Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
http://patriotpost.us/
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
Then you may continue or cease, at your discretion.
Just remember that the Freedom to speak also includes the reverse...
the Freedom to NOT speak.
----------
For further references, please see the bottom of post #298.
Do you have hairballs yet??
:-)
So was my ex-wife's....That didn't make it right :)
Will you be exercising that freedom anytime soon?
And your point is what?
So that was one of the issues. That still was just one of the issues. And a LEGAL one at the time.
Property didn't have rights. And at that time the Negro was just that: PROPERTY. Read the Dred Scott Decision.
To me, the fact that over and over again those same States threatened to secede unless Congress met their demands is proof that they could not give less of a hoot for the Constitution, so to argue that a document they all but unilaterally rejected had anything to do with their decision to secede is just hysterical.
They cared little about everything else that the Constitution had to say, why would they concern themselves with whether it was Constitutional for them to secede or not?
You have to remember, the sudden dissolution of slavery would wreck havoc on the economy on all the cotton states with or without war.
I ask all of you..... Would events beyond your control that reduced your income by 75% affect you?, Would it cause you hardship?, Would you fight to prevent that from happening, even to the point of going to war? So before casting our ancestry in a bad light, let's imagine being in their shoes.
I truly believe that if had been primarily a "slavery" issue, the populus of the south would have left the fighting to the 10% who were slave owners.
CF1957
Does our favorite liberal Wlat post here any more?
Walt's not home.
Basically, all those slave-owning States who signed the Declaration lied.
Then they signed and ratified the Constitution, agreeing to live under a Constitutional government, and proceeded to violate its charter every time they rejected the will of the people via the Constitutional process, when the legislation arrived at in a Constitutional manner did not suit them. Finally, they withdrew from the Union as a protest to the outcome of a Constitutional election.
So, they lied when they agreed to live under the Constitution.
Then they have the unmitigated gall to accuse Lincoln of violating a Constitution they violated routinely, and defended their ability to violate their agreement to live under a Constitutional government by arguing that they had the Constitutional right to secede, when they couldn't care less about what the Constitution said or didn't say, and had, in word and action, proven that they rejected the Constitutional process altogether.
Furthermore, they argued that they were defending the rights of a State to be sovereign, and the right of the people of a State to throw off a government they considered oppresive , then immediately upon secession, went about the business of setting up a government that protected the violation of the rights of three and a half million people living in those States, to throw off the chains that kept them enslaved.
"Ladies and gentlemen, Today's Special Value...Big Jim and family! Split them up, or buy them as a set, and don't forget! THEY'RE ON EASY PAY!!!!"
It was that 10% whose interests were being protected by the politicians who engineered secession, and as usual, 99% of the people who did the fighting and the dying had no true stake in the fight, and fought under a misconception.
Secession was about slavery and very little else.
Uggghhh, coff, coff, GAK
I think the former. The general condition of the economy then was bad pretty much everywhere and the substraction of two small states at the fringe of the country that mostly grew rice at the time would not have changed the economy much. But the people then did put a premium on Unity in those days especially considering that the Europenas expected the states to splinter and fail.
What exactly are you? "William Lloyd Garrison's" Ghost?
Slavery was a part of our nation at that time, and the Founding fathers knew it. Slavery was one issue out of many. Get over it.
Slavery is immoral by our standards today. At that time it wasn't. It was protected by law. The Confederacy had every right to be upset.
Which explains why the Confederate Constitution is almost a verbatim copy of the federal? </sarcasm>
Of course, the Confederate Constitution did limit the Executive to one 6 year term, granted the Executive a line-item veto power, prohibited public funding for state projects, prohibited payment of financial incentives/subsidies to companies, eliminated protectionist tariffs and those designed 'to promote or foster any branch of industry', limited funding for internal improvements to those for navigation, harbors, and rivers only [no nationally funded roads, railroads or transportation], prohibited over-payments to contractors past the bid amounts as well as prevented any 'extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant', prohibited the African slave trade, prohibited omnibus bills [bills for more than one subject delineated in the title], called for the 'favor and guidance of Almighty God', granted the states the power to impeach 'any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any state', and prohibited federal oversight of suits 'between Citizens of different States'.
