Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Did anyone here see tonight's Glenn Beck TV show segment with the author (Lehrman?) of Lincoln at Peoria?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes it was a self governing state prior to that time but NOT a member of the United States of America.
Yeah, right.
Who was it that the King of England made peace with under the Treaty of Paris?
Let's see. "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony..."
Looks like the answer is the United States, since the treaty was signed between two countries and not 13.
Of course they had and they met as thefree and independent states they were at the time!
Speaking in one voice as a single country.
ROTFLMAO! It was a territory of the United States, not a 'self-governing state'.
I think Texas is the only state that can claim that...
“Keep you misplaced moral snobbery to yourself.”
LOL!! Hit a nerve, did I?
You accuse me of moral snobbery, whatever that is, but it just doesn’t matter since states don’t have rights - people do. I’m an enthusiast for states taking action and affirming their powers contra the Federal Government gathering powers to itself in violation of our Constitution per the 10th Amendment.
That historians are still arguing vociferously over the specific causes of the Civil War (War Between the States) says volumes about how relevant the 10th Amendment is today.
My ancestors fought on both sides, North and South. None so far as I know ever owned slaves and I do not look critically upon people whose ancestors owned slaves. What was acceptable a century-and-half-ago, is no longer. I am greatly concerned with slavery in other parts of the world today,and if that makes me a moral snob, so be it.
Slavery is a cruel and vicous practice that must be eliminated wherever found, like has been done with so many diseases. Slavery, abortion, euthanasia - all violate human dignity, treating individuals like livestock rather than men and women having the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you want to label THAT as moral snobbery, then I gladly take on that mantle and carry it proudly.
Texas was independent prior to becoming a state. But so was Vermont, California, and Hawaii.
What is now the “state” of Alabama was first settled by Europeans in around 1540 by the Spanish LONG before there was a thing called the United States. There existed MANY governments there prior to it’s becoming a part of the United States with the Louisiana purchase.
But not one of them was a state government.
While it's true that Alabama saw both French and Spanish colonization, Alabama was not acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Most of Alabama was ceded to the U.S. by Britain in the Treaty of Paris, and Georgia claimed it as part of the state of Georgia sometime thereafter.
correct
I find it ironic that those who support the revolution now never looked at them as traitors nor do they have a problem fighting for independence.
so maybe when a small area breaks away from say Russia expect them to say how they should not and they should not fight as they’re traitors
over a half million died because some thought it would be good to force others to live in a place and be ruled by a place they did not want
Maybe you should ask the British?
thanks for that info
good post
“The simple distinction that I make is that revolution is a concept associated with the Declaration while secession is a Constitutional concept. But there is no Constitutional provision for the president to recognize either revolution or secession.”
1: If secession were a Constitutional consept, rather then an inalienable right, then why is there no provision in the constitution for Secession or revolution?
Why then does the 9th amendment say: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”?
Why then does the 10th amendment say: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Colonel Kangaroo the very definition of our Federal Constitution precludes anything NOT in that Federal Constitution as being regarded as a constitutional consent.
This is a matter so integral and important to the nature of our Constitution that they adopted not one but two separate commandments to reinforce it!
The matter of revolution and secession is not in the constitution for a good reason, its not within the power or rights of the Federal government to deny, protect, or otherwise regulate them!
2: Tell me if you associated revolution with that of the Deceleration of independents tell me how it is that theses Decelerations and/or Ordinances are any different?
http://aescir.net/edu/session.htm
Further tell me how it is that the laws of nature or Natures God, puts EITHER you OR Lincoln into a position to make that judgment of significant difference period?
I Ask this because the United States Constitution sure as heck doesn’t empower you or the Federal government to make that judgment, as you yourself pointed out It doesn’t even mention either of them, quite deliberately as I pointed out.
I’m sorry Colonel Kangaroo, but your operating here from a position of either grave arrogances or grave ignorance of the extent of what happen.
You have no more right to judge the decelerations by the Southern States in secession as at all significantly different then the Deceleration of independents, and thus their secession as at all different then what you call a Revolution in the north.
They listed grievances, they listed reasons, they declared their rights, and their choice to of independents.
Either Lincoln was dead wrong, in what he did, or King George was right and the 13 colony’s were dead wrong in what they did in the so called “American Revolution” there is no significant difference here. The right of secession/revolution is either inalienable or its not.
