Posted on 02/27/2006 6:14:47 AM PST by SuzyQ2
I love history. I’m proud of my Southern heritage. But for me to be angry to the point of protesting a moment in Southern history that happened nearly a century-and-a-half ago would be just, well, nonsensical. And would in some ways tarnish that heritage.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
You are not telling the whole story. After the Armistice was declared, France tried to put heavy conditions on Germany. Tha fact is, they "won" the peace, but were only able to do so because of their allies military might. Unfortunately, we let France cause major problems that came back to haunt us.
What story?
Of course I can't tell the whole story in this forum. Several feet of books have been written on the Versailles treaty.
Yes, Germany inflicted reparations on france in their earlier war, and France paid the reparations off early.
Germany had reparations inflicted on them after WWI, and after falling behind, the Ruhr was occupied. Then the Weimar Government came up with the money, but French and British money flooded into the Germany so, in toto, more money went into Germany than out of it.
Having money is not all it is cracked up to be. Spain was flooded with gold during the colonial period, and that destroyed Spanish industry. Money flooding France had a similar effect. German industry had plenty of customers, since France had all that surplus money.
Great Work BTTT!
Would you agree that the offspring of such rapes and or other illegal sexual activities would be half-black / half-white? Known as mulattos? And that such offspring would be ample evidence of said crimes?
The Republicans wanted to pass an amendment to correct Justice Taney's racist decision in "Dred Scott".
That explains the proposed Amendment XIII which Lincoln supported, which would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable! </sarcasm>
Did you know that Chief Justice Taney freed his slaves, provided for them after their freedom with monetary support? Did you know that he defended a minsiter (an won) that advocated abolition?
Who is "we," psycho?
Ohioan! Good to see you my friend.
There is, however, a great wealth of material that gives the lie to your outlandish accusations, and indeed the statutes on the books of every Southern State but Louisiana, made what you falsely allege as normal a criminal offense.
i did the BEST i could to do the RIGHT THING for both SC & dixie LIBERTY.
SORRY, if my best wasn't good enough to overcome the HUGE amount of $$$$$$$$ spent by the "powerful".
free dixie,sw
sadly, i have concluded that you are BOTH.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Jesus' sacrifice was accomplished once, for all. No Fallen Man born of Adam can ever emulate the Sacrifice of His Atoning Death; you are absolutely right that it would be gross sacrilege and hubris for any other Mortal Man to imagine of himself any such thing.
However, in terms of His incarnate demonstration of a Moral Life, the Bible does recommend that Christians seek to follow His example:
This is not to say that Christians will, or even can, themselves be perfect exemplars of Jesus' teachings -- God knows I'm not. But it is the "Ideal" by which we should judge our own Actions, and also those Actions which we delegate to our Political Rulers.
The Founders of the USA (even Christians, as most of them were), made a lot of Immoral Compromises in order to permit the continuation of Un-Biblical Racist Slavery in the South -- the sort of Immoral Compromises which, I think, Jesus Christ would not have tolerated Himself. I can admit that.
But that being said, I likewise cannot see Jesus ordering the Deaths of 600,000 young Americans -- in order to collect Lincoln's Tariffs.
No. I just CANNOT see the "Morality" of such an Action.
When you think of the death of the 600,000 Americans, ask yourself, who killed them. Rather a lot were killed by rebel fire. I have a hard time blaming that on Lincoln.
Approximately 65% of the Americans killed in the UnCivil War were indeed Northern youths cut down by Confederate fire, and you are right that every single one of their deaths was a tragedy.
So why were the Confederates shooting? After all, most of them were just "poor white trash" who had never owned Slaves in the first place.
Figuring that he did not own slaves, nor had much interest in the constitutional question of secession, they asked him: "What are you fighting for, anyhow?"
The Confederate replied: "I'm fighting, because you're down here!"
(http://books.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1518756,00.html)
According to his own declarations in his First Inaugural, Lincoln was NOT willing to invade the South for the purpose of Freeing the Slaves (which would have at least been Noble in Purpose, even if bloodily Extreme in Ardor); rather, Lincoln ordered the most murderous, most devastating, most fratricidal War in American history -- in order to Collect Federal Tariffs.
Good grief. What an utterly damn worthless and stupid reason to run up Billions of dollars in Debt and get 600,000 young Americans killed.
I suppose it's possible that Woodrow Wilson was the #1 worst of all American Presidents, making the world safe for Communism and Nazism; but if the gold medal goes to the President who got the most Americans killed and wasted the most money, then Lincoln's definitely got a shot at the title.
intelligent people here think you're a lunatic, who belongs on DU with the rest of the HATERS.
free dixie,sw
The Navy was dispatched the Navy to collect taxes from Rhode Island when the other states had accepted the Constitution, and before Rhode Island had.
Taxes are part of what funded the government. If you consider the very very low tax rates, well, I wish our tax rates were that low.
The war was made by the South. Ask them why they began it. It seems, in my research, to have a great deal with preserving Slavery. Tariffs were a distintly secondary area of contention.
How did the Confederates fund their pseudo-government? Did they collect taxes? Do tell?
I am not sure that I can properly respond to this sentence, because it makes no sense -- "The Navy was dispatched the Navy"... HUH?!
If you are referring to the fact that Rhode Island was Strong-Armed into accepting the Federal Constitution -- yes, they were. But I hardly see how that constitutes an Argument in favor of the virtue of the so-called "Perpetual Union" (if anything, it only proves that the Federalists have always been willing to use Force to accomplish their aims -- even in violation of the Constitution's own Ratification procedures)!
