Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)
This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Likely not the way you would prefer...
Did you get that from Durand, too? I direct your attention to the Confederate Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 3, Clause 3:
3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.Just repeating an inaccuracy doesn't make it accurate.
Indeed.
You always were a class act....
ROTFLMAO!!! I suggest you and Durand take a long look in the mirror before accusing others of that.
...you can’t genuinely weigh the half-million deaths against the abolition of slavery since that was never the motivation.
How would you weigh those half-million deaths against Jefferson Davis' motivation for starting the war in the first place?
Bring the good old bugle, boys, we’ll sing another song;
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along,
Sing it as we used to sing it, fifty thousand strong,
While we were marching through Georgia.
(Chorus)
Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
There were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching through Georgia.
(Chorus)
Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
So we made a thoroughfare for Freedom and her train,
Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain,
While we were marching through Georgia.
(Chorus)
Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
I wonder how long he had to stand in line?
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.So what was incorrect about that statement? Was slavery not protected by the Constitution? Did the federal government have the power, short of an amendment, to interfere with it within the states? How did Lincoln's position on the matter of federal interference in slavery within the states differ from that of the slave states?
Finally, why did Lincoln support the Corwin Amendment, but refuse to support the Crittenden Compromise? What was the difference between them?
He found that line shorter than the one for davis.
“And it is the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION, if you please.”
I usually refer to it as the War between the Americans and Yankees.
CHORUS: Wait for the wagon! The dissolution wagon! The South is the wagon, and we'll all take a ride.
Secession is our watchword, our rights we all demand; To defend our homes and firesides, we pledge our hearts and hands; Jeff Davis is our president, with Stephens by his side; Brave Beauregard, our General, will join us in the ride.--CHORUS
Our wagon is the very best, the running gear is good; Stuffed 'round the sides with cotton, and made of Southern wood. Carolina is the driver, with Georgia by her side, Virginia holds the flag up, and we'll all take a ride.--CHORUS
There are Tennessee and Texas also in the ring; They wouldn't have a government where cotton wasn't king. Alabama and Florida have long ago replied; Mississippi and Louisiana are anxious for the ride.--CHORUS
Old Lincoln and his Congressmen with Seward by his side, Put old Scott in the wagon just for to take a ride. McDowell was the driver, to cross Bull Run he tried, But there he left the wagon for Beauregard to ride.--CHORUS
Manassas was the battleground. the field was fair and wide; They Yankees thought they'd whip us out, and on to Richmond ride; But when they met our "Dixie" boys, their danger they espied; They wheeled about for Washington, and didn't wait to ride.--CHORUS
The Tennessee boys are in the field, eager for the fray; They can whip the Yankee boys three to one, they say; And when they get in conflict with Davis by their side, They'll pitch into the Yankee boys and then you'll see them slide.--CHORUS
Our cause is just and holy, our men are brave and true; We'll whip the Lincoln cutthroats is all we have to do. God bless our noble army; in Him we all confide; So jump into the wagon and we'll all take a ride.--CHORUS
referring to Beck’s line often aped here about Dems always bad but you’re right
there are better analogies
I never said it was incorrect. On the contrary, by acknowledging that he had “no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” when the president plays no role in the amendment process, was simply Lincoln offering his support (aka “no objection”) to it. Within weeks he flipped that on its head and “interfered” with 75,000 troops. How many on here still support the myth that he was the “great emancipator” is truly frightening.
Obviously comparing Corwin and Crittenden is fallacious. Corwin was a single amendment saying Congress shall never infringe on the laws as they were where they were. Crittenden was SIX amendments, including one proposing the EXPANSION of slavery which is a different issue. The free-soil states were a political minefield, and the North wanted a monopoly to ban slavery so they could expand their way to enough of a majority to pass an amendment - Southern republics be ignored.
Of course a simple glance would see the major differences between them, their scope, why both houses rejected one and approved the latter.
