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 ...
I wouldn’t bet on that. With the current administration, it could happen faster than you think......
Re your #618.
Great points!
I wish the US would kick out Texas. We would manage just fine.
That’s OK, they don’t like me here either.
Why "without the consent of the others"? If you can leave with the consent of the others what's wrong with that?
This idea of "states" having a single will is also questionable. Unilateral secession is an invitation to panic, force, and fraud. A more comprehensive process involving all concerned parties will achieve a fairer result, one that takes into account the interests of the different groups concerned.
If that's not good enough and the government is tyrannical, there is always the right of revolution. The problem with the 1860-1 example is that very many Southerners assumed that they were exercising their right of revolution against a tyrannical government, when the government wasn't tyrannical at all. Latter day defenders of the Confederacy assume a general agreement about the constitutionality of unilateral secession, but at the time some of the secessionists just wanted out, constitution or no constitution.
Also, even if you believe in some right to unilateral secession, it's not clear that valid procedures (and what would they be?) were followed in 1861. Georgia's referendum results have been debated. Arkansas was supposed to hold a referendum but didn't. Virginia's and North Carolina's conventions rejected secession before accepting it. It was a hurried and confused time, and if you were on the losing side you might wonder if your voice had been heard and your rights were going to be respected.
BTW, the sides in civil wars don't always follow what one would rationally expect in advance. What matters isn't just the political convictions one has in advance, but who burned your town or killed your relatives. Even in our own Civil War, people who thought secession unconstitutional ended up fighting for the Confederacy, while others who wanted to just let the slave states go, volunteered for the Union army. More than anything else it was the passions of the moment that mattered.
Booth fought off nothing, according to accounts of those there. He was shot early on and spent the next few hours dying a slow and agonizing death.
Found one quick contradiction of that statement.
In Article VI: the Supremacy Clause.
"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."
This conflicts with your statement:
In no way may does this delegated authority ever supersede or negate that of the delegating body !
So this is a case of the authority delegated to the United States by the Constitution superseding that of the states. Given the 10th Amendment, this can be read to state that, in matters where state laws conflict with federal law, the federal law is supreme.
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
Why are we talking about the Articles of Confederation?
All very high-sounding ... until you remember that the driving motive for Confederacy was the preservation of slavery. They said it themselves.
you beat me to it.
shame that many of those northerners who come down here have no clue about history , I just wished I had a penny for everytime I have heard these idiots say it was all over slavery and that is why the north went to war.
In Article VI: the Supremacy Clause.
“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 proverbial “trump-card” in the Constitution the so-called “Supremacy clause” The Constitution does not claim any legal binding effect whatsoever, on anyone but state judges; rather, such language merely implies recognition of the Constitution by officials as a mere mutual good-faith agreement.
The Constitution is a mere treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states – a treaty which state officials simply agree to “support,” as opposed to being bound to obey such as a law, under penalty of such
“If” you are correct then by your logic a violation of Said Constitution would place the whole thing void! Since it can’t be binding on one and not the other..Either way We win
are you actually irish or are you one of those who lives in a place like Boston, NY or Chicago and because you had a irish dog 200 years ago you are now thinking that you’re irish?
sigh
you are aware that Lincoln did say he had no intention to free any slaves and the only reason a year and a half he did what he did was because he used the situation politically against France and Britain
you need to do some history, he said in a speech that he had no interest in freeing the slaves and even if he did he believed he had no power to do so.
plus the biggest trade in those days up north was slave ship building.
Please Please do some history on this before you make assumptions based on nothing but your own beliefs and some would say ignorance, though I will not go that far.
I am suprised. You sound like a born & bred Jayhawker. :)
The solution for South Africa would be to divide the nation and give whites and blacks their own territory, possibly even multiple territories for the blacks since the various tribes hate one another. Multiculturalism never works. Again, when have I ever blamed Lincoln for anything, let alone all our ills? You can speculate on all day and “predict” that the South would have become a horrible imperialist place of unmitigated evil, but speculation is all it is. I merely asked you not to speculate, but to look at present day America, AS IT EXISTS, and imagine how elections would go if the South weren’t there. We know how they would go, don't we? We don't have to speculate based on some wartime action Lincoln took or some diatribe by a Radical Republican circa 1866. We KNOW how the non-South US votes. I'd just like to know if you'd like to live in such a nation or if you're happy that the South is here to hold socialism back a little. We do the best we can, but as the creeping blue continues to move into Virginia and elsewhere we may not be able to do it for long. For the record, I don't bemoan the fact that we're still part of the Union. I'm proud to be an American citizen. I just get tired of being bashed, on a conservative message board no less, for wanting to celebrate the ancestral heritage of possibly the last remaining bulwark against the United Socialist States of America.
“In Article VI: the Supremacy Clause.”
Both Madison and Jefferson, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, legitimized the concept of state sovereignty via the policy of nullification, an inherent right for states to declare federal acts invalid if unconstitutional.
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.”
“”I told him I had not come to fight; that I had fifty men, and could take him.
“Then he said, ‘Well, my brave boys, prepare me a stretcher, and place another stain on our glorious banner.’
Sounds like Booth was brave, since he didn’t surrender, regardless of how long he lasted.
Killing a Tyrant is brave.
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.