Posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
the war for freedom was ONLY about LIBERTY from the hate-filled,arrogant,SELF-righteous, intrusive, DAMNyankee-controlled, federal government.
free dixie,sw
I doubt that there were very many million-year-old people resident at the time. Those that were, however, joined voluntarily, or are you saying it was involuntary?
Why stop there? What about the people of a county? Or a township? Does every level of political organization have an inherent right of association and right to form a government or declare its independence of a larger entity? Or does this right only exist at the state level?
Joining the union involved accepting the Constitution, which says that a state may not be created from another state. So this implies that a state would need to seceed as a unit, then disolve if the people wished - including forming a seperate unit that could then rejoin the union. This, in fact, occured when West Virginia became a state after Virginia seceeded.
Legal actions of a legal government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it deny the states the power to seceed.
otoh, he is the ONLY one of the DY coven who has BOTH a brain & an education.
free dixie,sw
Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a state to seceed unilaterally, either. As the Supreme Court ruled.
Joined exactly what? Are you arguing that as soon as the first man wandered into Missouri, it became a political entity that persists to this day? What were the borders of this area?
But even he can't find a copy of "Yachts Against Subs"
Really? So, if say, Illinois wanted to become ten states, they could unilaterally secede from the union, reorganize themselve into ten new districts calling themselves states, then rejoin the Union again?
Dang, I've been away for awhile, but I see things haven't changed much...woo hoo! Let the fun begin!
I doubt it.
You've been around here long enough to have memorized every argument, pro and con.
However, if we must:
"Secession was based on the idea of state rights (or "states rights," a variant that came into use after the Civil War). This exalted the powers of the individual states as opposed to those of the Federal government. It generally rested on the theory of state sovereignty-- that in the United States the ultimate source of political authority lay in the separate states. Associated with the principle of state rights was a sense of state loyalty that could prevail over a feeling of national patriotism. Before the war, the principle found expression in different ways at different times, in the North as well as in the South. During the war it reappeared in the Confederacy."
Continued on: States Rights
face it, "kidster", you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".
no matter what SELF-righteous, self-serving bilge you've been exposed to in "duh gubmint publick screwls" the WBTS was NEVER about slavery, except in the minds of the 5-6% of persons (north AND south) who owned slaves.
frankly, hardly anyone (north and/or south) CARED about slavery except the slave-owners & a handful of abolitionists. you couldn't have found 10,000 NON-slaveowning citizens, who would have fought a war in 1861 to either free the slaves OR keep them in slavery. (they SHOULD have cared about "the plight of the slaves", but the TRUTH is that FEW people cared.)
for the rest of the country, the war was ONLY about LIBERTY for dixie OR (for the unionists up north) "to preserve the union".
a MILLION dead Americans seems a REALLY high price to pay to "preserve the union" of the UNWILLING. had lincoln, the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL, chosen PEACE,rather than war, there would have been NO war & thus no MILLION dead Americans !
those are the FACTS.
free dixie,sw
his eyes & mind appears to be TIGHTLY closed.
free dixie,sw
I have indeed. And I'm constantly amazed at the lengths the southron side will go through, and the hoops that they are willing to jump through, and the myths that they are willing to propogate, all to avoid admitting that by far the single, most important reason for the southern rebellion was defense of the institution of slavery.
Slavery was the occasion. Not the cause. Does that make sense to you?
Do you honestly think that if it was merely about slavery, that 300,000 men, most of which never owned a slave, would have died for keeping slavery and that 300,000 other men, who didn't really give a damn about slaves one way or the other, would have died to take them away?
In addition, if this war was fought strictly about slavery, why did Lincoln wait until two years after the war started to make slavery the central issue?
In the sense that it was over states rights but slavery was the catalyst? Something like that? But semantics aside it would still mean no slavery, no rebellion.
Do you honestly think that if it was merely about slavery, that 300,000 men, most of which never owned a slave, would have died for keeping slavery and that 300,000 other men, who didn't really give a damn about slaves one way or the other, would have died to take them away?
Too simplistic. The Southern men fought for what they saw as their country. Their country rebelled to protect their institution of slavery.
Slavery was far more important to Southern society than simple statistics indicate. You may say that only 8% or so of all southerners owned slaves. That is misleading in that those slaveholders had wives and children, and that family benefited directly from slavery. In some states like Mississippi almost half of all families owned slaves. A large proportion of families who did not no doubt derived economic benefits from those that did. So yes, I find it easy to understand why the Southern leadership saw it as worth fighting for, and why Southern soldiers didn't have a problem with that reasoning.
The Union soldiers, of course, fought to preserve the Union and not to end or promote slavery.
In addition, if this war was fought strictly about slavery, why did Lincoln wait until two years after the war started to make slavery the central issue?
Because slavery was the Southern motivator. For Lincoln and the North is was about preserving the Union in the face of armed Southern rebellion.
You still gloss over it and speak glibbly. I won't change you mind and you won't change mine. I'm sorry for any offense and false inferences about your feelings and beliefs about different races. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that on friendly terms.
we southrons have heard all the SELF-serving LIES & KNOWINGLLY false myths out of the DAMNyankee, REVISIONIST, spin machine.
to the LEFTISTS, the WBTS was "a crusade to free the slaves", though FEW of them, today, are actually DUMB enough to believe that LIE. the LIE "sounds better" than "we made war on the CSA, ONLY for $$$$$$$ & increased POWER".
to the southrons the war was ONLY about FREEDOM from a government that southerners, by 1861, believed was NOT acting in their interests & would become ever more despotic.
free dixie,sw
we southrons have heard all the SELF-serving LIES & KNOWINGLY false myths out of the DAMNyankee, REVISIONIST, spin machine.
to the LEFTISTS, the WBTS was "a crusade to free the slaves", though FEW of them, today, are actually DUMB enough to believe that LIE. the LIE "sounds better" than "we made war on the CSA, ONLY for $$$$$$$ & increased POWER".
to the southrons the war was ONLY about FREEDOM from a government that southerners, by 1861, believed was NOT acting in their interests & would become ever more despotic.
free dixie,sw
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.