“Northern states had slavery alive and well right past the war (remember, Emancipation didn’t free a single Northern slave)”
Yep, the so called “border states”—Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland... The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states in “rebellion”.
My favorite Lincoln trivia so far...the fact Lincoln illegally imprisoned Francis Scott Key’s grandson in the same fort that inspired the Star-Spangled Banner!
Of one Francis Key Howard, editor for the Baltimore Exchange in 1861:
“The basis for his arrest was for writing a critical editorial in his newspaper of Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and the fact that the Lincoln administration had declared martial law in Baltimore and imprisoned without due process, George William Brown the mayor of Baltimore, Congressman Henry May, the police commissioners of Baltimore and the entire city council.”
Upon leaving the famous Fort McHenry, Howard said:
“When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day forty-seven years before my grandfather, Mr. F.S. Key, then prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry. When on the following morning the hostile fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star-Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed.”
Wouldn’t history be fun in school if they taught more things like that?!!
No doubt completely against the will and the desires of the Southern people, as you have been trying to convince us.
The U.S. Constitution never outlawed expansion of slavery. The CSA one did. Just repeating an inaccuracy doesn't make it accurate.
No, it doesn't. Can you point me to the clause of the Confederate Constitution that you believe outlawed the expansion of slavery in the CSA?
Already have (ie VA protesting since the early 1700s...actually they were the first State in the WORLD to protest the institution when it was at it's peak, but you knew that).
Virginia wasn't protesting slavery, it was protesting slave imports. And I know what you claim, but one has to question your conclusion that alturism was the motivating factor. To begin with, Virginia was far from the first state to try and discourage slave imports. States like New York and Pennsylvania taxed the crap out of slave imports prior to the revolution. Virginia did ask the king to end slave imports, while at the same time doing nothing to hinder slave ownership or encourage manumission of slaves. On the contrary, until the late 1770's the Virginia legislature had to approve the manumission of a slave and in 1806 Virginia passed a law saying that any slave freed had 12 months in which to leave the state or else be sold back into slavery. So if it wasn't opposition to slavery as a whole which motivated Virginia's actions then what was it? In his book "A Slaveholders Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic" George van Cleve notes that support for the legislation came primarily from large slave-owners on the eastern shore. Their motivation was pure capitalism; with demand for slaves remaining constant then any reduction in supply would cause a corresponding in crease in price for the available slaves. So perhaps you and Durand are seeing compassion for slaves where none is due. Certainly the complete lack of any other legislation in Virginia limiting or hindering the ownership of slaves tends to discount any idea that there was widespread opposition to the institution itself.
As for the "moving around" theory you present for the CSA, the Dred Scott decision sorta nullifies that whole argument, no? Nice try though.
No it does not. Dred Scott removed barriers to the expansion of slavery, but the Lincoln administration was opposed to that and would have taken legislative and legal steps to overturn the flawed Scot decision. It was that fear that motivated the Southern secession.
Also, please add "hyperbole" to the list of words you don't understand how to use.
Examples of hyperbole are present in almost every one of your posts.
You tell me. What did Maryland refer to themselves as during that period?
So when Lincoln said "NO ONE of them ever having been a State out of the Union" was he correct "strictly speaking" or not?
He was correct. Vermont was no more a state prior to joining than Texas or California had been. Their status as a state within the Union dated when they were either admitted to the Union under the Constitution or, in the case of the first 13, when they recognized themselves as such in the Articles of Confederation.
Did VT reserve the right to secede but no other? Or MD? Or did the fact that many of the states explicitly reserved the right in their State Constitutions become null and void 80 years later because some autocrat said so?
No state, regadless of their status prior to joining the Union, has the right to leave without the consent of the other states. The Supreme Court ruled that in 1869.
Sure, we can leave MD and TX and VT and RI and any other States and inconvenient facts aside as you wish until you can "validate" your point. I stand corrected once again.
No inconvenient facts need be left aside. Just your odd interpretations.
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.