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 ...
The South
Edward Carmack
“The South is a land that has known sorrows;
it is a land that has broken the ashen crust and
moistened it with tears; a land scarred and riven
by the plowshare of war and billowed with the
graves of her dead; but a land of legend,
a land of song, a land of hallowed and heroic memories.”
“To that land every drop of my blood, every
fiber of my being, every pulsation of my heart,
is consecrated forever. I was born of her womb;
I was nurtured at her breast; and when my last
hour shall come, I pray GOD that I may be
pillowed upon her bosom and rocked to sleep
within her tender and encircling arms
What’s your point? That thieves in Topeka aren’t as clever as wherever~the~hell you’re from, or that they’re far more enterprising?!
What’s your point? That thieves in Topeka aren’t as clever as wherever~the~hell you’re from, or that they’re far more enterprising?!
___________
Giving the troll non-sequitur some payback since he spends all day everyday being rude to everyone else and making fun of where they live if it’s in the South. South to NS is a very dirty word.
Do you believe an abused wife should shoot her husband at the door? or when ever he is looking the other way?
In matters of the union of our government the court that ultimately decides admission or secession is the congress, not the individual states or territories, the congress.
For instance the Philippines, Our congress decided to grant them their independence after WWII, prior to that they were an American territory just like dare I say it Cuba was after the Spanish American war. As was Puerto Rico, s territory which has flirted with Statehood from time to time.
You might want to do some research on Edward Carmack before you start quoting him approvingly.
I do not have a problem with secession itself only with the reasons for the south’s secession as well as their method.
Secession by force of arms was a losing proposition from the get go, the south didn’t have the money or arms to make it work to begin with, and they could have successfully seceded had it not been for the question of slavery. It was an evil that they could not justify to sanctify their cause.
It is my opinion that the south without slavery would have been able to win it’s independence, or would never have needed to secede in the first place.
If you are going to secede you must do so for reasons that are above reproach especially in the eyes of those other countries you may appeal to for assistance.
CARMACK, Edward Ward, (1858 - 1908)
Library of Congress
CARMACK, Edward Ward, a Representative and a Senator from Tennessee; born near Castalian Springs, Sumner County, Tenn., November 5, 1858; attended Webb’s School, Culleoka, Tenn.; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1879 and practiced in Columbia, Tenn.; city attorney of Columbia 1881; elected to the State house of representatives 1884; joined the staff of the Nashville Democrat in 1888; editor in chief of the Nashville American when the papers were merged; editor of the Memphis Commercial in 1892; elected as a Democrat to the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses (March 4, 1897-March 3, 1901); elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1901, to March 3, 1907; unsuccessful candidate in 1906 for reelection; resumed the practice of law; unsuccessful candidate for nomination as Governor in 1908; resumed editorship of the Nashville American; died in a gun fight in Nashville, Tenn., November 9, 1908; interment in Rose Hill Cemetery, Columbia, Tenn.
So, bottom line, you do not have a problem with secession. Is this right?
For the right reasons and done properly I don’t oppose secession.
As A Natural Born Citizen of Texas, if they secede I will support their secession with my life if I must.
The question then become are we citizens of our states where we were born or citizens of those states in which we live?
What I found was that Carmack was the leading journalistic opposition to Ida B. Wells' anti-lynching campaign. When she used her paper the "Memphis Free Speech" to criticize the lynching of three owners of a black grocery store, Carmack used his paper to demand retaliation against "the black wench." Wells, fortunately, was out of town at that moment and didn't return south for 30 years for fear of her life.
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect".
Do you agree with that?
I thought I'd asked a reasonable question, and this is a half-way reasonable answer (but only half). President Jimmy Doughface Buchanan -- a Northerner with Southern sympathies, from Franklin County, PA, that's the one just south of my home.
So the Union was sending out mixed signals, but what were Southerners saying? Did they really expect to secede without war? Were they eager for war, or eager to avoid war? Were they trying to negotiate differences, or make military demonstrations, for example, at Fort Sumter?
"There had not been secession before, nor any law requiring war to follow, so your contention that Southern leaders knew full well... that war would follow is not only an invalid conclusion but a pejorative accusation."
A pejorative accusation? But is it true? Can you quote Southern leaders advocating secession but claiming there was no reason to expect war, and the South would do everything possible to avoid war?
