Old Times Here Are Apparently Forgotten

Cornell American ^ | May 31st, 2006 | Vanessa Durante

[Non-Sequitur]

If you are free to ignore it, you are free.

I suppose one is free to ignore the Church of England in London or Judaism in Tel Aviv but that doesn't ignore the fact that they are government supported at the expense of other faiths.

[Non-Sequitur]

That is what I'm hearing you say.

Then you need to get your hearing checked.

[Non-Sequitur]

And if, God forbid, the supreme law of the land is amended, through legal channels, to replace the president, congress and judiciary with a dictator, should we, the huddled masses, quake in our boots and live under the yoke of tyranny?

And if a majority of the good people of Alabama decide that slavery wasn't such a bad idea after all and overwhelmingly pass a referendum legalizing it then should they be allowed to do so in the name of state's rights?

[cowboyway]

And if a majority of the good people of Alabama decide that slavery wasn't such a bad idea after all and overwhelmingly pass a referendum legalizing it then should they be allowed to do so in the name of state's rights?

Your argument is based on your emotional repugnance for slavery. The problem is, the argument is not valid in today's context because slavery is against the law of the land and, this is very important, the status of blacks has dramatically changed in the 150 years since the end of the war.

However, what if the animal rights activists were to gain power and try to make it illegal to own a horse and, just for arguments sake, let's say that all the horses in the US were owned by Southerners and that they are key to our robust economy.

Well, us Southerners are gonna say, "Shove it up your collective butts, damnyankees."

And guess what, pretty soon we're gonna be chucking bombs at each other. And do you think that people would say 150 years after that war that we were fighting over horses?

I seriously doubt it and I do not understand why you people can't emotionally detach yourselves just enough to comprehend this argument.

Not mentally flexible enough, I guess.

[4CJ]

Here is the decision from Texas v White The Chief Justice references the Preamble and, indirectly, Article IV.

Future Supreme Court Justice Nathan Clifford (from Maine) once wrote regarding a state that, 'one of the foregoing fundamental principles of the American system of government, which is, that government is instituted by the people, and for the benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. And that when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish the same.'

Undoubtedly the courts of the United States have certain powers under the Constitution and laws of the United States which do not belong to the State courts. But the power of determining that a State government has been lawfully established, which the courts of the State disown and repudiate, is not one of them. Upon such a question the courts of the United States are bound to follow the decisions of the State tribunals.
Chief Justice Taney, Luther v. Borden, 48 How. 1, 40 (1849)

It seems that the Supreme Court had already held 5-1 that the federal government did not have the authority to determine the validity of a state government, that was soley for a state to decide.

[Heyworth]

However, what if the animal rights activists were to gain power and try to make it illegal to own a horse and, just for arguments sake, let's say that all the horses in the US were owned by Southerners and that they are key to our robust economy.

Then you need to show that there was an effort by the Lincoln administration to make it illegal to own slaves in the south. Of course, since South Carolina seceded before Lincoln even took the oath of office, that's a hard case to make. It's also hard to make it you keep insisting that Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery.

Now, if your analogy said that the animal rights activists were trying to prevent the spread of horse ownership into new territories while admitting they had no power to stop it where it already existed, then you might be on the right track. Only your excuse to start shooting would look a whole lot flimsier.

[x]

Children in Northern schools are never made aware that there were no more abolitionists in the North than in the South.

Uh, because it's just not true? Circulating abolitionist tracts or having abolitionist meetings was illegal in some slave states. Obviously there were more abolitionists in states where such practices were allowed.

[TheKidster]

I know slavery wasn't the central issue of the war and I DO understand states' rights were of major importance but slavery was part of it. You can't change my mind about that. Being of mixed blood myself the whole slavery issue hits home because if the issue hadn't been resolved (no matter how insincerely) when it was it's very likely my dad would have been lynched for his part in my conception.
If the rebellion hadn't been put down I'm sure slavery would have continued for decades longer which would put the whole civil rights movement behind by many many years. It's only been 40 or 50 years since things finally started to even out. States did lose sovreignty as a result of the war but black people were put on the path to true freedom also. Not necessarily a fair trade but I'll take it!!

[vdd2]

The legality of holding abolitionist meetings in the North says nothing of the number of citizens in the North who held such views. Clearly you have heard the oversimplified myth of the Civil War being a simple fight between good and evil. It was not. Just look at Abraham Lincoln's views on the war--he clearly was interested in political aspects of the dispute, not moral issues. The war was fought primarily over representation in national politics, as well as economic concerns. Lincoln himself said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that [emphasis mine]. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388. It's important that people understand the numerous and complex causes of the Civil War, rather than believing the North had some moral calling to free oppressed people. Obviously the North did this as well, but it cannot be argued that it was their primary concern.

[Heyworth]

The legality of holding abolitionist meetings in the North says nothing of the number of citizens in the North who held such views.

The American Anti-Slavery Society had 250,000 members.

Just look at Abraham Lincoln's views on the war--he clearly was interested in political aspects of the dispute, not moral issues

But it is beyond dispute that Lincoln thought slavery wrong. The Cooper Union speech makes that abundantly clear. But he had no intention of outlawing it where it existed, only in preventing it from being spread into the west. That's also consistently expressed in his speeches and writings. Secession, though, was a whole different ball of wax and preserving the Union became his primary goal. There's nothing inconsistent about it.

