Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
everyone here KNOWS that you're INCAPABLE of THOUGHT & can NOT write a paragraph without being CRUDE & VULGAR and/or saying something STUPID.
laughing AT you, LOUT/BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
“Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.”
“or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect”
What would qualify? Unfair Tariffs? Assuming powers not granted?
Non-Sequitur,
Yet, again, you defend Lincoln by using Madison?
Lincoln could not hold Madison's jock!
Lincoln was NO Madison nor Jefferson!Did Lincoln follow this line of thought? “Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government. . . .
Who are the parties to it? The people—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”
?????
Or Mr Madison in this Letter?
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)
Or this?
The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them. . . . (Federalist Paper Number 45)
Or this?
“The first question [how a state could secede without approval from the other states] is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. (Federalist Paper Number 43)
Once again you are wrong. It is more than a habit with you - it is an affliction. You should seek help (but I know that you are too far gone to do so).
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
See what I mean? It’s like you go all the way ‘round the barn to make sure you’re wrong. I don’t hate the south, or southerners. I don’t even hate you. It is abundantly self-evident from my writing that I am not a cretin...although your “style” has left more than one thinking the same of you.
And I thought you had said that “NOBODY cares what or IF you think”. Changed your mind?
King Lincoln made a habit of sticking his boot in thee mouth! Sadly- You’ve bought public education {Hook-Line-and Sinker} Some better quotes bellow
“Negroes have natural rights, however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here . . . no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind.”
“Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. . . . I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship”
.”There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race”
“We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the peace of the country, both forbid us”
free dixie,sw
“we all”....you got a mouse in your pocket?
If Lincoln was the genius some claim, he would have had to know how his inaugural speech would be received across the county. In newspapers in the South and in Democrat newspapers in the North, his speech was taken as a declaration of war. As one paper put it, Lincoln's choice was between peace and war, and he chose the bitter alternative.
I posted excerpts from a large number of those newspaper editorials long ago. Since I've not seen you on these threads before, I'll provide a link to my old thread here. It is amazing how divided the country was back then.
seriously don’t you get the hint, I can at any time prove the only liar here is you.
I simply don’t want to waste my precious time on you.
Who decides that the tariffs are unfair or the powers illegally assumed? If you say the tariffs are unfair and I say they are fair, who says you are right and I am wrong or vice-versa?
Yet, again, you defend Lincoln by using Madison?
And yet again you attack Lincoln using nothing but your own bile.
And where is that a big surprise? Short of surrendering entirely and unconditionally to Southern demands there is nothing Lincoln could have done or said that would have gotten approval from the Southern and Northern Democrat papers. Their approval wasn't worth the cost. IMHO, of course.
Yeah, right.
Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues.
And Jeff Davis' rebellion was all for protecting slavery. Ain't stereotypes fun?
Sadly, BroJoeK and others believe the 1860 era Republicans and Lincoln believed in Racial equality?
The indisputable facts are very different- With 1960 era Republicans claiming things such as being the “White Man’s Party”—Let's take a look at what Lincoln said—
Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over. . . . (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, p. 807)
More of the “White man's party”
From “An American Iliad: The Story of the Civil War,” Second Edition, by Charles P. Roland (Chapter 1, page 9): “Many antislavery advocates opposed the institution not out of principle or compassion for the slaves, but out of concern over its perceived ill effects on the white population. Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, a leading advocate of halting the spread of slavery, explained that he felt “no squeamishness upon the subject of slavery, no morbid sympathy for the slave.” “I plead the cause of free white men,” he said. “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
“Finally and paradoxically, a racial factor contributed to the northern attitude. Antipathy against slavery often went hand in hand with a racism that was similar in essence, if not in pervasiveness or intensity, to the southern racial feeling. Many northerners objected to the presence of slavery in their midst, in part, because they objected to the presence of blacks there.”
And your total acceptance of the Lost Cause Myth is noted as well.
Some better quotes bellow
Yes, let's look at them shall we?
“Negroes have natural rights, however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here . . . no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind.”
