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 ...
Well, I've looked back at my posts and I can't seem to find where I said I believe that the states didn't exist. What I did say was that I agree with Chief Justice Marshall when he said it was the people of the United States which ratified the Constitution, not the people of Virginia. And I don't believe that I every said that there wasn't limited sovereignty among the states, just not the overwhelming, all reaching concept of sovereignty that you seem to grasp. As for "queers" marrying in Idaho, well, your personal life is of no interest to me.
Can you name/describe the great war/revolution that occurred to overthrow the Articles - if one occurred.
No, because one didn't occur. I could give my reasons why I believe the ratification of the Constitution was entirely proper, but I believe Madison does a better job of explaining it in Federalist 40.
As for "queers" marrying in Idaho, well, your personal life is of no interest to me.
Neither is yours, and I certainly dodn't think that Massachusetts/Vermont can force Georgia to recognize such "marriages". Our Constitution forbids legal recognition of homosexual unions ('This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.')
No, because one [revolution] didn't occur.
Justice Marshall disagrees, in Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 Pet. 243, 250 (1833) he writes,
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition.
And regarding mulattos, wouldn't the percentage of mulattos compared to the black population be indicitive of the alleged illegal relations? And if the ratio of mulattos to blacks was 11% in the original 11 Confederate states, wouldn't that be ample evidence of such illegal trysts?
So what explains the ratio of 39% in the northern states? a rate 4 times that of the South? Maybe it was all those yankees romping through the neighborhood lusting after forbidden delights?
Actually no, it's become rather disappointing. I had hoped that you would be able to provide some quotes from southern leaders bolstering your claim that I'm wrong in my statement that the defense of slavery was by far the single most important reason for the rebellion. All I see is two quotes saying that ending slavery was not the reason why Lincoln pursued the war to it's outcome. Well, I already knew that. Then you toss in a couple of newspaper editorials about the tariff, which must mean that you believe that the tariff was the reason why the North fought since your quotes are from Northern papers. Then you add the quote from Cowpers which seems to have no bearing on the discussion at all since he was talking about slavery in British colonies prior to 1800. So nothing at all from the south as to why they rebelled. Couldn't you find any?
At the beginning of the war, four states VA, NC, SC and GA provided somewhere around 75% of the revenue to the federal government under the Morrill tariff.
That would be an extremely neat trick to accomplish, especially since the Morrill Tariff wasn't adopted until February 1861, after two of those states had seceded only 8 weeks or so before the remaining two joined the rebellion. So how they could have paid 75% of that tariff is beyond me. Add to that the facts that in the year prior to the rebellion 95% of all tariff income was collected in 3 Northern ports and that Alexander Stephens admitted that more than three-quarters of all tariff revenue was generated by the Northern states and you can understand my skepticism on your unsupported claim.
Regarding the beginning of the war, the first act of the new Confederate President was to send peace delegates to meet with the United States. Lincoln refused see them.
That's not true, either. The legislation authorizing the sending of the delegation said that they were "for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." The problem with that is evident right off the bat, unless Lincoln was willing to accept confederate independence and treat with the southern states as a legitimate government then there was nothing to talk about. The one major bone of contention, secession, wasn't open for discussion. So calling them "peace delegates" is quite a stretch.
As to those opening shots at Fort Sumter, Lincoln had already dispatched Gustavus Fox with a fleet and some 1500 troops to set up what was essentially a blockade of Charleston harbor.
The fleet had closer to two hundred troops rather than 1500, and those it did have were untrained. The purpose of the fleet was made clear in a message delivered to Governor Pickens long before the arrival of the ships. The message was delivered by a messenger from Lincoln and was quite clear, "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." And the idea that they were there to blockade Charleston is pretty dumb if you think about it. What would blockading one port do? Especially one that wasn't even the busiest southern port, not even the second busiest? It would have accomplished nothing, and your claim that that was the purpose of the ships is really rather ridiculous.
When the South fired on the fort, they gave Abe the pretext he wanted to call up 75,00 troops and begin the war. Since the Union troops at the fort lowered their colors within two days and were allowed to be returned safely to the Union, despite the presence of a large force to help them, I have to assume that was the plan in the first place.
