Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
ATLANTA — In a cultural war that has pitted Old South against new, defenders of the Confederate legacy have opened a fresh front in their campaign to polish an image tarnished, they said, by people who do not respect Southern values.
With the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States in 2011, efforts are under way in statehouses, small towns and counties across the South to push for proclamations or legislation promoting Confederate history.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
Reb prognosticators were batting close to .000 those days.
I consider you a true reb. I hope you take that as a compliment. I do not know what a rainbow quilt is, and cannot sew, but I remember my elderly grandmother was always sewing quilts for the orphans with other older ladies at church so I cannot say anything bad about sewing quilts. Certainly seems more wholesome than watching too much "manly sports" such as "World extreme cage fighting".
What about me? Do you consider me less of a Reb than Cowboy?
I consider you a true Federal Stormtrooper, take that for what it’s worth. By the way, at least John Brown carried his own torch, unlike the Human Flamethrower,Sherman, who commanded his minions to do his wanton destruction of innocents for him.
I've figured that you didn't have a point to your prattle some time ago. Nice to have you confirm it though.
Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:
He also wrote: "We cannot change the hearts of these people of the South but we can make war so terrible...make them so sick of war that generations will pass before they ever again appeal to it."
Worked, too.
Five did not. Not unilaterally.
And that explains why 9 [Note to Chase: 9 is LESS THAN 13) states would form a NEW union, leaving 4 in the dustheap of history. Indissoluble? The framers thought not.
I've always felt that Chief Justice Chase kind of contradicts himself in that paragraph when he talks about an indossoluble Union and then goes and names the only two ways it can be dissolved - revolution or consent of the other states. But his hyperbole aside, he does lay out the fact that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.
The framers rejected Madison's attempt to grant the military the power to compel a state to remain in the union.
And you overlook the fact that military power was not used until the confederacy initiated hostilities by firing on Sumter.
Quit being so obtuse.
You objected to Lee's statement that he believed that blacks were better off in the US than in Africa.
I speculated that there are probably blacks in Africa today that would trade a few years of servitude to be able to come to the US.
I personally don't know of anyone that would choose to become a slave but do you honestly think that there is no one out of the 6.7 billion people on this planet that wouldn't?
Give it your best shot. Contact the Admins and see what you can do. Can't beat me with logic. Can't out-think me. Can't beat me any other way so get me banned. Well go for it.
Logic? You don't use logic!
You twist words, spin phrases, take words out of context and construct them to fit whatever convoluted thought that might be rattling around inside of your warped gray matter. You're a damn troll trying to bait someone into posting something that will get them banned. Admit it. We all know it and it's time you own up to it.
As far as beating you, in a straight up debate without the liberalesque spin, distort and jumping to conclusions with out of context quotes, you lose every time.
Liberals can't argue the merits of liberalism so they go on personal attacks, spin the debate, cherry pick a few words out of hundreds, remove them from their original context and add their own words to make their argument.
That's the reason why I accuse you of being a flaming liberal. Not because of your position on the WBTS. I couldn't care less about one more Reb bashing bluebelly. I accuse you of being a liberal because of your dishonest, cowardly style of debate.
You remind me a lot of Alan Colmes....................
cowboyway, my advice to you (considering with whom you are dealing):
“Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get dirty but only the pig will enjoy it.”
Not at all. Calling it like it is.
You mean you could be lying, don't you? Back up your claim or retract it.
I said that I could be wrong. If it wasn't you I'm pretty sure that it was one of your Reb bashing buddies on one of these WBTS threads.
But, even if I'm wrong about that, I'm correct in identifying you as a liberal troll.
who know less about history than the average 5 year old.
who know less about liberal yankee revisionist history than the average 5 year old.
Fixed it.
If they wished to go, all of Lincoln's plans were completely voluntary and were no different than colonization programs that had been in place for decades. So let's see, slavery in U.S. or freedom in the U.S., or Panama or Africa? Which would you choose?
