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 ...
“It wasn’t. It was to preserve the Union. As Lincoln pointed out on many occasions.”
Your saint Abraham image is nothing more than a Hitler love fest & Lincolnite Hypocrisy
On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler clearly expresses the Lincoln/Your view.”[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.
Hitler (p. 567) mocked what he called “so-called sovereign states” in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich with their “impotence” and “fragmentation.” Such impotence and fragmentation of government was purposely designed by some of the American founders precisely because they wanted to limit the powers of the central government.
Watkins didn't start the war, his rebel leadership did. They were motivated by what they saw as a need to defend their institution of slavery.
Watkins believed in the principle of states' rights."
State's right to do what?
Watkins' account of the travails of a Confederate foot soldier is vivid, memorable and unpretentious.
I know, I read it.
Ok, sure. Of course the States created the Constitution, but sure.
But the Constitution does delegate the sole power to create states to Congress. By implication doesn't that mean Congress can also uncreate states?
No. Congress is of limited powers, and if the power is not expressly granted by the Constitution, then Congress doesn't have that power.
And if you look at Article VII, then it appears that the states can.
Yes, as I mentioned on my last post, states can unilaterally expel other members. Congress, however, cannot.
To leave! It's not so much slavery or any other reason, southern people just don't like central authority telling them what to do. It's a trust thing. It's DNA. Virginians can sometimes be the most stubborn people I have ever come across.
They still are at that “chicken or egg” issue
Nowhere is the word 'expressly' used in either the 10th Amendment or the Constitution as a whole. It says powers not delegated by the Constitution or prohibited by it. Powers granted, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, can be identified by a common-sense reading of the whole. The Constitution expressly allows for funding an army and a navy. Does that mean that the air force is unconstitutional? No, becuse the Constitution also says that one goal is to provide for the common defense and implied in that is authorization for an air force if that is needed. The Constitution says that only Congress can admit a state, and once admitted Congressional approval is needed to split, combine, change borders, or any other change in status. Implied in that is Congressional approval being needed for the ultimate change in status, leaving altogether. And if not for that, then common sense says that if all states are parties to the compact then all states should have a say if the compact is to be broken.
Yes, as I mentioned on my last post, states can unilaterally expel other members. Congress, however, cannot.
How would you expect the states to act except through Congress?
Leave why?
It's not so much slavery or any other reason, southern people just don't like central authority telling them what to do. It's a trust thing. It's DNA. Virginians can sometimes be the most stubborn people I have ever come across.
Then why didn't they do it before? Why was the one deciding factor the election of a president opposed to the expansion of slavery?
Then how does a D like Sebilius (sp) get elected in a state like Kansas anyway? Have KC and Lawrence gotten to the point that they boss the rest of the state around or am I forgetting another mitigating factor here?
In a war the solders fight, the leaders hold the leash. The fight is in the dog, not in the dog's leash. The good leader controls the leash so that it neither adds or detracts from the dogs desire, but gets the fullest out of them. Sam was a good soldier until Atlanta, helplessly watching that pillaging thing took a lot of the fight out of him, so Sherman was right? Might makes right? Who knows?
And here we see that famous Southron act of desperation - when in doubt claim a link between Hitler and Lincoln. Next to the 'when in doubt claim that all opponents of the Southern rebellion are liberals' tactic, it's number one on your hit parade.
Under what body, other than the US Congress, would the other states use to expel another state?
As I read the Constitution (Art IV, Sec 3) both congress and the state(s) involved must both consent in either the formation new states, or changing the boundaries of existing states.
Ergo, neither unilateral expulsion nor unilateral secession is Constitutional. Both Congress and the state(s) in question must agree to either.
But what the heck. If you're taking the ultra-libertarian (or radical leftist) position, those pesky constitutional clauses can just be ignored.
Well she benefitted from running against a patsy in 2006 and from 8 years of Bill Graves in 2002. Her opponent then, Tim Shallenburger, was a weak candidate and she hid her extremist views during the campaign.
Please. The States have the power of the Constitutional Convention. Provided you get 3/4 to agree, the States can take whatever action they darn well please.
Under what body, other than the US Congress, would the other states use to expel another state?
So here is how it would work. Let's say that we're all tired of California's nonsense. So two-thirds of the states call for a convention to amend the Constitution to expel CA. An amendment is drafted that says "sorry, California," it's put to the vote of the states, and provided 3/4 agree, California is out. End of story, and Congress gets no say.
The Lincoln to Julius Caesar comparison is more on target. Hitler, naw.
It's the leaders who send the soldiers to war for their own reasons, regardless of what the soldier might think.
Sam was a good soldier until Atlanta, helplessly watching that pillaging thing took a lot of the fight out of him...
He fought on after Atlanta, to Franklin and beyond. So your claim that he had the fight taken out of him is a bit insulting to the man.
Most of the names you mention count more among the "frightened" than the frighteners.
Just what is it about Southern Republicans that has frightened Yankees and Californians so much that they now vote for hardcore leftist Democrats?
New York State went from 12 to 3 Republicans in Congress during the Bush years, and Republicans lost control of the State Senate for the first time in over 40 years. Republicans lost both House seats from New Hampshire in 2006. The losses had to do with disaffection with President Bush, who probably counted as a Southerner if only because of his accent.
It wasn't a matter of everyone going out and voting for Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or anyone like that. It was a smaller shift of a few percentage points that turned marginal districts from Republican to Democrat and elected Democrats who didn't speak as radically, but were willing to go along with their party leadership. And it made a big difference in how the country's run.
Look back to the 1970s and 1980s. Two large groups were leaving the Democratic Party: Southern White Evangelicals and Northern Catholics. They were both turned off by the left-liberalism of the Democratic Party. But the Southern Evangelicals managed to make the Republican Party their own, and the Northern Catholics didn't wholly make the jump. It was a cultural thing more than anything else.
In the Bush era, they felt the party just wasn't speaking to them any more. There were other factors involved as well, but more than anything else that accounts for the weakening of Republican strength in the Northeast and much of the Middle West. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the present state of things is or was written in stone.
You Lincolnian Totalitarians , then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution?
However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated, i.e.,
“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”
In no way may does this delegated authority ever supersede or negate that of the delegating body !
Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them
Considering he fought off a troop of Union Soldiers until he was killed, I would say he was no coward.
Who was telling you to worry :)?
You won’t be very welcome with your views I think.....
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.