Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Let me guess: voted against Obama, spoke out against him, supported groups (i.e., Tea Party) which actively opposed him -- you know, standard civic duty stuff.
As for what might "repeatedly violate the United States Constitution", Courts, Congress, media & other institutions are required to declare & check that and sadly, they were mostly out to lunch for those eight years.
central_va: "He would of turned tail long before hitting Emmitsburg Pike."
In all fairness to wbarmy, he'd be on the east side the Angle, the question being, which unit -- most 71st PA & 58th NY? Or sturdier men like the fighting Irish in the 69th PA who faced 3,000 of Garnett's & Armistead's best troops?
My bet is: the 69th.
(by the way, jeffersondem, notice the use of the term "yellow revisionist dogs" here.
Funny that...
Emmitsburg Road not Pike. My mistake.
jeffersondem: "If it is true the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?"
Well, these folks, for sure:
Well... some in the North certainly did, this one, for example:
1860 Fire Eaters said nothing about "direct Trade with Europe" in their Reasons for Secession documents.
What they said instead was: slavery.
DiogenesLamp: "The North also agreed to legal slavery when the Constitution was ratified"
But never to unrestricted slavery in every US state & territory.
That idea did not occur to anybody until our 21st century genius, DiogenesLamp, concocted it.
DiogenesLamp: "to claim this was some sort of deal breaker after they had accepted it for "Four Score and Seven Years", is just rationalization for their real reasons for invading the South, which was to stop huge economic losses to Northern power barons. "
The "deal breaker" was the election of "Black Republican", "Ape" Lincoln, who steadfastly opposed slavery's expansion into US territories.
That's what 1860 Fire Eaters said would force them to secede.
DiogenesLamp: "It is to laugh. ***
This "North" of which you speak, while in complete control of Congress, passed the "Corwin Amendment", which guaranteed slavery would continue virtually indefinitely, and now you are trying to say that they had a "duty" to stop black slavery? "
"The North" here means 100% of Democrats supported Corwin and the majority of Republicans opposed it.
Corwin was a Democrat "compromise" to save the Union which DiogenesLamp enjoys blaming on Lincoln.
Typical Democrat.
DiogenesLamp: "four Northern states had ratified it, all at the urging of Lincoln that this amendment be made "express and irrevocable"? "
Three Northern & two slave states ratified Corwin, one later explicitly revoked ratification (Ohio), another explicitly by abolishing slavery in 1864 (Maryland) two others implicitly by ratifying the 13th amendment in 1865 (Illinois & Rhode Island were the first two states to ratify the 13th in February 1865).
Lincoln's alleged "urging" consisted of only the following words:
Right, Democrats, Southern & Northern.
DiogenesLamp: "They were fine with slavery so long as the money produced by slavery kept funneling through their hands."
Of course Southern Democrat slaveholders were "fine with slavery", as were their Northern Democrat allies, partners & family.
Republicans, not so much.
DiogenesLamp: "It was the threat that all that money (230 million per year in 1860 dollars) would stop filling their rice bowl that triggered the need to invade the South."
Federal tariff revenues in 1860 were $53 million of which maybe half could be claimed as "paid for" by cotton exports = $26 million.
But by 1863, with no "Southern exports", Federal tariff revenues rose to $63 million and by 1864 to $102 million -- all without "Southern exports" to "pay for" them.
So the thesis that Union prosperity depended on Southern products was proved wrong.
DiogenesLamp: " 'Slavery' was just a made up post hoc pretext to justify what they were doing, and to hide the reality of an economic war from the General public. "
Here DiogenesLamp tells us that 1860 Fire Eaters simply lied when they wrote down their Reasons for Secession documents.
They said it was primarily "all about slavery".
DiogenesLamp: "You can't go from supporting a Constitutional amendment supporting slavery to claiming you had to kill 750,000 people because you felt a "duty" to slaves, whom in fact, everyone in the North hated."
Pure nonsense.
In fact, the United States went to war in 1861 for the same reason we went to war in 1776, 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1941 & 2001, among other dates: because Americans believed we'd been attacked.
