Southerners looking to share their Confederate holiday

Hartford Courant ^ | March 22, 2009 | Dahleen Glanton

[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.

[central_va]

The neo-Yankee, still guilt ridden about their unjustified 19th century rape of the south, hides behind the issue of slavery to make themselves feel better about their true federalist (to wit: righteous) nature.

If the war was about slavery, why not outlaw it and give states a chance to deal with it? No, just go down there and show those hicks. To them it's: "We are right and they are wrong that is all that matters".

You won't find me defending slavery or destroying a republic. Both atrocities are equal and equal vengeance doth both wrought. We still pay to this day.

Free Republic forever.

[Idabilly]

“But I do note that in your entire post of attacking everything else, you haven’t stated one thing noble about the Confederacy.”

Well.. They weren’t Anti-Semitic slobs like the Northern Hitlers
Shame of the Yankees - America’s Worst Anti-Jewish Action
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/19897/Shame_of_the_Yankees_-_%3Ci%3EAmerica%27s_Worst_Anti-Jewish_Action%3C%2Fi%3E.html

[x]

After the tariff standoff in 1833, Andrew Jackson wrote, "The tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."

States rights was the cause; slavery was the occasion.

First of all, that doesn't follow. Jackson's saying that a move for Southern independence was the cause, not some idea of states rights within the union under the Constitution. Jackson didn't accept the theories of state sovereignty that the secessionists championed.

Secondly, Jackson was a slaveowner himself and therefore he was inclined to see slavery and race as pretexts, rather than as underlying reasons for Southern agitation. People who don't own other people might ask, just what it that the secessionists were so passionate about preserving or attaining, and come to the conclusion that it had a lot to do with slavery and race.

It is nice that you think that the tariff was a pretext, not a reason for secession, though. But why not quote Jackson further?

I have had a laborious task here, but Nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the People to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the World. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their Country in Civil War, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The Free People of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your Nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his Country.

[x]

Pennsylvania has a confederate memorial day? What the hell?

Unofficial. Observed by the Pennsylvania Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

[Non-Sequitur]

Based on what I have read you believe strongly in the following:

You would be wrong on most of those. Happy?

[x]

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.

The Founders didn't believe in an "unquestioned right of secession." If they had they would have written it into the Constitution.

The idea of "perpetual union" actually took root in the South about the time of the War of 1812. That was a natural result of the country growing closer together under the Constitution. It was only later that the doctrine was repudiated by secessionists.

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.

There was no universal belief in the constitutionality of unilateral secession. That doctrine was only taught at West Point for a brief period.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh hell, before you throw another hissy fit.

A strong central federal authority.

Yes. That is what the founders intended and that is why they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. The states combined to form a government, and that government. Even if the government was a mere agent of the states, it was an agent of all of them and formed the basis for preventing some to take advantage of them all. States surrendered their sovereignty to that government in all areas where their actions could harm the interests of the others states. In fact they gave up all sovereignty beyond their own borders, and a fair amount of sovereignty within them.

Any state even considering going it alone is treasonous and in a state of rebellion

Pure hogwash, as I've said before. Any state or states can leave the Union at any time so long as it is done with the approval of all the impacted parties. To put it more plainly, states are admitted through a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress. I see no reason why anything more than that should be required to allow them to leave.

A republic is in name only, for a republic implies autonimity and independence and VOLUNTARY union with other states, this not currently being the case.

I disagree with your premise.

You would take up arms and forcibly re-instate this farce of a "RINO" Republic-In-Name-Only. Making you , by default, the aggressor.

I would oppose any violation of the Constitution. And if war is the action that violator resorts to then bring it on.

Now, how about answering my question in reply 338?

[Idabilly]

“Which is why it is kind of funny to see modern day people defending the failed effort to preserve slavery.”

Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that “when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives” (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850). He also admitted in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: “The original emancipation proclamation has no legal justification, except as a military measure.” Secretary of State William Seward acknowledged that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.

Furthermore, his “New Army” and the slaughter effort on the South put into motion an unprecedented profusion of federal coercion against free citizens, both North and South. By way of conscription, he assembled a vast army by presidential decree, an act of flagrant misconduct which drafted individuals into slavery to the federal government.

[Non-Sequitur]

The neo-Yankee, still guilt ridden about their unjustified 19th century rape of the south, hides behind the issue of slavery to make themselves feel better about their true federalist (to wit: righteous) nature.

