Posted on 05/10/2010 3:17:06 PM PDT by Davy Buck
"If Lee was a traitor (and I don't believe he was), he would be the only traitor for which a ship in the United States Navy was ever named. He would be the only traitor in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol. He would be the only traitor whose image was used in a positive way to recruit military personnel to fight and win WWII. Quite an accomplishment for a "traitor", wouldn't you say. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
-----------------------------------------------------
Let the conspiracy begin! ( sarcasm )
Weren't we in WW2 before we were in it? Never mind. Regardless of your allegiance to Saint Abraham, the two of you seem to forget the meaning of SOVIERGNTY. The whole basis of your augments are without merit.
As Lysander said so elegantly:
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot.
Nice. The truth escapes them.
“Did Virginia and the other states of the Confederacy have a right to secede”
Lincoln argued that they did.
This is so funny. Any discussion with Nonsensical ultimately ends up with him being unable to defend a person’s observation about his point of view, so he declares THEM “simple minded.”
Pretty pathetic when someone spends every waking hour arguing with people he believes to be simpletons.
Pathetic...and funny as hell.
I would call a Kongressman that recieves a badge of "courage" and funding from Code Pink.......a traitor. Especially when these "rewards" were due to his stance against the war and the troops.
Simply calling Murtha a crook is an insult crooks.
There is no way that the federal judiciary was going to declare that secession was legal and the North’s side in the Civil War wrong.
You ignore my main point: secession was folly as the South was all but certain to lose and to suffer grievously.
And yet Lincoln sent armies in motion against secession and brought the North to victory. That matters far more than what Lincoln said in favor of a right of secession.
He’s talking about West Virginia....
The issue of slavery had never been under the perview of the Fed. Their overreach was in trying to regulate a practice that had previously been dealt with by the states.
Morally, slavery was/is wrong (obviously). The Southern states took the Fed’s entrance into the issue as a grave threat to their way of life.
Public Education has brainwashed us into believing that Honest Abe and the states from the North were so morally opposed to slavery that they united to end it against the evil southerners. Not so.
It was all very political, and the North hardly had the moral high ground. Most southerners did not own slaves. It was an institution that had become concentrated by the largest plantation owners. In fact, there was quite a bit of southern oppositon to slavery.
This can be said for certain: it was the ugliest time in American history.
You seem to be forgetting the words of the Virginia secession declaration, assuming you even read it in the first place. "This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted." So they went and were admitted to the confederacy before they had legally left the Union. An interesting legal dilemma. But perhaps not, given the confederacy's lack of interest in the rule of law.
Like his hero's John F'n Kerry and Obama, ns's views are too 'nuanced' for the unwashed masses.
Pretty pathetic when someone spends every waking hour arguing with people he believes to be simpletons.
He especially doesn't like it when his pro-abortion stance is mentioned.
It's my opinion that a pro-abortionist is a traitor to the conservative movement.
On the other hand, I've never heard ns unequivocally proclaim that he is a conservative.
Pathetic...and funny as hell.
Pathetic, funny and sad as hell.
“And yet Lincoln sent armies in motion against secession and brought the North to victory. That matters far more than what Lincoln said in favor of a right of secession.”
And you believe that is his statement about secession? You might want to look at the financial side of the situation, namely railroads and his ties to them and how the South figured into it all. Lincoln was one corrupt lawyer.
I agree. But calling a man a traitor for exercising his First Amendment rights is merely exercising your First Amendment right.
For instance, I want Obama to fail. Does that make me a traitor? I'm sure that in the eyes of the left that I should be tried, convicted and shot as a traitor for wanting Obama to fail.
What do you think?
And slaveholders dominated the secession movement and the Confederacy. They dragged the South into a devastating and losing war in the hope of continuing to own people as their property. So who is the worse: Mr. Lincoln, the railroad lawyer become President, or slaveholders who resorted to the lash, chains, secession, and war to deny freedom to other human beings?
It is when dealing with the territories. Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Based on that clause alone, Congress should have the power to regulate slavery in the territories. And there is no doubt that there would have been challenges to the Dred Scott decision that stripped them of that authority.
Morally, slavery was/is wrong (obviously).
Easy to say now. But few in the South would have agreed with you in 1861.
The Southern states took the Fed’s entrance into the issue as a grave threat to their way of life.
But the fed wasn't interfering with their way of life. The Republicans wanted to limit slavery to where it currently existed, and give states free reign to support it or end it on their own as their people wished.
Most southerners did not own slaves. It was an institution that had become concentrated by the largest plantation owners.
On the contrary, slave ownership was very much a middle-class institution with the average slave owner having around 5.
In fact, there was quite a bit of southern oppositon to slavery.
Sorry, I'm not aware of any.
Your summary is useful but I would add that the North’s tone in the acceptance of the surrender at Appomattox was set by Grant. Soldiers showing respect for soldierly conduct. The terms and sonditions set by Grant earned him criticism at the time but history has shown that it was a great act of character.
I guess they underestimated the fascist intent of LongColon and Yankee greed.
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.