[ModerateGOOPer]

Throughout most of my adult life, and again here when I joined FR, I argued against those who glorified the Confederacy and mourned it's demise even a century and a half later. Then I came to an important conclusion:

They hate the United States of America.

They believe that the United States of America was evil in 1861, and things have only gotten worse since then, rather than believing that the United States has emerged in those same years as the greatest champion of freedom the world has ever known.

[Non-Sequitur]

Your argument is based on your emotional repugnance for slavery. The problem is, the argument is not valid in today's context because slavery is against the law of the land and, this is very important, the status of blacks has dramatically changed in the 150 years since the end of the war.

My scenario is a whole lot more likely than your amending the Constitution to establish a dictatorship.

[Non-Sequitur]

And what does that have to do with Texas v White and the legitmacy of the southern rebellion?

[Non-Sequitur]

It seems that the Supreme Court had already held 5-1 that the federal government did not have the authority to determine the validity of a state government, that was soley for a state to decide.

"The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government...Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not...And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." -- Luther v Borden (48 US (7 How))

Taney didn't say that the federal government didn't have the authority to decide the validity of the state's government just the courts.

[stainlessbanner]

It's thatdewd again! Ain't seen you around in a while - good to have you back. The big government pseudo-conservatives are still at it - some things never change.

[stainlessbanner]

Bunch of lightweights showing their ignorance of history and anti-conservative bias. These players make Wlat look like a scholar. They just show up and whine about "racism" and "white supremacy" - taking notes from the libs, I think.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bunch of lightweights showing their ignorance of history and anti-conservative bias.

And when you have nothing else to support your position is, try and wrap it in the mantle of conservatism and accuse your opponents of being liberals. The southron equivilent of "Yeah, well your momma's ugly!"

There was absolutely nothing conservative about the confederate cause. Davis ran a big government, constitution trashing, oppressive regime. Far worse in it's own way than anything you accuse the Lincoln administration of being.

[cowboyway]

Now, if your analogy said that the animal rights activists were trying to prevent the spread of horse ownership into new territories while admitting they had no power to stop it where it already existed, then you might be on the right track.

I think that it's you that is finally on the right track. If it makes it easier for you, use the exact events that took place from 1830 to 1865 and replace 'slave' with 'horse' wherever it occurs and then ask yourself, "Was the war about freeing the horses or was it about state(s) rights?"

Only your excuse to start shooting would look a whole lot flimsier.

Not if the entire economy is based on a single form of motive force.

Would not the United States go to war today if a foreign country threatened to cut off our supply of oil?

And what if the reason this foreign country gave of cutting off the oil supply was that they didn't want us exporting Americanism/Capitalism to other parts of the world?

[4CJ]

Taney didn't say that the federal government didn't have the authority to decide the validity of the state's government just the courts.

Nonsense. The Executive could decide which government was republican in form for a state IN the union (competing factions). But the court held that, 'the power of determining that a State government has been lawfully established' is not one for the federal government to decide, the federal government must abide by the state courts determination. Taney writes, '[u]pon such a question the courts of the United States are bound to follow the decisions of the State tribunals'.

[mac_truck]

I didn't see the incidents as related, if only because the Cornell community and the rest of Ithaca don't tend to mingle very much. Just because of Cornell's size, and the general ickiness of Ithaca, most students don't even go into Ithaca very often.

Then you [Cornell American writers] quite literally live in an ivory tower of your own construction, viewing the world around you through a very narrow self centered prism. The link I provided you with discussed a Unity Walk organized within the Ithaca community in the aftermath of the Cornell Campus stabbing in order to bring together groups and individuals who don't ordinarily interact with each other.

[from the article]..."The walk, in part, was a response to the recent stabbing at Cornell University, in which Charles Holiday, an African-American student, was stabbed by a white student. Nathan H. Poffenbarger was charged in the February incident. "

It would seem a tad bit sloppy on your part to have written an article decrying the public school system where you temporarily reside while remaining oblivious to the impact this racial stabbing that took place on your campus had on the surrounding community. Had you spent a few hours in objective research, you might have reached a different conclusion regarding the small upstate New York school's decision to ban CBF apparel in the classroom.

Even the actions of liberal writers on campus are blamed on the conservatives.

While it fortunate that he was not a young Republican, there is no evidence that Nathan Poffenbarger was anything more than an occasional contributer to a campus newspaper called Turn Left. Are you asserting a stronger connection than that, or simply trying to deflect the criticism away from your own publication's polemic-try?

I believe that, provided one is capable of resisting indoctrination by liberal professors, the value of an Ivy League degree makes it worth it.

As do I. However, I do not presuppose that only conservative Southerners have the necessary preperation and fortitude to make such an endeavor. Why shouldn't Northern conservatives be equally capable?

We can't let Yankees have a monopoly on degrees from our nation's finest universities merely because we want to stay in the safe cocoon of like-minded Southerners

A valuable statement, because it acknowledges what your "Old Times Forgotten" article did not, that Northern schools serve up more than just pablum. You also acknowledge the weakness of many Southern posters on this forum who prefer the safety of the "Yankee=Liberal" "Lost Cause" cocoon to a fuller understanding of this nation's people and its history.

isn't it great to show the world the fallacy of their stereotypes of ignorant, redneck Southerners who are uneducated and only hold their beliefs because they've never been exposed to anything else?

Your cause was not helped much by the villain in the stabbing incident, Nathan Puffenbarger. He is apparently a fellow Southerner, who hails from a small town in southern Maryland. It should be interesting to hear what defense is offered at his trial.