Posted on 01/15/2007 9:38:08 AM PST by SmithL
And the description is still correct. The confederacy was never a sovereign nation.
I've stated on several other similar threads that if the South had been successful, the north would be a communist dictatorship today.
Their labor unions alone would have seen to that. (an American version of the Bolshevik Revolution)
Then we would have had to fight the bastards again to prevent the spread of communism.
Sounds far fetched? Our Southern politicians (mostly conservative) fight the northern politicians (mostly liberal) every day in DC to prevent the spread of socialism......and we're losing.....again.
That's interesting because under the original version of the Constitution, states were considered sovereign.
So, each sovereign Southern state declared it's independence from the Union and formed a voluntary union of states, called the Confederacy, therefore, by the collective sovereignty of each state, the Confederacy was, logically, a sovereign nation.
In addition, the Confederate States of America under the Constitution of 1861 was illegally conquered and occupied, and in law, legally is still a nation in occupation. A sovereign nation.
Also, prior fourteenth amendment, people were freemen and freeholders, denoting individual sovereignty. The term citizen implies a manner of subservience to the almighty state.
And I think that given the policies of Jefferson Davis it's likely the confederacy would have gone one of two ways - Communist state or fascist dictatorship. Davis seemed to vary between the two extremes. He proposed confiscatory income taxes, nationalized industries like salt and liquor and textiles, and seized private property at will without compensation, all socialist traits. At the same time he ignored his constitution whenever convenient so he could implement protectionist tariffs and avoid the inconvenience of a supreme court, he jailed people without trial, tramples all over the rights of states by conscripting their people and seizing control of their militia, all tactics of a police state. And then, of course, he fought to keep substantial part of his population in slavery, a trait common to both systems. Only time would tell which one won out, though in the end I think fascism would have been the preferable system.
Their labor unions alone would have seen to that. (an American version of the Bolshevik Revolution)
You seem to forget that the North kept labor unions in check well into the 20th century, and they still weren't widely accepted by the West and Mid-West. I think you exaggerate their influence.
Then we would have had to fight the bastards again to prevent the spread of communism.
Likewise, to defeat international fascism.
Our Southern politicians (mostly conservative) fight the northern politicians (mostly liberal) every day in DC to prevent the spread of socialism......and we're losing.....again.
Oh, please. When I look at Southern politicians like Bush, Lott, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Frist, and DeLay I don't see conservatives. I see Southern Democrats who stayed Democrats, and Southern Democrats who went over to the Republican party once they realized that they didn't have to give up their big spending, big government ways.
Sovereign. Another word you seem to have problems with.
So, each sovereign Southern state declared it's independence from the Union and formed a voluntary union of states, called the Confederacy, therefore, by the collective sovereignty of each state, the Confederacy was, logically, a sovereign nation.
In their minds, perhaps. And in the minds of southron supporters today. But since their actions were illegal, and since they lost their rebellion, nobody else in the world considered them a sovereign nation. They were always a rebellious part of the U.S.
ROTFLMAO.
Nuff said.
I see Southern Democrats who stayed Democrats
Still beats the hell out of northern lib/soc/comm's.
So is it your contention that prior to the 14th Amendment there was no such thing as a United States citizen?
Hey Plugs! Siddown and Shaddup!
Except that you're Southern politicians manage to screw things up for the nation as a whole.
Most of the US Constitutional citizenship rules apply strictly to holding federal office.
As you are well aware, people thought of themselves as citizens to their respective states, not to a 'federal government'. Hence RE Lee's reluctant resignation from the US Army and, the reluctant acceptance of his resignation. If Virginia was going to dissolve her ties with the union, then Lee felt compelled to return home and prepare to defend his homeland in the event of attack.
Today's climate is much different. We are citizens of the United States and residents of whatever state we happen to be living in.
All politician's manage to screw things up eventually. That's what they do. Otherwise, they'd be out of a job.
But, the real threats to constitutionally guaranteed protection from government and the installation of a full fledged socialist/communist regime are the liberal yankees and their union card carrying lackey thugs.
Political correctness or, stifling 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights is a northeast, liberal yankee concept.
Anti-Christianity is a northeast, liberal yankee attempt to secularize the country so that things like same sex marriage can become the law of the land.
Gun control is a northeast, liberal yankee attempt to disarm law abiding citizens so that the northeast liberal yankees can run amok with the Constitution and not be challenged by an armed citizenry.
In addition, since you prefer northeast yankee liberal politicians to Southron politicians, I can assume that, if a Southron politician is Hittery's opponent in '08 that you'll be backing The Hilderbeast in her bid to become dictatress. Time to put up or shut up on this one, big boy. What's it gonna be?
Just because some did doesn't make it right. It's more like a con game, declare yourself a U.S. citizen when convenient and when it's more convenient repudiate your U.S. citizenship in favor of your state. Washington scoffed at the notion of state over country was he wrong?
In the USSR? No.
In a representative republic where the representatives are elected by the citizenry of sovereign states, which make up a voluntary union that declared itself a separate nation, to represent that states public interest? Perhaps so.
Jefferson, on the other hand, was a strong supporter of states' rights and a proponent of a strictly limited federal government, so he may have felt differently than Washington. Was he wrong?
Depends. Point out where Jefferson said loyalty to state comes before loyalty to country.
"Then we would have had to fight the bastards again to prevent the spread of communism."
yes, they probably would have teamed up with Castro by now and attacked the CSA from both sides.
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.