Serial murder suspect Dennis Rader makes a court appearance via video on Tuesday. Richard Ney, an attorney temporarily representing Rader, is at left.
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 ...
From the many things I’ve read on the Civil War, I simply believe it was over state’s rights and not slavery.
States’ rights to do what? Set tariffs? The Constitution settled that in Article I, and Andy Jackson further settled it in the 1830’s, with both houses of Congress held by Southern Democrats. So, it can’t be that.
The right to send slavecatchers into other States and compell them to help return run aways? No, I guess that would be an Anti-States’ rights stance.
The right to take “property” in the form of other humans into a State or Territory where possession of Slaves was illegal, yet still retain posession? No, that would seem to be Anti-States’ rights as well.
I’m at a loss. What “States’ Right” was being violated in 1860?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. – 10th Amendment
The right to secede is not expressly prohibited to the states. Thus, under the plain meaning of the 10th Amendment, the states retain the right to secede. The right to prevent secession is not delegated to the United States. In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected a provision that would have authorized the use of Union force against a recalcitrant state. As such, not happy with US Federal Government (for a host of reasons – largesse of the US Federal Government, tariffs, etc – matters not the reason), the Confederate States exercised their states’ rights and seceded from the Union. The acts of secession were approved by state legislatures, then ratified by conventions whose delegates were elected by the people of those states. Lincoln’s interpretation of the constitution was different and he went to war to preserve the Union.
With regard to both houses being held by Southern Democrats, just because a party holds both houses of Congress, doesn’t mean the party can do what it wants. Ask the Democrats and Bill Clinton or the Republicans and George Bush when both concurrently held all three branches of government simultaneously.
You are correct is pointing out the hypocrisy of the CSA in their constitution with regard to states’ rights and the dealing of slavery in other non-slave states. It ranks up there with Lincoln’s hypocrisy over slavery…..not giving two hoots in hell about it until the issue could be used to achieve his political goals. There are no purists on either side of the issue.
I want to reiterate, my arguments are not in favor of slavery ( I think it is abhorrent). I believe it was a secondary issue at the time with the primary issue being the constitutionality of the states being able to secede from the Union and form a new government.
The word "expressly" is not found in the 10th. Many Federal powers are implied, not explicitly granted. For example, the power to raise land and sea forces implies the power to raise an air force. Likewise, the power to admit new states resides in Congress, which implies the power to dissolve those bonds also lies with the representatives of all the states in Congress.
Thus, we have a conflict between the interpretation of the 10th A. by the South, and Article 4, Sec. 3 by the North. When there is a conflict of Constitutional interpretation, there is an arbiter provided for. Unilaterally disavowing the authority of the Constitution is not provided for. Military rebellion is right out, unless all legal pathways have been exhausted and compliance unbearable for human liberty.
I believe it was a secondary issue at the time with the primary issue being the constitutionality of the states being able to secede from the Union and form a new government.
That's a circular argument. You are saying the South seceded because they were being denied the "right" to secede. Why would they want to secede? Because they weren't being let to secede. Circular. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.
There was a deeper motivation at work. The motivation underlies every facet of the growing tension between the North and South. It was there in the compromises that were incorporated in the Constitution. It comes down to preserving and expanding the economic model on which the South was based. They attempted secession to preserve slavery.
In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected a provision that would have authorized the use of Union force against a recalcitrant state.
There is a provision to use force on a "recalcitrant" state when that state employs force. It is called the Suppression of Insurrection. It is found in Article I.
As such, not happy with US Federal Government (for a host of reasons – largesse of the US Federal Government, tariffs, etc – matters not the reason), the Confederate States exercised their states’ rights and seceded from the Union.
Of course it matters what reason. For example, tariffs. If a state may withdraw at will, unilaterally, over a disagreement of the use of an enumerated Federal power, that renders that power useless. It belies the Constitution being the Supreme Law. Calhoun's Nullification theory was discredited thirty years before the CW.
There is an inbuilt remedy for the States which feel their "rights" have been impinged upon, namely Article III, Sec. 2. They have recourse to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Confederacy chose military assault on a Federal fort, thus filling the definition of an insurrection.
As it was to pass, the question of the legality of secession was determined after the war by a USSC of quite different make up than the Taney court of Dred Scott fame. They determined that unilateral secession was not legal.
Time to invoke Godwin's Law?
There’s no more irony in ‘the war of northern aggression’ than in ‘the late unpleasantness’, ‘the war between the states’, ‘the war for southern independence’, or any other of the many terms applied to ‘the civil war’.
