Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

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 ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; southern
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 541-547 next last
To: Who is John Galt?

No government in American history has been more enthusiastic gun grabbers than the Confederates during the Civil War.


381 posted on 04/13/2011 4:45:20 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Are you granting the Confederate government’s sovereignty in that well-researched historical comparison of yours, or were they just being rebellious Americans?

If they were merely rebels as Lincoln told us they were, then those would in fact be U.S. gun laws you’re talking about. If they’re autonomous enough for comparison, then they’re not part of “American” (U.S.) history, they’d have one of there own. Unless by “American” you meant the Americas, but then your comparison fails with too many Central and South American countries to name.

Please tell more.


382 posted on 04/13/2011 4:56:59 PM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; phi11yguy19; x; rockrr; southernsunshine; wardaddy
but it was the Confederacy who admitted that their regime was founded upon a cornerstone of slavery.

It was the Radical Republicans, much like the liberal democrats today, who used Southern blacks as a "voting base" and taught these modern day liberals everything they know: race baiting, big governmental politics, class warfare, etc.

When victory was clear, the North "used" Southern blacks most likely because they believe them to be inferior. You know that whole line of thought, "let's give them something, because we need 'em!" By the way, where is my mule!!

383 posted on 04/13/2011 5:02:32 PM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: x
That rejection wouldn't mean that "taxation without representation" wasn't the main issue and the cause of the war. It was just that too much had happened. It wasn't enough anymore for Britain to back down. The Colonists wanted out of the empire completely.

Just as the Southern states wanted out of the empire completely. Empire.

...but the point isn't that hard to grasp.

You've done a great job making your point:)

You might say that rejection of the Corwin Amendment meant that Southerners who were active in politics thought something else more important than slavery. Someone else would respond that at the time they (wrongly) felt that slavery would be most secure outside the union rather than inside. It's possible that independence had become more important for secessionists than slavery at that particular moment, but what had motivated them up until that point? What was behind the movement? Slavery is a very good answer to those questions.

Slavery is a very good answer. But, it's incomplete. "Internal improvements" were a continual rub to those same Southerners and that brings us to the tariffs. When you include all of these things the picture becomes more complete. If slavery had been the sole motivation for the Southern states, they probably would have accepted the Corwin Amendment and moved on with their lives.

If you trust Northerners so little, and the secessionists of 1861 trusted them so little, maybe they didn't respond to the Corwin Amendment because they knew (or suspected) that Northerners weren't on the up-and-up, and wouldn't honor it.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it, but I believe you had it right earlier in your post - it was simply too little, too late.

384 posted on 04/13/2011 5:26:41 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
It was the Radical Republicans, much like the liberal democrats today, who used Southern blacks as a "voting base" and taught these modern day liberals everything they know: race baiting, big governmental politics, class warfare, etc.

You nailed it! Occupation troops or the Loyal Union League - take your pick. Both directed from the newly minted Fedzilla.

385 posted on 04/13/2011 5:30:13 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
It’s NS not a doubt in my mind.

No doubt in anyone else's mind either. Meet the new NS, same as the old NS. He's just a Tater now. LOL!

386 posted on 04/13/2011 5:33:17 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
Just as the Southern states wanted out of the empire completely.

....

If slavery had been the sole motivation for the Southern states, they probably would have accepted the Corwin Amendment and moved on with their lives.

Read the periodicals of the time, like DeBow's Review. Slaveowning elites were already focused on independence and expansion. When you can have your own empire, why be part of someone else's?

387 posted on 04/13/2011 5:34:41 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: x
Read the periodicals of the time, like DeBow's Review.

I have.

Slaveowning elites were already focused on independence and expansion. When you can have your own empire, why be part of someone else's?

Something wrong with expansion? Something wrong with not wanting someone else picking your pocket for "internal improvements"?

388 posted on 04/13/2011 5:41:32 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine; rockrr; Ditto
"Internal improvements" were a continual rub to those same Southerners and that brings us to the tariffs. When you include all of these things the picture becomes more complete.

