Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
And a war to protect slavery was conducted by slave-owning generals on the pro-slavery side. Again, what's your point? Other than to demonstrate that you still cling to the myth that the war was to end slavery. It wasn't. It was to preserve the Union. As Lincoln pointed out on many occasions.
Take it? Take what? "Feelings" hurt?
nar.cis.sism
Pronunciation [nahr-suh-siz-em]-noun
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
Is it possible I have stumbled upon the root causes of the Yankee disease?
Only if He used lies and Southron mythology to do it.
But by all means, trot out one of Wally's columns and let's go over it.
We agree! It was a war about states rights! One side felt states have no rights to secede the other side does! A major breakthrough for you.
Me too. I have a full bladder...:)
It was far more than that, as I've pointed out. Southern repudiation for debt. Southern theft of federal property. Southern abandonment of national commitments. Southern threat to cut off the midwest from access to the sea.
I asked this question before and you never answered it. But what the hell, I'll try again. If states can leave unilaterally then why can't they be expelled unilaterally? I know that you'd be thrilled, but why couldn't the U.S. expell Virginia? Turn it out, remove all federal troops, workers, property, revenues, what-have-you and cast you adrift? Wouldn't you agree that if Virginia can leave the rest of the states unilaterally, the rest of the states could do the same?
No, we agree it wasn't a war to end slavery. From the Northern standpoint it was a war to preserve the Union. From the Southern standpoint it was a war to defend slavery.
One side felt states have no rights to secede the other side does!
And why did those states want to secede? Because of what they viewed as the threat to their institution of slavery posed by the Lincoln election.
There is this little song in my head I think it goes "I'm in heaven, I'm in heaven da da da da da da...." Huge smile.......Let me savour that thought for a while.
And then come up with an answer. If you can.
Try to put aside your narcissistic self. The Southerners just plain didn't like you guys. Willing to die, the boys of the South were, just to go there own way. Willing to stand up to the Federal Monster outnumbered 3 to 1. Nothing noble there.....
And as you do so, think of it as a metaphor for what Davis did to chances of Southern independence.
What's not to like in all of that? It's all good, wait it's great!
I go where I will.
I don’t worry about punks regardless of their zip code.
But thank you for the warning there are a bunch near you.
Wow, a coward for a hero.
How sad.
I avoided nothing just pointed out history. BTW the National Cemetery I worked at? My GGG grandfather was buried. A Union Soldier BTW. Another GGG grandfather a Union Major. My wife's family was CSA her GGG uncle a Confederate Major General or a Mountain Rebel as they were called in this area and a West Point graduste.
Then why didn't they leave earlier? What was it about the election of 1860 that set them off?
Willing to die, the boys of the South were, just to go there own way...
To protect their peculiar institution.
Willing to stand up to the Federal Monster outnumbered 3 to 1. Nothing noble there.....
Sad, really, rather than noble. Oh there's no doubt that they died nobly on the battlefield. But in the end, to have died for nothing.
The answer to this question is in the structure of the Union. The States were first, and the states together created the Federal government. This government is of limited powers, while the several States retained the balance of the power; another way of putting this is that the federal government has only the powers delegated to it by the states, while the States exercised plenary authority in all matters not delegated.
Keeping this in mind, the answer to your question is simple: the mere fact that the states chose not to delegate expulsion authority to the federal government (and could certainly act to expel a state without its consent) does not effect the State's authority (not delegated to the federal government) to leave the Union.
For someone who claims not to care whether or not the most populous conservative region of the country is here or not, you're in a pretty lousy position to question anyone else's commitment to conservatism.
The South was solidly Democratic until the 60's and didn't come over to the Republican camp until you found that you could do so and still keep your big spending, big government ways.
Yeah, we were won over by that big spending socialist Goldwater. Seriously, you do realize that most of the Democrats elected down here in the South were conservative, don't you? That Robert Taft, upon his election to the Senate formed a conservative coalition with Southern Dems to fight FDR. That act infuriated the Northern GOP leadership and they did everything in their power to keep him from ever getting the GOP nomination.
So with you or without you, it doesn't matter to me. We long time conservatives don't need what passes for Southern leadership to uphold our core conservative principles.
