Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
It would not be fair if that were the truth, but here you're lying. South Carolina and the CSA both attempted to remunerate the federal government for any debts, and to negotiate all outstanding issues.
It means someday a Southern senator will become become President and avenge Appomotox. Bobby told Jack not to go to Texas...and now look where we’re at. Texas is the US.
See #1360.
There may be a liar in the group but it isn't me. Contrary to your opinion on what they might have done eventually, some day, perhaps, there was no offer of settlement made prior to repudiating the debt. No compensation made prior to seizing the property. Just vague suggestions that the South might talk about it, but only after Lincoln first recognized the legality of their acts of secession and confederate sovereignty.
a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a) of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b) of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
It's a condemnation of unjust actions and theft, not a condemnation of slavery.
================================================= In Vine's entry for andrapodistes he quotes Moulton and Milligan:
"andrapodon was never an ordinary word for slave; it was too brutally obvious a reminder of the principle which made quadruped and human chattels differ only in the number of their legs"
Sounds like andrapodon, the Greek root of "menstealers", is a concept quite in harmony with Roger Taney and the slavery fanatics. And this word, the word that comes closest to the American South's concept of slavery, is never used in those passages that people use to justify Southern slavery. I don't see any Biblical justifcation for the South's practice of slavery.
Slavery fanactics, you must mean the yankees who bought them in Africa. Millions of yankees made profits by venturing capital in the trade. They were so fanatic about slavery they sailed the oceans to procur their human cargo, and lusted so much after profits they brutalized them in holds barely large enough for them to sit upright, starving many, and tossing hundreds of thousands overboard as it suited them. Entire cargoes of slaves were tossed overboard, still in chains to drown or be eaten by sharks to prevent the yankees from being arrested for slave trading after 1808.
Post your proof of your slur against the Chief Justice, otherwise retract it. The justice defended Rev. Gruber against charges of inciting a slave rebellion, as well as freeing the slaves he inherited, providing for them until their deaths in old-age.
No. I mean seize property and supplies, threaten citizens, and run fraudulent elections. If people in some other part of the country had behaved as the Southern rebels did, you can bet Southerners would be irate. Why the special privileges for Dixie?
Trust but Verify comes to mind.
You don't get it. Reagan was a legitimate national leader. It was only right for him to try to negotiate from a position of strength. Someone who wants out of a federal union doesn't get to give ultimatums or make demands. The terms of separation have to be sorted out at the federal level, not by force of rebellious arms.
I gather from Davis's April 29, 1861, speech to the Confederate Congress that he was busy after Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops, asking for the volunteers previously authorized by the Confederate Congress for the defense of the Confederacy.
The earlier call by Congress was something Davis could have stopped if he'd wanted to and been on the ball. If he'd used his head he would have understood what a provocation that was. Lincoln's call was a response to the war the rebels had already started. It lost unionists the Upper South, but wasn't unconstitutional or illegitimate as the earlier Confederate demand was.
I think Dred Scott is all the proof I need. Good for Taney in his personal affairs, but his Dred Scott ruling is right in line with the American South's hardening idea of slaves as two legged property, the absolute ownership of which was not to be restricted.
Sorry, but the facts prove otherwise. You wrote, 'my position is that the South wanted to walk away from obligations to debt and treaties, take whatever federal property they wanted without compensation of any kind, and leave the remaining states to shoulder the responsibility'
One at a time. You assert that the South 'wanted to walk away from obligations to debt and treaties.' The TRUTH is that they sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate settlement of all debts.
You assert that the South took 'whatever federal property they wanted without compensation of any kind' The TRUTH is that properties in question were WHOLLY inside non-US territories, erected for the defense of the state, not some capital a hundred or thousand miles away. Being real property they cannot be removed. The properties were SURRENDERED by US forces peacefully. Even then, to prevent deranged idiots from claiming that they stole them, South Carolina and the CSA sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate settlement of all debts.
And lastly, you assert that the South left 'the remaining states to shoulder the responsibility.' What responsibility? What clause in the Constitution forces them to remain? (please respond with factual, concrete citations, not your usual living constitution made of implicit vague, touchy feely liberal notions) The forts were built with monies from from the federal treasury. By 'walking away' as you claim, the South relinquished claim to their portion of EVERY asset purchased/improved upon by the federal government. The South wanted nothing more than to be separated from demented ilk like you, and like Lincoln, you have the audacity to demand that we remain your friends and be inseparable. I pity you and your family.
Lincoln fought to keep the South in the Union because he knew the South wasn’t hostile to the founding principles of the United States. If anything, Dixie was viewed as being obsessed with those principles, which is why it’s always been such a patriotic region.
Actually, no. Lincoln "believed that the South wasn't hostile to the founding principles of the United States," that is to say that the people of the South still believed in American values, but he knew that the leaders of the secessionist movement had already abandoned some of the key principles of the founding.
