Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
I would agree that the Southern leaders knew the fleet was coming and that they knew the intent was to maintain the status quo. And that they weren't prepared to allow that to happen.
I'm asking for suppor for the claim that the South provided 83% of all tariff income. Either you can provide that or you can't.
And as far as imports go, any definition of the term would tell you that goods obtained from the North were not imports. So only European goods please. The amount that the Soutehrn states imported compared with national imports as a whole.
I don't know anyone who has ever taken you seriously.
#####Secession discussions aren’t as much academic discussions regarding 1860-1861, as they are about whether it is a viable option today.#####
Well, you’re probably right that we’re heading for another secession crisis, if not multiple ones. The culture wars and the 1965 Immigration Act have assured it. I think it was Sam Francis who coined the term “anarcho-fascism” to describe the type of society Western nations are becoming. Government gets bigger and bigger, more and more controlling over the productive elements in society even as it “liberates” the destructive impulses. So Christianity is increasingly marginalized, speech codes are enacted, things like having a Civil War coffee mug on your desk become a thought offense. Meanwhile, efforts to curtail homosexual acts from being committed in public restrooms are considered to be oppressive.
In such an atmosphere, Political Correctness becomes all-consuming as multi-culturalism balkanizes the nation. At some point, someone will want to get out. Either conservatives, who find themselves outvoted, overtaxed, and culturally marginalized will try to leave, or leftists who think we aren’t “progressing” fast enough toward “utopia” will pull out, or a racial enclave will form in some place like California and they’ll want to leave.
“Do you really, really believe that we’d have equal Civil Rights regardless of skin color to the degree that we do.......”?
You’ve got to be kidding. Minorities, especially Blacks, have more legal protection than Whites. Ever heard of a few little things called “Affirmative Action”? What about “Protected Classes”? And then there are “Hate Crime” Laws aimed at Whites (Although a few Blacks are now being charged with these). Sadly, the so-called “Voting Rights” Act (Targets the South) has set up a class of “Protected” political Subdivisions which guarantees Minority electoral success and the basic disinfranchisement of the Whites in those Districts. (See the news of what’s happening in Neshoba County, Miss. right now)
Hell, even the Illegals are dropping “Anchor Babies” that will enjoy the benefits (for them) of all of the above.
So no, we do not all have equal “Civil Rights”.
Now you want an unconstitutional act try this one on for size; At the outset of the Civil War, Kentucky’s sympathies were with the South, but when Lincoln guaranteed the continuation of slavery in the Union the state decided to remain neutral.
Lincoln aloud the border states Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky and later West Virginia to continue to own slaves as an enticement to stay in the Union. The consequence of this reality was that in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up.
So what did this say to the individual soldier in Gray about the importance of slavery to President Lincoln?
And every one of the 37 admitted since came in with the permission of the existing states.
And as for the other states, once they are a state they are equal to and without reservation to any and all of the other states, they would then have the same rights as the originals.
If that were true then why couldn't every state be admitted merely by ratifying the Constitution? But they can't. So it isn't a question of the last 37 having the same rights as the original 13. That's true. But it's more that the original 13 have the same restrictions and the other 37.
When did he guarantee that?
the state decided to remain neutral.
Neutrality that the south broke when Polk invaded the state and drove them into the United States camp.
I need to make a correction. The term Sam Francis coined to describe the situation Political Correctness has created in Western nations is “anarcho-tyranny”, not “anarcho-fascism”. Not a big difference, but I want to be accurate!
Dixie? If you had paid attention I said I HAD lived in the south. Once in Columbia SC and the second time in Vidalia, GA.
I live in the DC suburbs darlin. Not too hot and not too cold.
BTW do you neighbors know that you think they’re bigots and idiots?
Sorry, but your post is absolute nonsense. If you join something, and to join it you must be "admitted" to it, you can unjoin it. The states DID join the Union. Simply because a cheif Justice says that they couldn't secede doesn't mean they really didn't have that right. Supremes have been wrong before and he was wrong about the secession.
The states have always had the right, nay, the duty, to secede if the Union wasn't working out. As for the north being the cause of the war, one only has to read the history(real history not revisionist)and you will see I am correct.
Had the north left the south alone slavery would have failed of it's own weight, the states would have still been in charge of their governments, without the feds interference. The war wasn't about slavery per se, but about states rights, anyone can tell that with just a quick glance at history.
The feds wanted to push the south into a war so they could bring them back into the Union, what else would you call that but an act of treason by the feds? They took away the rights of free men to determine the type of government they wanted to live under. Slavery was wrong, but a much bigger wrong(because it has turned out to be a constant condition)was done to the citizens of the south(and to US citizens as a whole)by negating states rights. Believe what you want,but the facts are the Civil War ushered in the power of the big federal government and we haven't shaken it off yet, probably never will. Once the hand of opression has gripped a people it is hard to get rid of.
So? Is that reason to attack one's brethren?
Ah, so preemptive strike. I get it.
Funny how the Brits don’t seem to have nearly as much animosity toward us, nor us of them.
He's wrong simply because you say he is? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I think you're referring to another motion. Madison's motion was defeated 8-3 (actually 9-2 as Georgia's vote was noted incorrectly). It was on Thursday 23 Aug 1787:
Mr. Madison. As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the States, it is necessary to guard agst. it by sufficient powers to the Common Govt. and as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good Militia--
On the Question to agree to Mr. Madison's motion
N--H--ay -- Mas-- no-- Ct no-- N-- J-- no-- Pa no-Del-- no-- Md no-- Va no-- N-- C-- no-- S-- C-- ay-- Geo--*ay. [Ayes -- 3; noes -- 8.]
The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911, Vol II, p. 388.[Note *: * <In the printed Journal-Geo: no>]
Who died and made you god? The framers discussed it, and rejected the motion by Madison to use the militia to prevent secession.
The man mentioned in that article I linked Col Thomas? I haven't been able to pin it all down as far as genealogy goes but I'm pretty well sure his earlier uncles and cousins helped first establish Sevier county in the 1700's.
There were pockets of secessionist sentiment like Sullivan County, but even in the second rubber stamp election, the margin was 69-31 against secession. After years of Confederate misrule I suspect the pro-Unionist margin was even larger by the time the liberators in blue evicted reb rule.
That whole Tennessee secession site you linked is slanted to only the reb point of view and ignores the legitimate complaints that a significant segment of the whole state had against rebel practices of the time. It is as if the reb manipulator Isham Harris himself, the subverter of the expressed will of the people, was in charge of the site.
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.