Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
Whilst the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this [constitutional] compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a [federal] government of unlimited powers...
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest, on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them, 1825
( https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1.asp )
Mr. Jefferson clearly considered secession to be a right retained by the States. That may be worth remembering today, as Americans are increasingly expected to submit, without recourse, to a federal government of essentially unlimited powers...
Sherman was not a great man, he was a war criminal.
Slavery was a crime, yes. But Sherman was an evil beast. So an industrialized set of states attacked an agrarian society and won. But don’t go burning and slashing like Attila the Hun.
As was Curtis Lemay, Arthur Harris, James Doolittle, Ira Eaker.
I find it interesting discussing the Civil War when half the current Population of this Country is trying to ignite a another Civil War.
We can’t even agree on how the first one started or who was to blame with the benefit of over 150 Years of hindsight.
wrong. You need to read up.
“If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war.” William T. Sherman
“Those who promoted slavery may be burning in hell.”
This sounds like Kapernick-style wish-casting about the eternal destiny of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and over half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence?
Remember, of the original 13 states, 13 of them were slave states. And 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the constitution of the United States.
We just passed through Savannah (our home port) on the way south, trying to find warm.
Besides the surrender, the Gordon family (Juliette’s folks) were good friends of Sherman’s and he enjoyed his days here visiting with them.
What isn’t remembered is that the day after the Union army left Savannah, a fire broke out at the local armory on the west side of town (The area west of MLK). Over 100 buildings burned. The only building left was the Scarboro House. It is not known if the Union army started the fire, Confederates started, or, if it was a horrible accident.
Excellent point! Many folks won't even acknowledge that our political parties have changed over the last century and a half. Which party demanded a 'strict construction' of the Constitution in 1860? It was primarily the Democrat Party, which cited the 10th Amendment repeatedly, in defense of the right of State secession. In contrast, how many Democrats living nextdoor to Freepers would insist that "the Constitution means exactly what it says"? Today, most 'constitutionalists' vote Republican (and a lot of them apparently voice support for the 19th century Republicans, simply because of the party name)...
You prove my point.
To you perhaps but not to normal people.
Remember, of the original 13 states, 13 of them were slave states. And 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the constitution of the United States.
The same tired revisionist lie from demo jeff...
Wow that sounds so ... contemporary.
Thank-You Bull Snipe for your response to the question of no manufacturing in the southern states. Looking back at what you printed about the southern attitude: maybe the south goofed on the side of aristocratic arrogance. Manufacturing and shipping would have produced a middle class segment to the southern economy which would have created a new group of wealthy men who would have been equal or more powerful than the traditional plantation owners. A fully functioning economy would have more that one productive segment.
Think you are correct.
There was some manufacturing in the South but it paled in comparison to the North. In 1860, in the North, there were 1.3 million industrial workers employed in 110,000 manufacturing operations. In the South, 110,000 industrial workers employed in 18,000 manufacturing operations. Like all facets of the Southern economy, slave labor was employed to some extent in all Southern manufacturing operations.
What I find interesting is that much of the Antebellum Southern industrialists looked inward for their markets. The sort of industry you might encounter was complementary to their behemoth cotton industry. So you would see textile mills and foundries, but poised to service King Cotton instead of external markets.
As a result of the necessities of war, southern industries sprang up, but again they were to for internal “consumption” and not export to foreign markets.
Indeed, it wasn’t until the advent of affordable air conditioning that big industry took hold in the south.
I did done dang dippity doppity bop english in math class... doppity boppity hoppity hip hop. Are you bunny foo foo?
Well, i’ll be deloris, there is one in every crowd. Look thar at that indivijual trying to rewrite him some good ole fashion history. Maybe the Kommon Kore thingamajabby dun taught him gud. Hey little feller how do you do dat? Cuz no where in my tree lined pages does it tell me that 13 states enshrined slavery. Cuz I’ll tell you what, that thar clause in these formerly nicotine stained hands, thanks to the south, you know the one. The one about how slaves be three-fifths human, dun put up great consternation among our great pappies of yore. Now get along little doggie and go read sum gud ole history bout dem dere farmers and plantation owners and gud ole city folk have a down right ole beat down on the subject in those great halls of the Continental Congress back yonder. Kommon Kore sux.
Great reply. Reminded me of something my father recalled as a kid in the 30’s in rural Louisiana. The prosperous farmers will still called Planters, which is a term that goes back generations before.
From the National Archives:
“It took 10 months for the first nine states to approve the Constitution. The first state to ratify was Delaware, on December 7, 1787, by a unanimous vote, 30 - 0. The featured document is an endorsed ratification of the federal Constitution by the Delaware convention. The names of the state deputies are listed, probably in the hand of a clerk. The signature of the President of Delaware’s convention, Thomas Collins, attests to the validity of the document, which also carries the state seal in its left margin. Delaware’s speediness thwarted Pennsylvania’s attempt to be first to ratify in the hope of securing the seat of the National Government in Pennsylvania.
The first real test for ratification occurred in Massachusetts, where the fully recorded debates reveal that the recommendation for a bill of rights proved to be a remedy for the logjam in the ratifying convention. New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve the Constitution in June, but the key States of Virginia and New York were locked in bitter debates. Their failure to ratify would reduce the new union by two large, populated, wealthy states, and would geographically splinter it. The Federalists prevailed, however, and Virginia and New York narrowly approved the Constitution. When a bill of rights was proposed in Congress in 1789, North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Finally, Rhode Island, which had rejected the Constitution in March 1788 by popular referendum, called a ratifying convention in 1790 as specified by the Constitutional Convention. Faced with threatened treatment as a foreign government, it ratified the Constitution by the narrowest margin (two votes) on May 29, 1790.” https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html
Yeah, looks like they voted to enshrine slavery all right. As if there was any doubt.
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.