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 ...
I can’t believe you just wrote that. Most of your posts are pretty good but that could have been lifted in entirety from DU.
It sucks when SCOTUS rules counter to our wishes or desires, but only leftists and anarchists ignore it except when convenient.
I bet you feel real warm, fuzzy and safe behind that lil computer monitor...don’tcha?
Simple fact you can't refute: Before Lincoln, Constitutional Republic. After Lincoln, federal government without check, limitation, or control.
Another fact: He closed down the southern plantation and freed the African slaves, opened the federal plantation and made us all slaves.
Hogwash. You may want to get with philly to obtain a few pointers on hyperbole...;-)
The U.S. Constitution didn't have that...they gave it 20 years before congress could CONSIDER regulating the slave trade, but left it up to the whim of the day to decide.
I'm guessing that your pal Durand didn't go much into the reasons that the US Constitution gave the slave trade 20 years, did he? From the ratification debate in North Carolina:
26 July 1788There's plenty more information about this if you look for it, but the short version is that South Carolina and Georgia refused to consider any constitution that didn't give them 20 more years to bring in slaves and the rest of the states caved.
Elliot 4:100--102
Mr. J. M'Dowall wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on.
Mr. M'Dowall replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon it as a very objectionable part of the system.
Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give me the greatest pleasure; for it certainly is a trade utterly inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately; but the states of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it.
ok, in smaller words this time:
supreme court ruling based on the written law of the land = good
supreme court ruling based on human bias, “international law”, or anything that’s not codified in the constitution or statues = bad (aka judicial activism)
in your case you would hold no objection the NJ judge who recently ruled in favor of a man by citing sharia law, or maybe the new UN resolution being pushed by Bolivia to give “mother earth” equal rights to man (which would then of course open up the slavery issue all over again to anyone who “owns” land). judges are all infallible like popes and we must submit to their every ruling, correct? the revolutionary war respected every ruling in the british courts, correct?
See #244 lol...
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war.
It figures that the Lost Causers and Karl Marx see eye to eye.
Frankly I’d be embarrassed to lean on the commies for support, but different strokes I suppose...;-)
Simple fact you can’t refute: Before Lincoln, 600,00 breathing humans. After Lincoln, no 600,000 breathing humans. Care to come up with that nickname?
He continued to offer the south an agreement well into 1862...and they had every reason to take him on his word. I’ll concede that point (/sarc)
But now I get it. When you said slavery was “the issue” I missed it, but when you repeated that it was “THE issue”...well, duh on me. Caps make all the difference and there’s simply nothing anyone ever said or did in the last 150+ years to refute “THE”.
If you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go throw out these here books of mine because they’re either broke or I just don’t know how to use them. Maybe we can play some XBox later when you get out of class.
Now, do you have anything else to say regarding Corwin vs. Crittenden? Your main argument appears to be that Crirttenden was six proposed amendments and Corwin was one.
well i guess there’s the difference between you and me. I don’t let emotions get in the way of facts.
the fact those men represent the antithesis to our structure of government doesn’t mean they were stupid. even broken clocks get the time right twice a day...so i suppose it goes for marx and engels on politics.
I guess not with all you damn yankees infesting the south now. You trash your own beds and then come down here to get away from it. I75 still heads north...take it..
Except now many many decendents of the North’s winners now live in the south because they crapped in their own beds and now need somewhere clean and free to live.
Yes, one 1000+ pg book you yourself have not read. I pointed to Durand’s because it was one of the most well-referenced and thorough books I read, plus it’s ONLINE so you don’t have waste any precious allowance money on it.
You on the other hand haven’t exactly judged the book by its cover (since you’ve never even seen it), but instead bash it because you know before you waste your time reading it that it couldn’t be anything short of rubbish.
Please accept my apology for offering a suggestion to the FR community that appears to have somehow offended you personally.
It is sad that so many who would call themselves "conservative" on this site actively defend treason.
That has got to be on of the stupidest attempts to rewrite history ever attempted. Tell me, who fired the first shot?
They didn't have a choice. There was a draft.
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.