He fought because he thought the rot didn't go all the way down. That may not have been the right conclusion to draw in 1860, but in the very long run he were probably right about that.
But maybe Southerners who believed in the founders' principles submitted to a Confederate leadership that didn't accept or understand or know those principles because of the particular situation of the time: when people felt their region was threatened and it was hard for many to separate out slavery and freedom.
But you've got kind of a skewed view of U.S. principles. Do we take the founders as slave owners or as people who believed that slavery was wrong and would some day be abolished? Was the South more devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence in 1950 or 1960 than the North was? You're saying that Southerners tend to be more supportive of foreign wars, but is that all there is to being an American?
I'm calling BS on this one. Millions? The entire free white population of the northern states in 1800 was barely over 2 million.
Which is an accurate description of what they did. They did walk out. They did repudiate the debt. They did seize property without compensation. They did not offer settlement before doing so.
The TRUTH is that they sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate settlement of all debts.
The TRUTH is that they sent representatitives to Washington to demand recognition from the Lincoln administration. Depending on which document you look at then included in the instructions, but only once recognition had been obtained, were ever more vague offers to discuss issues which may or may not have included settlement of debt and compensation for property seized.
Which brings up an interesting question. Had the South actually offered to pay for the property and make good on their share of the debt, then wouldn't that be an admission that their actions of walking out on their responsibility and taking whatever they wanted were wrong to begin with?
You assert that the South took 'whatever federal property they wanted without compensation of any kind' The TRUTH is that properties in question were WHOLLY inside non-US territories, erected for the defense of the state, not some capital a hundred or thousand miles away. Being real property they cannot be removed.
They were still federal property. All states had an interest in them, not just the rebelling ones.
The properties were SURRENDERED by US forces peacefully.
The properties were seized. Some, like a number of the military properties, were unoccupied and the rebel forces just walked in. Others, like mints and courthouses and revenue cutters, were seized. Still others, were surrendered by commanders without proper authority and the federal troops expelled. In all the cases the property was illegally acquired.
Even then, to prevent deranged idiots from claiming that they stole them, South Carolina and the CSA sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate settlement of all debts.
You can keep repeating that nonsense all you want and it doesn't change facts. Even had the South made a serious offer to compensate, if I steal your car and then offer you money for it does that make my actions right?
And lastly, you assert that the South left 'the remaining states to shoulder the responsibility.' What responsibility?
Responsibility for debt built up by the nation as a whole while the rebellious states were a part. Responsibility for treaty obligations like the anti-slavery patrols which the U.S. had to shoulder without the assets seized by the Southern states before and after Sumter. That responsibility.
What clause in the Constitution forces them to remain? (please respond with factual, concrete citations, not your usual living constitution made of implicit vague, touchy feely liberal notions)
I've pointed out the applicable clauses with gives the power to Congress to create states and approve changes in their status. I've pointed out that implicit in this is the power to approve leaving altogether, as the Supreme Court found. As to the 'touchy feely liberal notion' of implied powers, I've never thought of Chief Justice Marshall as that much of a liberal. But then again I don't have your odd view of the world.
The forts were built with monies from from the federal treasury.
Which would mean that all those contributing to the federal treasury have an ownership share in them, would it not? The Southern states contributed some of the money used to build the forts. So did Ohio and New York and Connecticut and so forth. They deserved to be compensated for their share.
By 'walking away' as you claim, the South relinquished claim to their portion of EVERY asset
And the South was free to give up any claims that they wanted to. Nobody held a gun to their head and said they couldn't. But that doesn't give them the right to say, "what was yours is now mine because I gave up x, y, and z" without the other owners having a say in the matter.
The South wanted nothing more than to be separated from demented ilk like you, and like Lincoln, you have the audacity to demand that we remain your friends and be inseparable.
They they went about it in an odd way. Stealing, welching on debt, shooting up property that wasn't given over on demand.
I pity you and your family.
You may keep your pity. It isn't necessary, and certainly isn't sincere.
While you're at it, call him on the hundreds of millions of dollars in imports the South consumed annually prior to the rebellion.
Read your history books - yankee slavers continued in the trade up until the war.
Do you think that yankees only purchased slaves in 1800? They did so in 1799, 1798, 1797 and decades further back, and in 1801, 1802, 1803 and up to the war. The slave trade was the cornerstone of the northern economy and the Triangle trade.
Very few, the equivalent of drug smugglers today, liable to be hanged if caught. Now show some evidence that "millions" of yankees invested capital in a trade that was illegal after 1807.
I assure you, it's VERY sincere.
And I assure YOU, that even it it were it's still completely unnecessary.
Oh, so to get "millions of yankees", you count the same yankees every year, huh? I guess that would put the number of southern slave owners in the billions.
Nope, but for the clinically obtuse, the yankee slave trade existed for over a hundred years, not just a single year.
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.