"That d-----d John Brown is trying to arm and free the slaves!"

"Is that all? I was worried he might be trying to build us a canal!"

"Heavens! At least it hasn't come to that yet!"

389 posted on 04/13/2011 5:42:30 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: x

Oop’s! Your second sentence should have been italicized in my post.


390 posted on 04/13/2011 5:43:26 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: x

As long as they don’t try to push light rail down our throats...;-)


391 posted on 04/13/2011 5:45:28 PM PDT by rockrr ("Remember PATCO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19; Colonel Kangaroo
If they were merely rebels as Lincoln told us they were, then those would in fact be U.S. gun laws you’re talking about.

Please tell more

Let's show Kangaroo the bigger picture. After those seceding States, or as Lincoln would say "States in rebellion," were occupied by federal forces there were no Constitutional guarantees. Ex: voting for the pale faces, firearm ownership, private property rights, free speech, etc.

Just like the good liberals they were, and are today, everything must be sacrificed for social justice, or progress; as I had previously stated, "their voting base." They used one race of people in an attept to smoke screen their lust, while murdering the other, go figure.

Maybe Colonel would explain what happened to the plains Indian. Were they non conformist? Just like the Southern States, the American Indian fell victim to an out of control, agreement altering, pillaging, federal government!

392 posted on 04/13/2011 6:00:48 PM PDT by Idabilly ("I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

“”Lincoln’s war implied, and the Gettysburg Address set to words, a firm message to the States of the Union - “I love you all, and if you leave me, I’ll hunt you down and kill you.” The Address was not the sagely comments of a wise statesman, rather the vain, obsessive rantings of a power-hungry demon engaging in a blood-thirsty mission of self-aggrandizement, no matter the volume of corpses required to attain it.” “

That is basically what Lincoln was saying its too bad the man was allowed to be president instead of being more properly institutionalized.

Honestly I think Lincoln was a power hungry demon who couldn’t deal with the fact that someone would reject his leadership. He took the southern secession personal and for that he instigated a war of imperial domination that coated more then 600 thousand lives.

The South might have told Lincoln(if he would meet with em) that its nothing personal but given the history of this federation it is rather self-evident that its time for us to leave.


393 posted on 04/13/2011 9:22:34 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

It’s true in his heart Lincoln was a big goverment interventionist Marxist, Nothing compared to today’s standards but in his day he must have been rather scary.

If i could go back in time and kill one person before he did what made him famous it would Not be Adolf Hitler or Stalin, or even King George the 3rd. It would be Abraham Lincoln.

The United States Federal Government needs to learn the lesson that individual(minority) state with draw teaches a federation in practice. That is a lesion that states in practical terms what our founding documents stated in rhetorical terms. That Union exist to equally protect the rights of ALL their members not just the majority.

That they don’t exist to simply accomplish any end, but only them ends which can be consented to(passively) by all, and settled upon by the majority.

We know this type of union can work cause this is precisely the same union we uses every day in a business relationship, and this is the union most States thought existed prior to the War Between the States.

Power hungry Statist like Lincoln may not like this kind of union,(as it stands in the way of their “progressive” goals to change society) but it exist to let men decide their own destiny rather then having monsters like Lincoln impose it upon them from afar.


394 posted on 04/13/2011 9:33:46 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe; All

Why don’t you just cop to your unrequited man-crush on NS and leave it at that?


395 posted on 04/14/2011 7:28:39 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

You mean YOUR man-crush, but seriously do you think NS is a man? Come on, the way NS wrote sounded pretty feminine to me, but a blank shooter, who knows?


396 posted on 04/14/2011 7:35:00 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( 1400 years of existence & Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater; onyx

How would you know? He or she was banned before you were even a member.