You are certainly one of the more energetic south-haters. A regular energizer bunny. Are you an independent, or do you attend meetings with other south-haters?
John Brown came out of upstate New York’s ‘burned over district’. The spawning ground for religious zealots of all sorts. It was the California of its time.
An excellent book on John Brown and the people who financed his terrorism is Otto Scott’s “The Secret Six”.
Serial murder suspect Dennis Rader makes a court appearance via video on Tuesday. Richard Ney, an attorney temporarily representing Rader, is at left.
“Instead he got a third star, command of the army, and died with the respect of his peers.”
And the infamous reputation of being a scourge of women & children, and of being the most HATED General in US History.
Apparently.
"The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at." -- Alexander Stephens, January 1861
You are correct, but I restate. Slavery was not the issue at hand.
Expansion of slavery was. Lincoln was elected as an opponent of expanding slavery into the territories. The Southern leadership knew this and that was the reason for their rebellion in the first place.
The facts simply don’t bear our your assertion. The only person who interjected slavery into the War was Lincoln. This was done out of desperation because the war was not going well.
The facts very much do. Long before the Emancipation Proclamation, the speeches and writings and proclamations of the time relating to secession were making it clear that defense of slavery was by far the single most important reason for the rebellion. For example, Henry Benning of Georgia summed it up very succinctly to the Virgina Secession Convention. "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." George Williamson of Louisiana told the Texas convention, "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." If you look in detail, for every hint of a reason other than slavery there are many more which make it clear that the expansion of slavery was the major bone of contention.
“We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence.” - Jefferson Davis"
Well, independence for about a third of his population at any rate. But the 'why' of the equation is important and let Davis himself explain it.
"As soon, how ever, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. Fanatical organizations, supplied with money by voluntary subscriptions, were assiduously engaged in exciting amongst the slaves a spirit of discontent and revolt; means were furnished for their escape from their owners, and agents secretly employed to entice them to abscond; the constitutional provision for their rendition to their owners was first evaded, then openly denounced as a violation of conscientious obligation and religious duty; men were taught that it was a merit to elude, disobey, and violently oppose the execution of the laws enacted to secure the performance of the promise contained in the constitutional compact; owners of slaves were mobbed and even murdered in open day solely for applying to a magistrate for the arrest of a fugitive slave; the dogmas of these voluntary organizations soon obtained control of the Legislatures of many of the Northern States, and laws were passed providing for the punishment, by ruinous fines and long-continued imprisonment in jails and penitentiaries, of citizens of the Southern States who should dare to ask aid of the officers of the law for the recovery of their property. Emboldened by success, the theater of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress; Senators and Representatives were sent to the common councils of the nation, whose chief title to this distinction consisted in the display of a spirit of ultra fanaticism, and whose business was not "to promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquillity," but to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister States by violent denunciation of their institutions; the transaction of public affairs was impeded by repeated efforts to usurp powers not delegated by the Constitution, for the purpose of impairing the security of property in slaves, and reducing those States which held slaves to a condition of inferiority. Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States."
"In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the wellbeing and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. With this view the legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history. Here it may be proper to observe that from a period as early as 1798 there had existed in all of the States of the Union a party almost uninterruptedly in the majority based upon the creed that each State was, in the last resort, the sole judge as well of its wrongs as of the mode and measure of redress. Indeed, it is obvious that under the law of nations this principle is an axiom as applied to the relations of independent sovereign States, such as those which had united themselves under the constitutional compact. The Democratic party of the United States repeated, in its successful canvass in 1856, the declaration made in numerous previous political contests, that it would "faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799; and that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed." The principles thus emphatically announced embrace that to which I have already adverted - the right of each State to judge of and redress the wrongs of which it complains. These principles were maintained by overwhelming majorities of the people of all the States of the Union at different elections, especially in the elections of Mr. Jefferson in 1805, Mr. Madison in 1809, and Mr. Pierce in 1852. In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well established, and so necessary for self-preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions. They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and Independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union." -- Jefferson Davis, April 1861
Davis gives the reason for the split right there, in no uncertain terms. In the entire address there is no mention of tariffs, no mention of transportation, no mention of industry. Only slavery.
“There is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war.” - Robert E. Lee
"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..."Robert Lee, January 1681
“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.” - Robert E. Lee
Let's look at the entire quote.