And since you brought it up, why is Lincoln's support for aiding voluntary colonization such an evil program in your eyes? If you look back to the times, what alternatives were open for blacks? In the South they were welcome only if they were slaves. Freed blacks had no rights at all, and no status as citizens - the Southerner Taney had seen to that. They couldn't get an education, couldn't vote, couldn't live where they wanted or work in any field that they wanted. Most Southern states had laws forbidding them to move into the state. Some states, like Virginia, had laws that gave freed blacks 12 months in which to leave the commonwealth or they would be sold back into slavery. What kind of life was that? And in the North it wasn't much better. Many Northern states also tried to prohibit free blacks from entering. They couldn't vote except in a handful of states and couldn't serve on juries in any. They were free to get an education, but not offered much of an opportunity to use it. They were seen by the lower classes as competition for work, so they weren't welcomed with open arms by most of the people. And like in the South, they weren't citizens and could never be. So given those choices - a life of slavery or one spent facing tremendous racist opposition in the U.S. vs. a chance to carve out their own future free from the oppressions they faced in the U.S. - where exactly was Lincoln being such a rotten guy by trying to aid them in emigrating? Forget the 21st century PC goggles and look at how things were at the time and explain to me exactly where Lincoln was wrong.
Yet we have over a dozen men of God that claim that Lincoln never set foot in a Springfield Church, that he mocked Christians, Christ etc.
And dozens more detailing his faith and belief in a higher power.
He opposed it, but was willing to make it permanent and irrevocable. Hypocrite.
No, pragmatist. He was willing to make it permanent in the states where it existed, states where he had no authority to outlaw it in the first place. That same amendment contained no guarantee that slavery would be allowed to expand into the territories, in fact is deliberately excluded them from the protection. And that was what the South would not tolerate.
Lincoln's view of course. White supremacist striving for a LILY-WHITE America. Slavery would have ended.
Of course. The fact that slavery would have ended over Lee's and Davis's dead bodies still gives them the moral high ground in your eyes. And you call Lincoln hypocritical.
It's interesting to note, while we're on your subject subject of vile, racist white supremacists, that on the only recorded instance of Davis ever speculating on what might happen if slavery ended his plan was to deport them all to Central and South America. Of course, Davis never gave any details to his plans, unlike another Southerner who wrote on the subject in 1820. That Southerner had it all laid out:
"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before. Insomuch, that our Governor has ventured to propose one to the legislature. This will probably not be acted on at this time. Nor would it be effectual; for while it proposes to devote to that object one third of the revenue of the State, it would not reach one tenth of the annual increase. My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to recieve them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions. In this I think Europe, which has forced this evil on us, and the Eastern states who have been it's chief instruments of importation, would be bound to give largely. But the proceeds of the land office, if appropriated, would be quite sufficient."
That Southerner was Thomas Jefferson, writing to Albert Gallatin.
There is no documented profession of faith.
Oh puleeze. There are any number of books and articles that have been published in recent years detailing that while Lincoln may have found his faith relatively late in life, he did find it.
Quit avoiding the question.
You objected to Lee's statement that he believed that blacks were better off in the US than in Africa.
I didn't object to it. I pointed out that it was an indication of Lee's belief in slavery.
I speculated that there are probably blacks in Africa today that would trade a few years of servitude to be able to come to the US.
But we weren't talking about a few years of servitude, we're talking about a lifetime of slavery for them and their decendants. What do you think the answer would be to an offer like that?
I personally don't know of anyone that would choose to become a slave but do you honestly think that there is no one out of the 6.7 billion people on this planet that wouldn't?
I don't know. All I can say for sure is that there is no condition imaginable that I wouldn't prefer rather than a lifetime of slavery. How about you?
Liberals can't argue the merits of liberalism so they go on personal attacks, spin the debate, cherry pick a few words out of hundreds, remove them from their original context and add their own words to make their argument.
