independence and blah, blah, blah, while at the same time working to continue enslaving a third of the population.
And if you interpret it as you interpret the Constitution then God help us all.
Hard to argue with that. Congratulations.
Ok, let's change the direction here. Why should any state give a rat's butt what anyone, state or entity opinion is on secession? It is a choice made by that state, it's about them, what the remaining states issues with it is not that states problem. If the Constitution is a contract then it is not a suicide pact. It has very little to say about secession in it. If you care so much about what somebody in GA or CO or another state does, then in that scenario the initiative is on you to do something about it. Still, that makes you the aggressor.
I see you're still clinging to your northern lies and prejudices.
If the north lead the country we’d be no different than any other socialist country a communist dictatorship.
There. Fixed it.
Perfect. Actually would make a great tag line.
Only Almighty God is eternal.
The States of North America which confederated to establish their independence of the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia was one, became, on that acquisition free and independent States, and as such, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in such form as it thought best.
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
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable a most sacred right — a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any such portion may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose this movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolution not to go by old lines or old laws; but to break up both and make new ones.” Abraham Lincoln
Madison; “It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.”
The same could be said of Washington, the founder of the nation you claim loyalty to, while doubting that the "southrons" you met when stationed down here have similar loyalty. It could also be said of the father of our Bill of Rights, James Madison.
You see, people back then understood that America was a product of Western Civilization. Not perfect. Not utopia. But a nation conceived in ideals that had slowly developed in Europe, particularly Anglo-Saxon law, over many centuries. It was doubted very seriously that other races, who had never entertained such ideas, could function as free men within such a nation. This is why the Indians were pushed out or put on reservations. They weren't invited to vote and help run the new government, even by the delegates who opposed slavery.
Here's why it's a dangerous idea to constantly browbeat Confederates for their attitude toward blacks. It's the same attitude most of the founders had, and even the same attitude Lincoln had. They may have had differences in Biblical interpretation on slavery, but they didn't have differences in their attitude toward racial minorities.
Times have changed and people have different attitudes now, but that doesn't mean we should constantly vilify our ancestors. Eventually, it will come to haunt you and other anti-Dixie folks when PC advances a little more (and it always will advance as long as there are conservatives like you who enable it) and your hero Lincoln becomes vilified by the NAACP crowd. You're gonna have a hard time saying Lincoln was okay, but Jefferson Davis was evil, because Davis thought blacks were inferior and wanted to enslave them, but Lincoln thought they were inferior and wanted to deport them.
So? Are you suggesting that they could benefit from the return of slavery?
No, but they benefitted from it at the time, didn't they? If your choice is to be a free man in America or a slave in America, free man is clearly better. But if your choice is to be a slave in America or a slave in Africa, which would you choose?
Or better yet, suppose someone created a time machine and you were empowered to go back in time and undo one historical event. You announce that you're going to go back and stop the first slave ship to America dead in its tracks, so that slavery never comes to America. Should today's American blacks cheer you on? Think about it.
At the time, the blacks were chattel and if either man had his way they would remain chattel in the future. That's the higher living standard you speak of? I can only respond with the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
I have no objection to anyone denouncing slavery, as long as it's kept in context. People act as if southern whites invented slavery and as if they took free, prosperous blacks out of Africa and made them into chattel. They didn't. They took chattel slaves out of Africa and gave them better conditions here. I'm against slavery but I'm also historically realistic enough to look at the issue in context. I'm also against allying with dictators but I understand why there might be circumstances where we have to do so. Wagging your finger all day and telling us we were evil for importing slaves, and that anyone associated in any way with American slavery is a monster beyond the pale, is like saying FDR was evil for siding with Stalin to help stop Hitler, without looking at the context in which it occurred.
Should we declare every American leader who supported slavery, wanted to put Indians on reservations, or thought other races were inferior to be beneath contempt? If not, why not? How do we know which racism was forgivable and merely the "prevailing attitude of the day" and which racism was unforgivable? And when do we start purging the sexists and homophobes in U.S. history?
Slavery is still with us—we are wage and tax slaves who have surrounded our freedoms for a fantasy of socialist dreams. Money can’t solve problems—if it did we would have won the war on poverty and there would be no poor in the nation. People need to change the way they act and feel.
You do not believe in live and let live. It's that simple. You and your disgusting ilk think states should not be allowed to go it alone. If a state gets out of line then go ahead and burn it to the ground and crush them if need be. Do in a way that is so horrible 140 years later, anyone even contemplating it should cower in fear.
Well what I have to say to that is /expletive deleted/.
I OTH would be very positive about it. If NY or KS (especially KS because I could dump you) would go there own way, actually instead of forming a self-righteous army to invade and conquer I would actually try to help them. See the F-ing difference?
And you are still clinging to your Southern ones.
So in other words what you are saying is that only the leaving states have any say in the matter or any rights to be protected. The remaining states have no choice but to sit back and take any negative consequences because, as you said, "it is not that states problem". To put it more bluntly, it is your opinion that the Constitution protects only those states leaving it and not the states remaining under it. Now just how the hell could you come to a conclusion like that?
You're loud mouthed, arrogant, boastful piles of human dung. I mean, what's not to hate?
I will show southern FReepers the respect of saying that I don't think you're representative of the entire south of the Mason-Dixon line population. You're rather like the crazy uncle in the attic, having food slid to him under the door by compassionate long-suffering family members who must resort to weak and embarrassed defenses such as, "Well, that's just Uncle Cowboyway - you know how he is."
Your bottom line is about as accurate as your top line and every other line you've slung on this thread.
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.