Basically, all those slave-owning States who signed the Declaration lied.
Please, by all means, enumerate all these instances of their lying.
Then they signed and ratified the Constitution, agreeing to live under a Constitutional government, and proceeded to violate its charter every time they rejected the will of the people via the Constitutional process, when the legislation arrived at in a Constitutional manner did not suit them.
Please, by all means, enumerate all these instances of their rejection of constitutional processes.
Finally, they withdrew from the Union as a protest to the outcome of a Constitutional election.
If you honestly believe that the states seceded solely due to Lincoln's election I feel sorry for you and your education. Besides all the hostility that northern states had evidenced for decades, with the current elections the passage of the Morrill Tariff was destined to succeed, and Southerners now would face a 47% duty on imports. With their massive exports, such a tax would amount to a loss of almost half their revenue. But even aside from that, they believed '[t]hat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
Sorry you don't believe in that.
So, they lied when they agreed to live under the Constitution.
So far, you haven't demonstrated that to be factual, so that would indicate that it is you that is lying.
Then they have the unmitigated gall to accuse Lincoln of violating a Constitution they violated routinely ...
Again great prevaricator, please document such offenses. Until then, your statements are unproven, and your statements to that effect are lies.
... and defended their ability to violate their agreement to live under a Constitutional government by arguing that they had the Constitutional right to secede ...
Secession is NOT prohibited. A liberal believes in a LIVING Constitution, a document says whatever they want. Until you can cite a clause that specifically prohibits secession, you have no case.
when they couldn't care less about what the Constitution said or didn't say, and had, in word and action, proven that they rejected the Constitutional process altogether.
A bald faced lie! Each state had a vote of the people to determine it's fate. All had conventions or legislatures that voted to secede, and several still allowed a popular vote to determine their outcome. Oh wait, you must believe their is some plan for secession enumerated in the Constitution, is that correct? But such does not exist - or you would have posted it. So again, you're proving that you are a prevaricator and a believer in a LIVING Constitution. No offense meant, but ARE you a liberal?
Furthermore, they argued that they were defending the rights of a State to be sovereign, and the right of the people of a State to throw off a government they considered oppressive, then immediately upon secession, went about the business of setting up a government that protected the violation of the rights of three and a half million people living in those States, to throw off the chains that kept them enslaved.
The nation you so adamantly defend had slaves, and enshrined the right to own them, and to traffic in them. The US you so adamantly defend had LEGALIZED slavery for over two hundred years, starting in Massachusetts, and that state, along with Rohode Island & Providence Plantations and other yankee states sailed the ocean blue for decades after ratifying the Constitution to capture their human cargoes, and in the process threw hundreds of thousands overboard to drown or to feed the sharks. They even stooped to plugging a diseased slave anus with cork to prevent them from defecating.
You should change your name to *Louise, because you argue like a girl. You can't post a single fact, yet you demand that others kowtow to your beliefs that are the antithesis of those enshrined in the Declaration, that of self-government, and one that demands that when government becomes oppressive, 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.'
*No offense meant to any women.
i bet you look really GOOD in that "nice black walking out uniform, with all the pretty silver trim & tall boots"!
the SKULLS, that adorn your cap & coat-sleeves,look especially NICE! (sarcasm button: ON)
to ALL:
this is how FAR too many DAMNyankees feel about LIBERTY! BE WARNED!
free dixie,sw
but then, you don't want to talk about the NORTHERN slaves, do you?
there were TENS of THOUSANDS of them "up there" & lincoln had NO PLANS to EVER free the slaves who were NOT resident in the CSA.
in point of fact, southern slave-owners, who collaborated with the enemy, were promised in writing that their "right to trade in human flesh" would be protected PERMANENTLY in return for their TREASON against the CSA!
face it, Luis, you either don't KNOW the TRUTH or you just can't handle the TRUTH.
free dixie,sw
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.