Let's get back to the main question: when you going to get me banned? You made the threat to do it, so get on with it. Drop your dime and contact the mods. Make your case to them and let them judge. I am completely willing to leave myself in their hands, and if they think I should be banished from FR then so be it. I won't dispute them. Go ahead and do it. Do it now. What are you waiting for?
Yeah. Sure it was.
But, even if I'm wrong about that, I'm correct in identifying you as a liberal troll.
Then if you can't get me banned as a Yankee then maybe you can get me banned for being a liberal troll. What are you waiting for?
I trained in a mixed martial arts gym (cage fighting) when I was in south Florida. That's when I got interested in it.
Some sports are more interesting when you participate in them, such as ice hockey, rodeo and mixed martial arts.
I would have liked it better if you had put 'unreconstructed' in front of reb, but, true reb is good.
I was. I don't care what you were thinking.
I don't know. All I can say for sure is that there is no condition imaginable that I wouldn't prefer rather than a lifetime of slavery. How about you?
I can't think of a single thing but I've spent my life living in the land of plenty.
Let's get back to the main question: when you going to get me banned? You made the threat to do it, so get on with it. Drop your dime and contact the mods. Make your case to them and let them judge. I am completely willing to leave myself in their hands, and if they think I should be banished from FR then so be it. I won't dispute them. Go ahead and do it. Do it now. What are you waiting for?
Poor wittle baby. Now he's all upset.
Reach in your desk drawer, get a kleenex out, dry your eyes and blow your nose..............there, there. All better?
Well, there you go again, liar.
I said that I was surprised that you haven't been banned because you're such an obvious troll. It wasn't a threat. It was an observation.
You're so pathetically predictable................
You ought to get the ban hammer for being such a crybaby................
(Go ahead, twist that into a threat. That's your style.)
You're the one threatening to get them to drop the 'ban hammer' and I'm the cry-baby? You truly are pathetic.
Prove that I made a threat or voluntarily leave this board forever.
Northern Elitism run amok in your parents basement that y'all presently call home?
The States Interred into a VOLATARY COMPACT {Union} can you point us to an augment BEFORE King Lincoln that claims otherwise?
‘that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’
“...whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them...
”... this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.”
Federalist
“Mr. Chairman, on the third position of...the constitutional question, I have not much to say...It is not to be denied that many great and good men [including Thomas Jefferson] have been against the power [of the federal government to undertake internal improvements not specifically authorized by the Constitution]; but it is insisted that quite as many, as great and as good, have been for it; and it is shown that, on a full survey of the whole, Chancellor Kent was of the opinion that the arguments of the latter were vastly superior...He was one of the ablest and most learned lawyers of his age, or of any age...Can the party opinion of a party president [Thomas Jefferson or James Madison], on a law question, as this purely is, be at all compared, or set in opposition to that of such a man, in such an attitude, as Chancellor Kent?”
Abraham Lincoln, June 20, 1848
”These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity...”
Abraham Lincoln, July 4, 1861
Reply 1125.
Now, if you're not going to do it then why not pretend you did and ignore me? You know, like you pretend that it was all Lincoln's fault and you pretend how Lee and Jackson were opposed to slavery, and you pretend how the South's gonna rise again.
Why did you include two quotes from Madison explicitly denying the right to unilateral secession? Didn't you read them?
”These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity...”
In context:
"Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that, at first, a call was made for seventy-five thousand militia; and rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of blockade. So far all was believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering. Other calls were made for volunteers, to serve three years, unless sooner discharged; and also for large additions to the regular army and navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a public necessity; trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress."
Lincoln acted under the authority granted by the Militia Acts which allowed him to act on his own authority to suppress rebellion or oppose invasion when Congress was not in session. None of the actions he took were acts forbidden to Congress, hence his belief he acted in a manner that was strictly legal.
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.