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . ." -- Robert Lee, December 1856
So taken in context, if Lee truly believed slavery was evil he says it was a necessary evil. Slavery would exist until God willed it to end. And nobody should do anything to hasten that end. If Lee was really opposed to slavery then his opposition was tepid at best.
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.” - Robert E. Lee
"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population." -- Robert Lee, January 1865
As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes.” - Richard Henry Lee, Confederate Colonel
Right and privlege to do what?
And once again you make the mistake of looking only at the Union side of the equation, ignoring completely the Southern reasons for their rebellion. Those can be summed up very clearly. They seceded because they saw it as the only way to protect their institution of slavery. They launched their rebellion as an offshoot of that. Defense of slavery was by far the single most important reason for their actions, and all evidence supports that. "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
I wasn't there in 1861, but a whole lot of people were saying keep your Dixie. Up until the point you started a war to further your aims. Then opinions changed.
He actually hailed from Connecticut and spent only about a year in Kansas. He certainly did contribute to the border violence while he was here though.
One question I have about Brown. He was born in Connecticut and lived in New York and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Kansas. Yet he was convicted and executed for treason against Virginia. How could he commit treason against a state he wasn't born in, had never lived in, and had never even set foot in until his criminal actions at Harper's Ferry?
But the power to admit a state to the Union is a power delegated to the United States, specifically the Congress. Once in the power to approve the splitting of stated or combining of states is also a power reserved to Congress. The power to approve or disapprove the changing of a states border by a fraction of an inch is also reserved to Congress. Implied in all of this is the power to approve a state leaving altogether.
The power to take any action that has a negative impact on the other states are also denied to the states. They cannot lay imports on the goods of other states, cannot enter into leagues against them cannot declare war against them or refuse to recognize their public acts. They cannot deny citizens of one state the rights their own citizens have. They cannot refuse to extradite fugitives. Given these kinds of actions are denied the states, then by implication unilateral secession and the negative impact it had on the remaining states is a power denied as well.
It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
Proof that "Progressives" are neither "progressive" nor wish to "progress".
The definition of a 'south hater' seems to be anyone who doesn't swallow all the myths and fairy tales of the lost cause whole. Someone who dares to point out that the South was wrong. I suppose by your definition then I'm a South hater, but wouldn't that also make you a North hater?
Are you an independent, or do you attend meetings with other south-haters?
Well I attend meetings of the Civil War Roundtable of Kansas City so I guess that makes me organized. I will point out, however, I had dinner last week sitting not 10 feet from the rebel flag and I didn't burn it, rip it, spit on it, or take any disrespectful actions whatsoever. I guess there's hope for me yet, huh?
Only on the losing side.
I agree with Non-Sequitur's point.
Many Northerners opposed the US Federal Government's invasion of an independent nation, the Confederate States of America. They even staged draft riots and so forth in order to protest the Federal Government's determination to conscript them into killing their fellow Americans.
A more fair and reasonable term would be that favored by my old Political Science professor, "The War of Federal Aggression".
The "North", after all, was by no means wholly united behind the Federal Government's determination to invade the Confederate States of America.
Many Southerners opposed the rebel governments illegal secession, too. But the 'independent nation' existed only in the minds of those supporting the Southern rebellion.
A more fair and reasonable term would be that favored by my old Political Science professor, "The War of Federal Aggression".
The most accurate term would be the one used originally, "War of Southern Rebellion".
Or as I like to say, “It’s good to be the king.”
That's absurd. Secession was declared. It did happen. This is historical fact.
To deny this, is tantamount to claiming that in 1776 the independent United States of America was naught but a legal fiction existing solely in the minds of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and a few other malcontents.
It's simply absurd.
The most accurate term would be the one used originally, "War of Southern Rebellion".
(Shrugs). As you like it. The British termed the American Revolution "The Presbyterian Rebellion".
None of which changes the fact that any Individual may, at any time, freely Secede from his Government for any reason whatsoever -- or even for no reason at all (I have the Right to renounce my United States citizenship at any time, if I so desire).
What is true of any Individual is therefore, necessarily, logically true of any Group of Individuals (and therefore of any of the several States).
Ergo, unless you believe that the Federal Government, in response to an Individual's renunciation of his United States Citizenship, should immediately bring military force to bear against that Individual in order to compel him to remain subject to the US Federal Government, there can be logical argument against the absolute and unqualified Right of Secession for any reason whatsoever -- or no reason at all.
You're welcome to say that all you want. The problem with doing so is that unless people start bowing and scraping and calling you "Your Majesty" then you aren't king. You're just another nut.
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.