The ever popular "That darned Lincoln forced us to do it" defense. I'm surprised you waited this long before trotting it out.
Trying to turn my snide comment to you back on me was slick, but not applicable to this situation.
But still pretty slick. You fell right into that one.
One of the things I have learned is that there are virtually no unbiased sources.
Perhaps you can try for accurate ones?
Just the male ones.
This from the crowd that drags the word 'secession' in when describing the colonial rebellion from the crown.
Secede - Latin secedere - to withdraw, which is what the colonies and states did. As the colonies declared, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." Perpetual - from the Latin perpetuus, continuous, or without stated end.
Nah, all the states wanting to legalize homsexuality are up north - Georgia outlawed it until the liberals on the court decided that they knew what's best.
By using words of the leaders of the south? They seceded, they began the war, they had their reasons. And as I've pointed out the single most important reason for their act of rebellion was defense of slavery. But surely you have something to show me wrong?
Nowhere have I seen the 95% figure you gave.
That figure is from "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen Wise. He sources a document titled "Statement Showing the Amount of Revenue Collected Annually in each Collection District from June 30, 1854 to June 30, 1859, Together With the Amount Expended and Persons Employed in Each District.", Executive Document No.44, 36th Congress, 1st Session, 1860. For the year 1858 to 1859 there were $42.7 million collected in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. For that same period for the 11 busiest southern ports the collections totalled about $2.8 million.
My readings indicate that European goods were shipped through Southern ports to avoid the heavy taxation of their goods in the north.
A simple reading of the Constitution would show how ridiculous that statement is. Tariffs are applied on imports and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 states that those duties will uniform throughout the states. The tariff in New York was the same as the tariff in Charleston.
Again, I've not seen the figure that you attribute to Alexander. If I am wrong, and he is right I will say so. I don't believe I am wrong.
Of course you don't believe you're wrong. I could keep providing proof after proof, evidence upon evidence, and you would still cling to your southron myths.
The quote if from a speech Stephens gave in January 1861. "Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; it is that of revenue, or means of supporting government. From official documents, we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected for the support of government has uniformly been raised in the North."
So you have figures showing that 95% of tariff reveune raised in the North and Stephens saying that over 75% of the revenue is raised in the North. Your turn.
bill clinton would be proud of the way you play with words. You aren't a lawyer are you?
If true, then sad to say the only explanation is that Clinton has more respect for the truth than you do. Could that be the reason?
They weren't a legitimate government only in the way that the United States wasn't a legitimate government before it had defeated the British in war.
They weren't a legitimate government because none of the world's nations recognized them as such. They were nothing more than a rebellious section of the U.S.
As General Cleburne wrote, the winners write the history so I guess we will call it a civil war.
And the losers write the myths, as your posts continue to show.
That the Morill Tariff was voted in shortly after two of the states to be taxed had already withdrawn, and more than two months before the rest withdrew and hostilities commenced indicates the direction the Union was heading.
If the tariff was such a bone of contention they why didn't the Democrat platforms of 1860 raise it? Why wasn't it an issue in the declarations of the causes of secession? Why weren't southern leaders decrying it to the heavens, why barely mentioning slavery?
We've read different accounts of the efforts to blockade Charleston and we absolutely interpret the facts differently. You can believe the ones you want but you are still wrong about the importance of Charleston and you also show a lack of understanding about strategy and diplomacy in your disinformation about Fox's assets and mission.
Translation, I don't cling to the same...unique view of things that you do. The fact is that the resupply fleet arrived off Charleston just before the Davis regime initiated hostilities, did not prevent a single ship from entering or leaving the harbor, and left right after the rebel attack. Some blockade.
"Non-Sequitur" That's great.
Yes that's me. Non-Sequitur. The one. The only. Accept no substitutes. I could recommend some alternate names for you, most of two words beginning with a 'B' and an 'S', but this is a family forum.
he was too power-hungry to let the new dixie republic go in peace, so a MILLION people needLESSLY died for his folly.
sorry, but as per usual, "Mr Minister", your posts are PURE propaganda for the unionist cause.
but then, propaganda is your "stock in trade". at least you have (unlike the rest of the unionist coven) have BOTH a BRAIN that functions AND a sound EDUCATION.
free dixie,sw
Yeah, he actually snuck down to Charleston and fired the first shot at Ft. Sumter himself. I'm surprised that you didn't know that, NS. It's all in the book that's right next to the one about the Galveston U-Boat and the one that includes the crimes of all the people killed at Lawrence.