You just posted a selection of his past quotes. I assume you have more safely stored away somewhere?
___________________

Keep taking the bait like a good little fish. I posted them AFTER you said you liked his(your) posts. Tick tock, you know your days are numbered, but I’m sure you have lots of other names ready to take it’s place.


397 posted on 04/14/2011 8:36:40 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( 1400 years of existence & Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

ES


398 posted on 04/14/2011 8:37:24 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( 1400 years of existence & Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
English Second language? ;-)
399 posted on 04/14/2011 9:25:04 AM PDT by rockrr ("Remember PATCO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19
As it wasn't a power the States delegated to the common federal government, with whom else would that reside? Or are we mixing legal vs "moral" questions again?

But Article IV of the Constitiution protects a citizen moving from one state to another, giving "full faith and credit" to the act of that other state and giving the "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." So could someone buy a slave in Virginia, take him to Boston, and keep him there as a slave indefinitely?

And therein lies the fallacy. Their right to govern could not infringe upon the rights of the States or citizens within them. Since the territories were "commonly" owned by the states, the common government could not pass a law that allowed Massachusetts men to legally reside within them while excluding (slaveholding) men from Virgina.

So your theory is that whatever a single state allows, the federal government must allow in the territories?

And I don't believe that there was ever a law that said that slaveowners weren't allowed to settle in the western territories. They simply couldn't take their slave property there and continue to own and work them. To repeat an analogy I used on a thread a couple of months ago, cars are banned on Mackinac Island in Lake Huron, but you couldn't rationally say that car owners are forbidden to come there. They simply have to leave their automotive property in the ferry parking lot.

No, and yes. I did not read your link. But among other books I own and have read, Bailyn's complete 2-volume Debate on the Constitution likely includes everything on that site. What would you like to discuss?

Your interpretation of the second part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. What you said was that "The clause protected against the practice of slaves being “freed” (or “stolen” depending if you’re talking ideology or law) once they crossed State lines into non-slave states or Federal territories." Reading the discussion that occurred on August 30, 1787, shows that there's absolutely nothing that supports this claim. But since you apparently believe that Scott v. Sanford was a correct decision, here's what Taney had to say there about that clause:

No one, it is believed, would think a moment of deriving the power of Congress to make needful rules and regulations in relation to property of this kind from this clause of the Constitution. Nor can it, upon any fair construction, be applied to any property but that which the new Government was about the receive from the confederated States. And if this be true as to this property, it must be equally true and limited as to the territory, which is so carefully and precisely coupled with it-and like it referred to as property in the power granted. The concluding words of the clause appear to render this construction irresistible; for, after the provisions we have mentioned, it proceeds to say, 'that nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.'
Did you get that? It's not talking about the "the practice of slaves being “freed” (or “stolen” depending if you’re talking ideology or law) once they crossed State lines into non-slave states or Federal territories." It's talking about the "property ...which the new Government was about the receive from the confederated States."

As non-citizens, they held no federal status, so their protection was a State issue. And States had plenty of laws on their books to exact justice for crimes against blacks, and some of the strictest were in the South.

Protection as a class of property, not as persons with rights. But what about in the territories? Did blacks in the territories have federal protection if they held no federal status?

please explain what that would have to do with the overall discussion that Lincoln unconstitutionally usurped his powers and unilaterally waged war on law abiding citizens.

I don't think that Lincoln did act unconstitutionally. I think he acted within the strictures of the Militia Act, and I agree with William Rehnquist that the question of who can suspend Habeas Corpus has never been determined, and I find it ironic that you claim that southern secessionists were "law-abiding citizens." Demanding the protection of US laws while simultaneously proclaiming that you are no longer subject to US laws is, to say the least, ironic. I like to call it the "Have your cake and secede from it, too" theory of secessionist theory.

Personally, though, I'd to further discuss your rather unique theory that slaves were decreasing in value after the invention of the cotton gin and your explanation why, then, their price continued to rise right up until 1860.

400 posted on 04/14/2011 11:51:34 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 541-547 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson