Posted on 03/05/2008 6:38:02 PM PST by Rebeleye
Does the Confederate battle flag represent heritage or hatred? The answer is yes. It represents a heritage that included hatred.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.mywebpal.com ...
“Thank God for we southerners.”
Yup!
“Another fine example of that Southern Courtesy that we hear so much about.”
You’re welcome.
He did fall short of the usual and customary Southern charm.....you’re supposed to preface insults like that with “bless your heart, but....” or “I really love you to death, but....”
For that lack of courtesy, I am truly sorry.
Catfish1957..aka "just plain idiot"...
...doesn’t realize that people like myself, started as registered Southern Republicans when we were old enough to vote. In my case 1975.
Considering Dixie at the time that would have made you an honorary Yankee.
But you give the rest of us so much to whine about.
We have Southern Pride....I already told you why in a previous post to which you responded. What really seems to piss you off is that you want us to have shame, like you.
Actually it's more like you want the rest of us to look upon the South as someplace special, some sort of Conservative nirvana. Well sorry to disappoint but while the rest of the world doesn't look down on the South, we don't look up at it, either. Contrary to your hyper-inflated opinion of yourself, you are neither better or worse than the rest of us. And as for the GOP, you didn't invent conservative politics, you didn't save it, you just jumped onboard once the train was running in order to get a free ride.
It’s not gonna happen, so just accept that you are inferior to the vast majority of us Southerners in culture, patriotism, ingenuity, leadership, and hard work...
ROTFLMAO!!! When pigs fly.
“Lee knew the Southern actions were illegal.”
Nowhere in your post of Lee’s comments did Lee say the Southern actions were illegal. Nowhere. Secession was not illegal in 1860. Secession, revolution, rebellion, divorce, I don’t care what label you want to put on the South’s actions. The fact remains they were not illegal. If they were, then show me the specific law that said secession was illegal. I heard the same argument in my Constitutional Law class. There was a girl in the class — whose attitude was pretty much a carbon copy of yours, by the way — who said the same thing, that secession was illegal. The Prof gave her a challenge to cite the law the South broke in seceding, and he gave her until the end of the term to produce it. Not surprisingly, she didn’t do it. Oh, and the Prof was not a Southerner. He was from Minnesota.
I didn't have any problems where I was. The people were nice, the Navy had been there for decades, no negatives that I can recall.
Did you somehow miss the part were Lee said "Secession is nothing but revolution?" Or where he said, "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?" Or perhaps you view revolution as a lawful act?
Secession, revolution, rebellion, divorce, I don’t care what label you want to put on the South’s actions. The fact remains they were not illegal.
The fact is, yes they were. As the Supreme Court ruled.
If they were, then show me the specific law that said secession was illegal.
If it requires a specific law, then show me the law that says secession is legal. You can't, anymore than I can point to a specific law saying it's illegal. So the question becomes, was the power to secede unilaterally one of those reserved to the states or to the people per the 10th Amendment. Clearly the Supreme Court ruled it was not. States join the Union only with the approval of the other states. Once in they can combine or separate only with the permission of the other states. In fact, a state cannot change it's border by a fraction of an inch without the approval of the other states. All such approvals being indicated by a vote of their representatives in Congress. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that implied in all that is the need for the approval of the other states to leave altogether. And such is the conclusion the Supreme Court came to in Texas v. White when they said, "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
The Prof gave her a challenge to cite the law the South broke in seceding, and he gave her until the end of the term to produce it. Not surprisingly, she didn’t do it. Oh, and the Prof was not a Southerner. He was from Minnesota.
Then the professor is lucky he wasn't up against a student who actually knew what they were talking about.
“Actually it’s more like you want the rest of us to look upon the South as someplace special”
It IS someplace special, but really, as in the CIVIL war, we just want to be left alone. It’s you insecure yankee-types that keep bringing up all this stuff in an attempt to do the impossible - denigrate the South.
“And as for the GOP, you didn’t invent conservative politics, you didn’t save it, you just jumped onboard once the train was running in order to get a free ride.”
The South has led the nation, throughout its history. We are pulling the wagon, my friend, it’s not our fault that the rest of the country can’t produce leaders worth following like the South does.
To you perhaps. It's your home. It has no meaning to me so to me there's nothing all that special about it.
It’s you insecure yankee-types that keep bringing up all this stuff in an attempt to do the impossible - denigrate the South.
If you find the truth denigrating then perhaps it's you who is insecure and not I? I would think that you would find more than enough in your heritage to be proud of without having to...embellish it.
The South has led the nation, throughout its history.
Of course it has.
Last I heard Kansas had a Democrat governor and Georgia a Republican governor. Oops, oh yeah, Georgia has (or had) Cynthia McKinney. Er ... OK, you win.
And when Georgia can match the Kansas string of going for the Republican candidate then we can talk. If memory serves Kansas went for the Democrat once in the last 75 years.
Without reference to the question of legality of secession, this isn't a good argument. Standing on your head is legal in most municipalities, although I'm unaware of any that have passed a law stating that standing on your head is legal.
Although provisions were made for states to enter the union, until the question of secession came up, the legality of it was in dispute. The Texas vs. White case came in 1869, well after the war. The matter was settled on the battlefield. Had the South won, they would have ignored the Supreme Court decision and formed their own court, ruling that secession was legal.
When political entities are involved, the winner decides what laws were broken. If the Nazis had won WWII, it's doubtful any of them would have been prosecuted for war crimes.
Thanks for the ping RB
That would depend on who you talked to. Men like Webster, Clay, Buchanan, and Lincoln had no misgivings at all - secession in any form was illegal. Madison took the position that secession was possible only with the consent of the states.
The Texas vs. White case came in 1869, well after the war. The matter was settled on the battlefield. Had the South won, they would have ignored the Supreme Court decision and formed their own court, ruling that secession was legal.
I would say that the issue was settled by the court, not on the battlefield. As for the South, since they didn't establish a supreme court then it's doubtful that the matter would ever have been reviewed. As with the colonial victory in the Revolutionary War, winning made court decisions moot.
Interesting. Thank you.
Hmmm...Cassius M. Clay...”The Lion of White Hall”...second cousin of Henry Clay...Southern abolitionist...”shot point-blank during a speech in 1843, he used a Bowie knife to cut off the attacker’s ear and nose and cut out one eye; tried for mayhem and found not guilty!” Sounds like my kind of guy! He probably would have made a more interesting vice-president than Hamlin did at any rate.
Last time I was visiting Kentucky (my dad lives in Lexington) we went to White Hall. Clay was definitely an interesting guy. In addition to the incident you mention, when he was 89 years old, three burglars made the mistake of breaking into the downstairs library where he’d taken the sleeping. When help arrived, they found one man shot dead at Clay’s feet and another out in the yard dead from a bowie knife wound. The third man got away. He’s also alleged to have used a cannon to chase off the sheriff when he came to serve a warrant.
There is an 1899 biography of Hamlin available online Here. I'm going to download it and poke through it over the weekend, see what it says.
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.