No deeper reasons or explanations are necessary.
The "salient questions" are: why did Confederates attack and why did they refuse to stop fighting for any terms better than Unconditional Surrender. ----------
** Thanks Bull Snipe.
*** BTW, can we take a moment to notice DiogenesLamp's English language usage is, at least on occasion, a bit, ah, "wobbly", as if he thinks first in a different language's pattern before translating to English.
Doesn't happen very often, but often enough to sit up & take notice.
It's the nature of the internet that we can't confirm each other's creds, so little clues can lead to interesting questions...
There were & still are a lot of "pikes" in Pennsylvania.
Old US Hwy 15 is today called the Emmitsburg Road, but you'll see it also referred to as Emmitsburg Pike, on occasion, i.e., here:
The Codori Farm - Emmitsburg Pike:
The second time around. The first time it was conditional on the fort being completed and garrisoned. (It never was. They were still building it when Anderson seized it.)
The fort itself was built using federal funds...
Which as I have pointed out, were 75-85% paid for by Southern exports to Europe.
There were no such conditions.
And of course the Federal government did not in fact meet the conditions stipulated in the original agreement.
You’re (of course) wrong, but I’m not gonna look it up either!
From the recruiting posters it's hard to tell if these federal units were free lancing or if they were to be part of Lincoln's war effort.
If it is the latter - and if the implications are correct - perhaps Lincoln was fighting to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution. There may be other historical evidence to suggest he was. Many people believed that was his intention after the “house-divided” speech.
Still, there are others who argue strongly that Lincoln did not commit treason.
Slavery became an issue in the war's first months, in the form of Contraband of War -- should Union troops return runaway slaves to their Confederate "masters" in rebellion?
So let's ask you, jeffersondem, what do you think?
Constitutionally, should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to Confederate "masters"?
If they did, or didn't, then who, exactly, would be committing "treason"?
Lincoln was wrong to take up arms to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution - if that was what he was doing.
He should have used the ballot box and the peaceful amendment process to abolish slavery.
If that had not worked, whatever moral right he claimed he had to kill 600,000 people, he would have still had. He should have started the killings later instead of sooner. Or skipped the war altogether.
If Lincoln was simply taking up arms to overthrow the 9th and 10th amendment provisions of the United States Constitution, and the "consent of the governed" theory of the DOI - he was wrong.
You mean the ballot box that elected Lincoln president on a Republican platform of opposition to slavery? We saw how the southern states reacted to that first step in the process you outline.
Lincoln didn’t take up arms till the South started shooting. Lincoln might have set a trap, but there were plenty of leaders in the South who recognized that trap and tried to keep the fire eaters from walking into it.
They chose the game and they lost.
“You mean the ballot box that elected Lincoln president on a Republican platform of opposition to slavery? We saw how the southern states reacted to that first step in the process you outline.”
The election of a U.S. President is quite different from the adoption of a constitutional amendment per the constitution.
A president can be elected by a simple majority of the electoral votes (or in some cases by a vote in the House of Representatives).
The adoption of a constitutional amendment is much more stringent: a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress or application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states PLUS the ratification by legislatures of three fourths of the states etc.
Lincoln had the votes to become president but he did not believe he had the votes to abolish slavery peacefully by constitutional amendment.
What Lincoln needed was a war. But first he needed a pretext for war.
Yes he did and it has a name: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Errrr . . . I meant to say the Fort Sumter Incident.
Too bad it cost over 600,000 lives. But the economic and political best self-interests of the progressive North was preserved even unto this day. So there is that.
And past inequities were resolved even unto this day by the victorious North just as they promised. So there is that.
And we have a bigger and better federal government even unto this day with a two million page federal register to regulate our conduct. And everyone knows we could not do with even one page less. So there is that.
Took a few hundred thousand lives, but they made it stick.
And smeared Robert E. Lee and his compatriots for "traitors" at the same time...
Let's see...left the army to take arms against the United States. Sounds like a traitor to me.
Those posters remind of Stand Watie again, who used to claim that slaves who ran away from their masters and joined the United States Army were “turncoats.”
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.