I feel no more guilt about what happened to the South as I do about what happened to Nazi Germany. In both cases war was what they chose, and they suffered the consequences of their folly.

If the war was about slavery, why not outlaw it and give states a chance to deal with it? No, just go down there and show those hicks. To them it's: "We are right and they are wrong that is all that matters".

I realize that Southern school systems are near the bottom of the academic barrel in virtually all areas, but I would have assumed that you would have picked up basic arithmetic. Outlawing slavery required an amendment to the Constitution. If all 15 slave states banded together to oppose such an amendment then it would have taken 46 states to ratify it. Do the math.

You won't find me defending slavery or destroying a republic.

Not hardly.

[Non-Sequitur]

Clean your OWN back yard before you point that finger South.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! This from the person who resorted to the "that thar Linkum, he be a stone racist" argument in your reply 344? Clean up the racists in your own camp first before pointing your finger towards Lincoln.

[Repeal The 17th]

“If all 15 slave states banded together
to oppose such an amendment
then it would have taken 46 states to ratify it.”
- - -
Time for you to re-check your time-line.

[Idabilly]

“There was no universal belief in the constitutionality of unilateral secession. That doctrine was only taught at West Point for a brief period.”

Dogs sniffing your house for drugs?

I suppose that some truths are hard to accept.

Without a little hard work, y’all will never be more than sheep. Just as it is easier to sit at home and think that all is right with the world, it is easier to dismiss all criticisms of public figures out of hand. This relieves one of the burden of independent thought.

[Non-Sequitur]

Time for you to re-check your time-line.

Time for you to recheck your Constitution. Article V.

[Repeal The 17th]

“I would oppose any violation of the Constitution.
And if war is the action that violator resorts to then bring it on.”
- - -
And what of the actions of the vio-lay-tee? (for lack of a better word)

[Non-Sequitur]

And what of the actions of the vio-lay-tee? (for lack of a better word)

What of it? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

[IrishCatholic]

Swing and a miss. Strike one.
First, I can separate the Confederacy as an institution from individual people. So you lose there.
Second, I have defended my position magnificently against closed minds. Strike two.
Finally, let's fix this for you:

Men who would give up everything they owned,
everything they ever could own,
their families, their children, and even their lives,
to fight against the destruction of their nation by forces intent on tearing it apart to keep their fellow man enslaved. Because they believed in the concept of people as people, not as property, and of America as a nation, not a group of Balkanized states.
I am sad they had to make a such a supreme sacrifice to preserve the nation, only to have it pissed on by anti American revisionists today.
The Civil war was about slavery, not Northern aggression or states rights, or any other drivel put out by those that hate their country.
It was the last battle of the Revolutionary war, because it resolved the one final issue left from its founding.
What remains is America.
You don't like it? Neither does Code Pink, Howard Dean, the Democratic Socialists of America, George Soros, nor Neo Confederates.
Strike three, your out.

[IrishCatholic]

Boy, you are really stuck on Abe.
Lincoln Derangement Syndrome.
“Which is why it is kind of funny to see modern day people defending the failed effort to preserve slavery.”
Talks about the Neo Confederates, not Lincoln.

[catfish1957]

You know we have been putting up with this leftest idiot (N-S) on civil war threads for at least 8 years. I suggest that you and everyone else put him on “ignore”. That really ticks him off. he thrives on this conflict.

[Repeal The 17th]

“Time for you to re-check your time-line.”
-
“Time for you to recheck your Constitution. Article V.”
-
“If all 15 slave states banded together
to oppose such an amendment
then it would have taken 46 states to ratify it.”
-
46 States?
Ya’ think?

[IrishCatholic]

Farmers no longer use a mule. So?
Slaves were often skilled labor rented out.
Let’s see if your example holds out to real world comparison:

So, why do people use illegal labor? It’s cheaper because you don’t pay benefits. Imagine modern workers that cost nothing but clothes and food. Would most of the meat packing plants now be located in the CSA? Would slavery have faded out? No, there was still money in it and if it magically appeared today it would be profitable.

Most of our goods are made in China. Why is that? Low labor costs. They pay the workers next to nothing.
Imagine factories throughout the South run by slave labor turning out cars, refrigerators, television sets with no labor costs.
You wouldn’t see “Made in China”, You would see “Made in the CSA”

Your argument fails.
So, with the Biblical defense, how many would you own?