Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: AmishDude
No problem. I'm used to it. A few months back I commented on a thread pertaining to a boycott of South Carolina for its flying of the Confederate flag, and I had the audacity to express sympathy with those who find the Confederate flag offensive. It was the symbol of an insurrection against the United States of America. That insurrection was, regardless of all the revisionist history going on, in support of perpetuating slavery. For the life of me, I have no idea why any American would want to glory in the symbol of an insurrection which cost the lives of over 500,000 Americans, bringing grief to almost every family in the nation.

As for those who wish to engage in a spirited defense of the Confederacy, I'm pleased to let them put down in writing, in public, their support for that dastardly conspiracy against human rights and the nation. History has proven them wrong.

16 posted on 05/17/2002 3:01:58 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: My2Cents

Few authors and commentators on the war have dared present one basic fact that overthrows the myth of Yankee beneficence toward the slaves. On 2 March 1861, the 36th U. S. Congress (minus, of course, the seven seceded states of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln (who looked favourably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union), the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.

The proposed 13th Amendment reads: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Note well that this amendment was designed to be unrepealable (i.e. "No amendment shall be made . . . .") This gives the lie to claims that a righteous North went to war in 1861 to free the slaves. Moreover, it undermines the claim that the South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. If that had been the South's goal, then what better guarantee did it need than an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to protect slavery as it then existed?

17 posted on 05/17/2002 3:38:39 PM PDT by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: My2Cents

Read Jefferson's and the Founders ideas of State's rights. You know ... small limited government with primary right of self-determination belonging to the States?! AND the right to seceed if they didn't feel the government was acting on their behalf! After all, that's what representative government is all about. Representative is the key word here boyo!

22 posted on 05/17/2002 4:36:21 PM PDT by Colt .45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson