Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
And your basis for this claim?
Ultimately, the real reason for the tragedy was the refusal of the Federals to allow the south to secede. State's rights and holding the union together was paramount in Lincoln's mind.
And the southern bombardment of Sumter played no part in the equation?
Everything else just added fuel to the fire and gave you a reason to hate.
I don't really care enough about the south one way or the other to hate it. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to sit back and watch fairy tales posted as fact.
"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depoulation and barbarism." - South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keitt, 1860
"The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery." - Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. --Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession
SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Louisiana
This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last. -- Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia Convention
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. -- Texas Declaration of the causes of secession
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us.
If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable --- -- Address of William L. Harris of Mississippi
History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. -- Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. -- Alexander Stephens
Watch it, Heyworth. Can quotes from "Gone With The Wind" or "Gods and Generals" be far behind?
Probably because phones hadn't been invented yet and the founders couldn't get hold of Miss Cleo? </sarcasm>
Actually, the states were originally enumerated. The Committee of Revision (aka Committee of Style) - led by William S. Johnson (CN), joined by Alexander Hamilton (NY), James Madison (VA), Gouverneur Morris (PA) and Rufus King (MA) - made numerous changes. Morris is the one who changed the Preamble, since it was unknown which states would ratify. Additionally, denoting the states would require Constitutional amendments to revise the Preamble with each new state added.
Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.
Wrong. It IS described as an agreement between the states (Article VII - 'The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.') And one would have to be insane to aver that it was ratified by the people en masse - can you point to this super-ratification made by all states in unison???
"For the confederacy defense of slavery was by far the single most important reason for the rebellion from the very beginning."
Nope.
Never saw the movie, although I read the novel that it was based on, as well as an early draft of the screenplay before it was shot. I've even seen "The Outlaw Josie Wales" and "Dark Command" several times each. I understand that some of Quantrill's men believed they had grievances. The point is Watie's oft-repeated assertion that EVERY SINGLE VICTIM at Lawrence, from the 16 year-old shop clerks to the old German preacher dragged from his sickbed, had it coming--that there wasn't a single innocent victim. Oh, and that their specific crimes can be found in a book entitled "The Annals of Old Missouri", which, apparently exists no place but in Watie's imagination.
That's a real problem, but this neo-confederate nonsense should not even be under discussion. It kicked the bucket in 1865.
Then what was, and what do you base your claim on?
A lame reply, but I can see you're struggling. Then why didn't the Preamble start "We the People of the Several States"? That would negate your amendment requirement. Instead it starts "We the People of the United States" making it clear that it was in that role the peope would ratify the Constitution, and that the states were not.
It IS described as an agreement between the states
No. If so then the Constitution should read "Ratification of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution..." Instead, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out, the people of the United States, meeting in conventions held in their respective states, ratified the document.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me......"
Okay, time for exercise period! Now, with me! All together,with feeling,
Goldberg!
Goldberg!
Goldberg!
Goldberg!
Madison was successful in convinving Hamilton that the resumption of powers at will as declared in the New York and Virginia ratification documents were not conditions, but inherent powers explicit in the Constitution itself.
I disagree. It was, and it still is, the symbol of the South, instantly recognized throughout the world.
Robert E. Lee, the South's most valiant and honorable General, was opposed to secession and denounced it as revolution and a betrayal of the Founding Fathers' ideals.
Might be better to quote his exact words on that point. Secession was certainly not a betrayal of the Founders' ideals -- their policy, perhaps, as articulated by Washington, Madison, and others. But Jefferson is on the record, that he would prefer the United States end up three or four happy, or at least satisfied, countries, than one big unhappy one, oppressed by a part of it.
[Lee] only accepted command for the South out of loyalty to his native Virginia and refused to wear Confedrate insignia.
Never heard that one before. He accepted a Virginia Militia commission at first, and then a month or so later, a Confederate commission.
He would be the first to say that Confederacy belongs in the past and that we are all Americans now.
Well, he was the first to say that, when he bid his troops goodbye. He was also said to have said later on(but this is controverted), that if he'd known how vindictive the Radicals planned to be in victory, he might not have surrendered so readily.
I disagree. The CSA was the USA, or rather the USA now includes the CSA. Do you feel the same way about, say, Wyoming?
Those of us who love the USA do not accept the slander of our greatest leaders or stand still for the praise of those attempting to destroy our great nation.
There are those who feel the same way about Bill Clinton, FDR, etc, who would insist that it is you who hate America. If you leave no room for disagreement, you'll find yourself awfully lonely in your self-righteousness.
Slight of hand, Non... they petition for statehood, once granted, they are on equal footing, unless you can demonstrate that the Constitution says otherwise.
OK.
"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private gain. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence will draw my sword on none."
Because both "people" and "states" are plurals in this construction. "People" was always a plural word in the 18th century, and the superplural "peoples" didn't show up until later. There is a hint there, about the ideology of nationality. It does not, however, illuminate original intent.
Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.
Nonsense. When Virginia ratified, it was as the People of Virginia. When Connecticut ratified, the People of Connecticut ratified. There was no lumpen People of the United State: the People were the People, whether of Virginia (a State) or of the United States (more than one State).
The basic unit of polity in the United States is the People of a State. That's how we ratify changes to the Constitution, and it's how we elect the constitutional officers of the United States, the President and the Vice-President.
And that is why King George III recognized our States as free States and our People as their sovereigns: State by State, People by People seriatim, calling the roll all through the Treaty of Paris.
But we've been over all this. I'm surprised to see you trying to berate 4CJ over all this, after you've been so thoroughly refuted. Or do you think the thread gods will just forget, if you try to "reset" and start all over again?
Fat chance.
Or your fellow-poster's?
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.