AT ANY RATE, Rhode Island was not the only State which reserved the Right to Secede, or which later threatened Secession. Up until the Southern Secession, the Right to Secede from a Voluntary Compact was acknowledged.
Taxes are part of what funded the government. If you consider the very very low tax rates, well, I wish our tax rates were that low.
So do I -- but as I stated previously, even if the North were paying the bulk of the Import Tariffs, then Secession would be the South's own mistake to make. $6 billions of Dollars and 600,000 lives is a helluva cost for Lincoln to pay, in his countrymen's blood and treasure, just to prove an Economic point.
The war was made by the South.
Actually, Fort Sumter was fired upon because the South, having established an Independent Nation, refused to pay Northern Import Tariffs -- and Lincoln had agreed NOT to re-inforce the Fort until the matter was diplomatically resolved.
Lincoln, monomanically intent upon COLLECTING TAXES, broke the truce agreement and attempted to send re-inforcements to Sumter -- NOT in order to Free any Slaves AT ALL, but ONLY in order to ensure the collection of his PRECIOUS TAXES.
Upon detecting the progress of Lincoln's ILLEGAL re-inforcements (Breach of Truce is a violation of the Law of War), South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter (inflicting ZERO casualties on either side) and assumed control of the Port -- thus preventing Lincoln from sending his illegal re-inforcements, and preventing Lincoln from collecting his precious taxes.
His source of Tax Revenues thus cut off, Lincoln proceeded to invade the South -- NOT to Free the Slaves; but rather, as he declared in his own First Inaugural, for the Love of Money (the Collection of Import Tariffs).
Ask them why they began it. It seems, in my research, to have a great deal with preserving Slavery. Tariffs were a distintly secondary area of contention. How did the Confederates fund their pseudo-government? Did they collect taxes? Do tell?
You are correct -- the South did Secede, according to their own Declarations of Independence, in order to preserve the hateful and immoral institution of Black Slavery.
According to the Bible, "Slavery" (that is, Indentured Labor) can be a Legitimate Institution in SOME cases -- generally as a Legal Restitution for *Non-Violent Property Crimes* (such as Theft, Fraud, Breach of Contract, Inability to Repay a Debt, and the like), and generally not exceeding a term of Seven Years (NOT generation after generation).
In this respect, the States of the South were acting as a bunch of immoral, anti-Biblical, greedy bastards: according to the Bible, indentured Servanthood is based upon Legal Restitution -- Slavery is NOT supposed to be based upon a person's Racial Blackness, and it is NEVER supposed to be a Multi-Generational burden upon the sons and daughters; at least, not according to God's Word.
BUT, at the same time -- the Northerners (LINCOLN, ESPECIALLY!) were acting as a bunch of immoral, anti-Biblical, greedy bastards -- ALSO! PERHAPS the Tariffs were not a "Big Deal" to the South as compared to their Racist desire to Preserve the Institution of Black Slavery (and I could argue the point; as many Southern commentators, even Abolitionists, of the day, absolutely hated the Northern Protectionist Tariffs for their ruinous impact upon Southern Free-Trade) -- but the Tariffs were a VERY "Big Deal" to the North, particularly Lincoln and his Republicans, who depended upon Tariff Revenues in order to fund their "internal improvements" (Government Subsidies to Big Business).
After all, Lincoln said as much in his own First Inaugural: "Y'all can keep on Enslaving the Blacks until Christ Returns, for all I give a damn about them Negroes -- but if you fail to pay even one penny of your Tariffs, then I'll invade you with the Federal Armies" (and here I paraphrase, but that is what he said, in Policy terms.)
And so, here is my position -- BOTH SIDES, NORTH AND SOUTH, acted as a bunch of immoral, anti-Biblical, greedy bastards. But it was Lincoln who chose to Violate Truce, Invade the South, and turn it into a bloody Civil War.
And he did so... in order to collect his precious Tariff-Taxes. Lincoln didn't invade the South in order to Free the Slaves; Lincoln committed the bloodiest, most-fratricidal War in American History -- for the Love of Money.
What a utter, bloody, damnable waste.
The Federal Congress has chosen to consolidate Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday under the rubric of "President's Day".
As for me and my house, it shall still be "Washington's Birthday", whatever the designated Date.
I will gladly celebrate the Father of our Country, the Patriarch of American Freedom. But I will NOT celebrate Lincoln, or any other man who kills 600,000 young boys in order to collect Taxes.
CORDIALLY -- a Northern-Yankee-Born, Northern-Yankee-Bred, Son of the Union North.
Best, OP
When South Carolina offered Nullification, Andrew Jackson noted that secession was never included in the reserved rights. South Carolina backed down, sadly, with fewer casualties than occured with their later treason.
As for Rhode Island, they had to pay duties to the US, just as they had to pay duties to the other states for trading with them under the Articles of Confederation.
More perfect Union, in the preamble, refers to the perpetual union of the Confederation.
Marriage is also a voluntary compact. That doesn't mean that any party can set the terms of the divorce. Often either or both party will be unhappy with the terms of the divorce. Of course, South Carolina could have stayed outside the Union, as a "conquered province" by not accepting the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. No doubt they would have been unhappy with that terms too.
Some people just can't be happy.
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.