Posted on 07/18/2006 12:49:14 PM PDT by aomagrat
As usual, Watie lies. The declarations of causes were issued by the same state secession conventions that issued their acts of secession. Watie can't claim one was a valid expression of the state and the other not.
In each case, the convention voted to create a committee to draft the "causes" document. In each case, the draft document came to the floor of the convention, was debated, possibly slightly amended, and then voted on. I believe that each was passed unanimously by the general convention, but I could be wrong on that one.
> As usual, Watie lies.
Which is why I ignore him.
He's actually one of the best arguements out there in favor of looking with disdain upon the motives of the Confederacy... it's always good to have your opponant be one of the ARGUE BY CAPS LOCKS types.
> Watie can't claim one was a valid expression of the state and the other not.
Sure he can. Just as many Islamists can simultaneously believe that 9-11 was a Zionist plot to make Muslims look bad *AND* a genius strategy by bin Laden to apply a smackdown to the US. Madness allows believing simultaneously contradictory things.
> Mind you, this opinion is coming from a Northern man. I've seen the photos of the condition of Atlanta after the Union Army was through with it. Hiroshima looked like it was in better condition that Atlanta did. So, why don't you quit making fun of it?
Let me guess: you also have a problem with Israel's "disproportionate response?"
Wars should be fought to be *won.* Sherman fought to win. He proved to be a better warrior that many of those vaunted Southern Generals.
And the question remains: how many died in the burning of Atlanta?
Non-responsive. No argument raised. Substance-free spam.
The spam was your original tirade. The never ending litany of "That nasty ol' Lincoln tricked us" and "The south provided 99.99999999% or all tariff revenue" and other unsupported nonsense. And very humerous nonsense it is, too. Can the ever popular "tariffs hit the south 50 times harder than the North" be far behind?
Surviving him are three sons. R. M., J. W. and G. S. Charnberlin; two daughters, Mrs. I. E. Jones and Miss Martha Chamberlin, all of Micanopy; 12 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren .
Mr. Chamberlin for many years s was an active member of Stonewall Jackson Chapter Confederate Veterans, which formerly was one of the largest and most active chapters in the state. The passing of years 80 thinned its ranks however, that three years ago the post was declared dissolved, Mr. Chamberlin remaining its only member. Records of the chapter, upon its dissolution, were placed in the county's archives at the Court House.
Daughters of the Confederacy joined friends of the old veteran at his graveside and it was they who followed the time-honored custom of unfurling over the grave the flag of the Confederacy, the flag which may never again be unfurled in the county.
2. Many of the quotes don't support the thesis advanced. Examples follow.
Remember, dbehsman originally asked you (to keep the question at hand uppermost in mind as we go forward),
REALLY? Care to provide us with some quotes that specifically claim that the problem was primarily with slavery?
And now, to your examples:
- Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
Obscure reference, supportive but non-authoritative. One man's opinion, until you show otherwise.
"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depoulation and barbarism." - South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keitt, 1860
This observation by Congressman Keitt describes the economy of the South and the likely effect of abolition on it, in his view. How does this quote support your contention that "the war was about slavery?"
Keeping in mind, of course, that the "war was about slavery" is a Marxist theme, intended to support vanguardism and (by extension) absolutism of the vanguard elite. Lincoln is their hero for that very reason, and you've never dealt with that.
"[Recruiting slaves into the army] is abolition doctrine ... the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." - Editorial, Jan 1865, North Carolina Standard
Support from the editorialist, but your quote shows signs of selective pruning -- an ellipse, and some words supplied. May we see the entire quote, in context? You aren't capitan_refugio, and I've seldom seen posters sink as low as he did in dredging up alleged support for his fanatical and hate-filled positions, but let's just say that, when your argument is about an overarching theme, context matters.
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
How do we know he was talking about slaves? Your insertion points us in that direction, but would his words exclude his other valuable property? If he were a plantation owner, does anyone think he'd be happy to give up the land, house, and cotton crop to Lincoln's punitive confiscations, if only he could keep his slaves?
The insertion may not be appropriate after all.
Whilst it may be admitted that the mere election of any man to the Presidency, is not, per se, a sufficient cause for a dissolution of the Union; yet, when the issues upon, and circumstances under which he was elected, are properly appreciated and understood, the question arises whether a due regard to the interest, honor, and safety of their citizens, in view of this and all the other antecedent wrongs and outrages, do not render it the imperative duty of the Southern States to resume the powers they have delegated to the Federal Government, and interpose their sovereignty for the protection of their citizens.What, then are the circumstances....?......He stands forth as the representative of the fanaticism of the North, which, for the last quarter of a century, has been making war upon the South, her property, her civilization, her institutions, and her interests; as the representative of that party which overrides all Constitutional barriers, ignores the obligations of official oaths, and acknowledges allegiance to a higher law than the Constitution, striking down the sovereignty and equality of the States, and resting its claims to popular favor upon the one dogma, the Equality of the Races, white and black." -- Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky [Emphasis added.]
To correct him at the outset, Mr. Hale oversimplifies by a vast stretch, for rhetorical effect (unfortunately -- he had a better argument working), the platform of the Republican Party. He mischaracterizes it as well, since I doubt that a canvass of that idea among Republican voters of 1860 would have broken into double digits, that the Republican platform included the advancement of Negro equality. Even Lincoln, no matter what his private opinion might have been, said that he didn't believe that that equality was possible.
The advancement of the idea of giving the Negro the franchise, and then using his vote to annihilate the South politically and turn its population on one another, was a later, Radical addition to the platform and as yet untrue when Hale directed his words to the governor of Kentucky.
Notice, however, the commissioner's repeated references to safety and Northern fanaticism (underscored) -- how do you explain them, if the issue was simply about Southern slaveholders' rights in human property?
There's much more to say, but I'll have to adjourn for now.
Well when you get back please post your quotes showing it was all about tariffs.
No argument is true unless it agrees with you; no fact in evidence is valid, or properly interpreted, until you pass on its congruity with Declarationist dogma.
Ever hear of Duns Scotus? You ought to have -- you're just like his followers, the Dunsmen, also known as Dunses. Modern spelling: dunces.
So then it's safe to write off everything you said in reply 139 as one boob's man's opinion? Unless, of course, until you show otherwise.
Well there's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one.
Ever hear of Duns Scotus? You ought to have -- you're just like his followers, the Dunsmen, also known as Dunses. Modern spelling: dunces.
Alas how can I continue knowing how you feel about me? Shall I hand my head in shame? Shall I slink away never to darken the door of FreeRepublic again? Or shall I just consider the source?
perhaps, one fine day the "sniveling cowards" will LEARN!
free dixie,sw
"mr. spin": don't you get tired of being RIDICULED as a BIGOT,an empty-head & a "general, all-around, FOOL", by everyone who has "an IQ above average room temperature"??? do you ENJOY being the BUTT of inside jokes on FR??? (inquiring minds want to know.)
free dixie,sw
off hand,i cannot think of a SINGLE senator from a northeastern state that could win dogcatcher in a dixie state.
the senators from the socialist/baby-killing/PC "blue zone" make me GAG!
free dixie,sw
free dixie, sw
btw, i can stand a DAMNyankee, better than a turncoat southerner.
free dixie,sw
That's real American of you Stand Watie.
"Still existing in the early 1860's since you are totally incapable of living in 2006 - so sad."
Hazard a guess, stand watie. How many dead at Atlanta? 100,000? 200,000? Half a million?
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.