First of all, where is Lincoln incorrect here? Where in all of the United States did blacks enjoy anywhere near the same rights as whites? In the South they were slaves. And those few not slaves, had no rights at all that a white man was bound to respect, as the Southern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had ruled in 1856. And as bad as things were for free blacks in the South, they weren't a whole lot better in the North. So Lincoln hadn't discovered anything new in that quote, he was merely stating the obvious. The U.S., North and South, was a society where black people were not welcome unless they were actually someones property. Surely this is not news to you? So in light of this, where exactly was Lincoln wrong in pointing out that things were different in Africa? And what is so evil in Lincoln's suggestion that they might be better off carving out a life for themselves free from the oppression and racism they faced in the U.S.? Are you honestly trying to suggest that blacks were better off as slaves or as free men in the U.S. of the time? Are you saying that they would not enjoy the rights that they were denied in the U.S.? Or are you suggesting that they, as a race, were not capable of making it on their own without the benevolent institution of chattel slavery? Which is it?
“Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. . . . I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship”
Ellipsis are wonderful things...if you're trying to hide something. Let's look at Lincoln's quote in full. It's from the fourth debate in Charleston BTW.
"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States, if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it."
So Lincoln is only acknowledging what a Southern Chief Justice did two years prior - strip an entire race of citizenship merely because they were black. Lincoln did not oppose citizenship to blacks, it was prevented by a court decision. You will note that he makes if clear that if the states did have the power to grant citizenship to blacks then it would be fine with him if Illinois went and did so.
”There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race”
First debate in Ottawa. But why didn't you continue? Next sentence:
"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
So let's cut to the chase. Please provide us with a single quote from a single Southern leader of the rebellion that indicated he thought that a black man was his equal in any way? Please provide a quote from a Southern leader that indicated they believed blacks were entitled to any rights at all? Surely you can do that, can't you? Your chance to show how far Lincoln's positions were out of the mainstream Southern idea of universal sufferage and brotherhood between the races? Isn't that what you saying the South stood for and that evil Lincoln was deadset against?
“We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the peace of the country, both forbid us”
Again a partial quote from notes Lincoln was putting together for a speech in Kansas and Ohio in 1859. And again a partial quote out of context.
"We want, and must have, a national policy, as to slavery, which deals with it as being a wrong. Whoever would prevent slavery from becoming national and perpetual, yields all, when he yields to a policy which treat it either as being right, or as being a matter of indifference. We admit that the U.S. general government is not charged with the duty of redressing, or preventing, all the wrongs in the world. But that government rightfully may, and, subject to the constitution, ought to redress and prevent all wrongs, which are wrongs to the nation itself. It is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare. Those who do not think this are not of us, and we cannot argue with them. We must shape our own course, by our own judgment.
We must not disturb slavery where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us. We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the Constitution demands it.
But we must, by a national policy, prevent the spread of slavery into the new territories, or free states, because the Constitution does not forbid us., and the general welfare does not demand such prevention – We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, because the Constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does not require the prevention. We must prevent these things being done, by either Congress or courts. The people – the people –are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.
You want to hold Lincoln to 21st Century standards on racial equality? Fair enough. How about holding your rebel heroes to the same standard? How about some quotes from Lee or Davis or Jackson or any other Southern leader of the period showing their beliefs were more enlightened than Lincoln's. Any quote showhing they believed in racial equality. Hell, I'd be happy with a single quote showing that they believed slavery was wrong and blacks should be freed. How about that? Can you show us where your Southron heroes were better men than Lincoln in this respect? Or will you hold them to 19th Century standards while requiring Lincoln meet modern day PC norms?
If true, that means one if five rebel soldiers was a slave holder. And how many more came from families where parents owned slaves. That would mean that a considerable portion owned or benefited directly from slavery. Well worth fighing to defend.
“...No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” ~Maj. General John B. Gordon, CSA
Not so much, no. After January 1, 1863 the vast majority of Southern slaves had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Had the rebels laid down their arms and gone back to the Union, that status wouldn't have changed.
Given the cyber-attack FreeRepublic is under at the moment (check the keyword: chrisparry on the main page for more) you would be well advised not to respond to the troll Stand Watie - at least for a while. Since his anti-American posts are designed to be deliberately provocative and injurious to FreeRepublic any replies just heighten the risk of damage to the site.
...just sayin
You’re right, Stand is definitely the sort of bigoted racist dare I say it Neo Confederate lost causer the left would love to trot out as the prime example of hate speech on the Free Republic.
Hear that.....It’s a maiden aunt crying out in distress, she has the vapors and needs the attention that only her beloved nephew stand can bring to her.....
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.