Indeed, isn't it a fact that President Davis was clearly warned ahead of time that firing on Fort Sumter must necessarily lead to war, but did it any way?
Here's my point -- all the evidence I've seen says the South not only expected war, they were eager for it, and had no problem with the idea of firing the first shots and making the first attacks. And the obvious reason was, they fully expected to roll over those panty-waste Northerners: just give them a good hard boot, and they'll be gone in few weeks...
"And with regard to Lincoln, it was he who threatened the South with war in his first inaugural, six weekws later sent a secret naval mission to invade Charleston harbor, and a few days later declared war on the South via blockade."
Oh, my, PeaRidge... you never read Lincoln's First Inaugural, did you? Come on, pal, get a grip on reality.
Here's Lincoln's First Inaugural. Read it, then apologize for lying about Lincoln:
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
"six weekws later sent a secret naval mission to invade Charleston harbor"
Actually, it was President Doughface Buchanan who first sent the steamer Star of the West to supply Federal Fort Sumter, back on January 9, 1860. The South fired on that ship, preventing supplies from reaching the Fort. Fort Sumter then had enough food to last until April 15.
So President Lincoln merely repeated Buchanan's action, but this time with naval warships. The first ship arrived on April 11, and next morning Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter.
Bottom line: there was no serious effort by the South to negotiate a peaceful settlement at Fort Sumter.
"and a few days later declared war on the South via blockade"
And by the way, the North never "declared war" on the South.
the BOR supersedes EVERY action of the congress-critters/POTUS.
have you EVER bothered to read the 10th Amendment??? - IF the STATES had intended to CEDE their POWER (STATES have POWERS. only PERSONS have RIGHTS) of UNILATERAL SECESSION to the federal government, they would have SAID that they were doing so. they did NOT, thus UNILATERAL SECESSION was/IS LAWFUL & CONSTITUTIONAL.
fwiw, NO state at the time of the founding of this (HIGHLY experimental at that time) Republic would have joined a union FREELY that they could NOT (at their own motion) just as FREELY LEAVE.
free dixie,sw
Yes, it was so secret that Lincoln sent a letter to Governor Pickens explaining exactly what he was going to do.
I found the quote, found what I posted regarding the author. I didn’t try to find every little piece of information about him. Whether what you found is true or not,I have no idea and I honestly don’t care. I wasn’t praising him. I was simply posting something I found that he had written but since he was a Democrat what you found would not surprise me in the least.
When you get right down to it, the confederacy never declared war either. In spite of the fact that the attack on Sumter was certainly an act of war and in spite of the fact that the cabinet agreed on it well in advance and in spite of the fact that the confederate congress was in session, no attempt was made by Davis to get a declaration of war from congress ahead of time. But then again, observing their constitution was not something the rebels found important.
as we "wild Texicans" say, "he needed killing."
fyi, some years ago, in my home county, a brother "blew away" his brother-in-law, with a 12guage pump-gun, after the SECOND time that the husband put his sister in the hospital, with broken bones.
the big brother was indicted/tried & the jury "stayed out" about 10 minutes.= NOT GUILTY.
free dixie,sw
With regard to your contention:
"And by the way, the North never "declared war" on the South."
I said that the North declared war on the South via blockade.
On April 19, Lincoln issued his proclamation blockading Southern ports. It provided that "a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels" from the ports of the states in rebellion. Then, to make the proclamation official, he signed this document, authorizing "the Secretary of State to affix the Seal of the United States to a Proclamation setting on foot a Blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas." The seal was affixed to the blockade proclamation, which was announced that day. It was a de facto declaration of war by the Union against the Confederacy.
http://www.raabcollection.com/manuscript/Abraham-Lincoln-Autograph-7590.aspx
Lincoln was aware that the blockading of ports was an act of war. In fact, since an act of war is, by implication, taken against another state, some in his cabinet argued that a blockade would constitute a tacit recognition of the sovereignty of the Confederacy, something the North wanted to avoid. Lincoln was less interested in the legal definitions than in the military utility of the plan, and he approved it despite the objections.
So, he did three things with this proclamation:
1. He established a state of war on the South,
2. In this effort he formally recognized the Confederacy as an independent entity,
3. He caused the secession of the upper South, thus irreversably bringing on war.
So is bombarding a fort into surrender.
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.