Suspicious defensiveness noted.
Again, PC by today's standards. Would Jefferson or Davis or Lee or Jackson stand up any better from a PC standpoint? Should you not be condemning them as racists as well? Damning them for the vile bigots that they are? Or is Lincoln the only one you care about being politically correct?
No, I never said any of those men would meet today's PC standards better than Lincoln. They wouldn't. My point was that none of them should be judged by those PC standards, including Lincoln. I thought that was pretty clear.
Now put this in context. It's 1858. Two years earlier Roger Taney had declared that no black person, free or slave, was or could ever be a citizen. That blacks had no rights whatsoever that a white man was bound to respect. And in the face of that Lincoln argues that in some areas there was equality between the races, that the black man was entitled to the same basic rights as a white man. That one quote alone placed him far apart from Douglas in terms of racial viewpoint, and put him head and shoulders above your Southern leadership. Or can you show me a single quote from a single Southern leader of the time indicating that they also thought blacks were their equal in any way whatsoever? Or that blacks had any rights at all? Do that and then I'll grant that they were better than Lincoln in that area. Can you do that? Or is it Lincoln alone rather than racism that concerns you?
LMAO! When did I ever say Lincoln was alone or unique in his alleged racism, or even the most racist? I merely said (and you can't possibly not have understood this because you're an intelligent man) that if we're going to demonize certain people from American history as "racists" for holding views common to their era, we can't single out a few politically protected favorites and excuse them for holding the same views. That's very clear to anyone reading my post.
You say that, right after denouncing him as racist.
I did no such thing.
I would defy you to find a single instance where I ever criticized the racial viewpoints of the rebel leaders except in response to someone, like you, who first called Lincoln racist for his viewpoints.
I didn't call Lincoln a racist. I said that if the same idiotic PC standards were applied to him as are applied to everyone in the Confederacy, then he would be considered a racist. I made it very clear that I oppose doing that.
I've found that, consciously or unconsciously, nobody likes Animal Farm more than a Southron supporter. How else can you explain your logic behind unilateral secession? In your view, only the seceding states have rights to be respected, the remaining states have none. Only the seceding states have Constitutional protections, the remaining states have none. The seceding states can take any action they want regardless of impact, and the remaining states have no choice but to sit and take it. If ever there was a "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" scenario then that is it.
I've never participated in those discussions so you're on your own on that one.
Oh, and for x, you're arguing that the Northeast and the West Coast would still be Republican if the GOP didn't have such heavy Southern influence. You have the cart before the horse. It has heavy Southern influence because there aren't many elected Republicans in the Northeast and West Coast. This is the result of open borders and leftist indoctrination in the schools. Besides, what exactly is it about today's Southern Republicans that would "frighten" away any so-called moderates? Did those dangerous right-wing nuts like George Allen, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Mel Martinez, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Warner, and "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush frighten them away? As I said before, the South is holding on for its life as the last conservative population base in the country, but with blue creeping into VA and NC it won't last long. Even down here conservatism has been watered-down.
Just what is it about Southern Republicans that has frightened Yankees and Californians so much that they now vote for hardcore leftist Democrats? Should we all be like Arlen Specter and Governor Arnold and support abortion, the gay agenda, race quotas, open borders, and socialized medicine? Is that the type of "conservatism" you champion in order to win in New Jersey and Oregon?
It has the power delegated to it by the Constitution, not the states, per the 10th Amendment.
Keeping this in mind, the answer to your question is simple: the mere fact that the states chose not to delegate expulsion authority to the federal government (and could certainly act to expel a state without its consent) does not effect the State's authority (not delegated to the federal government) to leave the Union.
But the Constitution does delegate the sole power to create states to Congress. By implication doesn't that mean Congress can also uncreate states?
And if you look at Article VII, then it appears that the states can. According to Article VII, ratification by 9 states was sufficient for adoption of the Constitution. So nine states could force the issue on the other four - ratify with us or take a hike. And if any of those states refused to ratify then they were out of the Union and out of the country. In effect expelled. So by rights it appears that states could be kicked out unilaterally. Right?
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.