I guess I'm not as well read as I thought.
And your posts are PURE bull sh....manure for the southron cause. Per usual.
By the same token those tariffs that protect and benefit Pennsylvania don't benefit Ohio or Maine or Iowa or New Jersey. Why didn't they rebel?
Applying protectionist tariffs to the import of textiles or machinery from Britain or grains from Russia helped the mill worker wage slaves in New England and the western farmer, but hurt the cotton growing Southerner who paid more for those goods while watching the revenues go to Washington to support the Federal government.
How? The mill worker and the western farmer paid more for the imported goods, same as the southern cotton farmer did. The price on domestic goods protected by the tariff was just as inflated for them as it was for a shopkeeper in Alabama. The tariff hit all consumers equally.
I'm still not convinced that protectionist tariffs and the differences between urban industrial regions and rural agrarian societies weren't leading causes of the war...
One interesting piece of legislation passed by the confederate congress in the spring of 1861 was, you guessed it, a tariff. Protectionist in nature it levied a 25 percent tax on tobacco products and molasses, 15 percent on salt and most cotton products, and so forth and so on. If the tariff was such a bone of contention then why did the south almost immediately adopt one?
From the time the Morrill tariff was approved by the House in 1860 until it was approved by a Republican dominated Senate and signed into law it was a source of anger in the South. Deny it if you will. It just shows your prejudices
I won't deny it, if it annoys you. But I wonder why, if the tariff was such a big deal, the southern states seceded before it was even brought up for a vote again in 1861? Especially since they had killed the tariff in the senate in 1860 and had enough votes to kill it again in 1861?
You say that no nations recognized the Confederate states and that they were not a legitimate government. The nations that recognized the US in the Revolution did so because they opposed England.
But for whatever reason they did recognize it. They acknowledged the United States as a free and sovereign nation in it's own right.
It was different in the War for Southern Independence. Had the European nations not liked the American markets and raw goods, or had the South won, the recognition would have come, along with the British rifles and French cannon the South used.
The raw goods that you speak of were primarily raw cotton, tobacco products, and the like. If the European powers were motivated solely by markets then one would expect their sympathy to lie with the south, since they consumed so much of their cotton exports and since, as you would have us believe, the south consumed in excess of 75 percent of all imports. Yet they did not. Perhaps slavery had something to do with their reluctance, not wanting to align themselves with a cause so closely connected with the preservation of that institution. Or perhaps they realized very early on that the south had no chance of winning their rebellion? Nobody likes to cozy up to a loser.
That doesn't mean that there weren't more, just that I haven't found them.
That's OK. Fox couldn't find them, either.
What Lincoln stated in his message to Pickens was also a lie. He did not order a resupply of Sumter, as has been demonstrated many times before.
Anderson was not being starved. He was being supplied daily from the city of Charleston. It was, in fact, Anderson who rejected the idea of federal resupply.
It was not until the reinforcement was attempted that supply from Charleston was put to a stop. Repeated propoganda is still propoganda.
Non's repetition of the 'if they can leave, we should be able to kick them out' rigamarole is interesting, because that's exactly what the Constitutional Convention and subsequent ratification did to North Carolina and Rhode Island.
Your "stunning victory" was a 30-27 vote.
He was only able to sway them by reassuring them that the conditions they demanded were inherent to the document. That is, the statements in the New York ratification:
That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.
That the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are essential rights, which every government ought to respect and preserve.
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Were redundant to the true meaning of the Constitution.
That is your hero's position. Why do you reject it? Why rejoice in fraud and dishonesty? Is that the "new conservatism?"
Maybe for you, since you define conservatism as "agreement with Hamilton."
Nobody at the time considered Hamilton conservative. The people considered Madison and Hamilton both young and radical, and were reluctant to hand the country over to the instrument they had created, but saw little alternative.
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.