I don't know much about Reconstruction (although I should), but according to what I know and surmise, it was bad, and it did more to promote justified resentment towards the North, than anything else post war. It achieved results so far off the mark from what it was originally intended to accomplish. I have to read more about this.
Those who tell Southerners to "Get over it," many times are not sufficiently informed about this period of American history, and its aftermath. I also suspect that they feel far enough removed so that they would find it difficult to put themselves in the shoes of the men who fought (and their families), as well as their decendants. IMO, education would be very helpful in this regard. And some people are just plain damn insensitive.
If you think it makes you angry to hear people castigate Pres. Lincoln...trying hearing someone tell you that your ancestors are anti-American traitors and don't deserve any honor or respect in their Confederate graveyards.
We all know how ignorant people will shoot off their mouths, although their ignorance doesn't get them off the hook by any means. I'm sorry you heard this, and I understand the slap in your face that it had to have been. May they all, both North and South, through God's Mercy, rest in dignity and peace.
I have no interest in refighting the Civil War, but I would like to stop hearing "get over it...you guys lost!" and actually have that discussion.
I agree, and I appreciate your honesty and sincerity.
BTW, I'm glad you were able to uncover that info about the great grandfathers. At one point I tried to see if one of my great grandfathers was in the war, but I couldn't find anything. I can't find any documentation about that line until a ship's passenger list around 1915.
Anyway, Andersonville was hideous, but I'm aware that there were Union prisons not much better. I'm also aware that there were good and bad persons on either side who made a battlefield or a prison more humane or vastly less so.
But I understand that it's the attitudes you're protesting. The cavalier attitude of "Get over it," and the attitude that portrays Southerners generally as a brutal/sadistic people, etc.
You've probably been subjected to these things for years, and you certainly are justified in your reaction. In no way do I want to be condescending, and I hope I don't come across that way. Thanks for sharing your perspective with me. :-)
“Not so much, no. He didn’t free them until late December 1862. By then he’d taken up his arms for almost 2 years.”
No, he hadn’t. He was not given military command until June 1, 1862. Prior ro that he was an aide to President Davis. Kind of like a Rahm Emmanuel, perhaps. Lee did not “take up arms” until june 1, 1862, when he was given a command. Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861. So, even Virginia had not been engaged for two years.
But, there is truth to Lee not releasing the last of his wife’s slaves until December, 1862 (his wife had inherited the slaves from the Custis estate). So, granted, he had factually taken up arms before the release of the last of his wife’s slaves.
after reading your last few posts then i have to say that I got you wrong, so sorry for that
that last post was good to read and it showed you were honest in what you do know and what you do not know.
reconstruction was awful for the south and that is why the schools do not teach it.
during the war Women were raped, families were killed, and land was taken away from them by the carpet baggers etc.
It got a hell of a lot worse after the war and many generals soldiers etc form the north made a lot of money by stealing.
of course it did not help that ex slaves were now raping the southern women either
Here in my town of st augustine there was families who had their land and house taken away and the locals were not allowed to honor their dead.
Our monuments were built after the north left
just imagine how a woman and I presume you are a woman felt when she saw blacks or soldiers coming in , taking what they wanted, beating your young teenage son and your daughter was raped by a group of them.
Then when you spat etc at the general or some other officer he ordered you out of your house and out you on a ship where he either gave it to the blacks or took much for himself.
I will say this too.
there was a hell of a lot more respect for each side back then than there is now in some ways.
Generals or some of them gave E lee a decent proposal but to the annoyance of some in DC.
If you ever get a chance look up and see the old photo’s of vets from the war talking to each other etc.
I have found that we can all read books and like Beck think that is the book for truth about say Lincoln but reading memoirs etc from those who suffered in the south and those vets from the north is very enlightening, it gets you into their heads and makes you think how they felt during those tough times.
You have to remember that groups like the sons or daughters of the confederacy want to remember their ancestors and yet we have some yankees telling us that they are racist for doing so.
Don’t fly that flag they shout after they move here or get a job in a school here , distort history if they have to cover the war they say, singing songs from back then or dressing up is KKK.
what they do not understand is that it is they who are still fighting the war not down here.
It is they who are imposing their view when they move here.
As for the KKK because of the flag I fly , well the flag they did fly up until the 60’s was the stars and stripes not the battle flag which never flew over any slave ship nor was it the stars and bars.
I and others are disgusted how they hyjacked the flag but we will not sit down and let them , we are fighting back and trying to get the word out that we’re not racist nor do we want them to fly the flag which was made to let both sides know where ones sides was on the battle field.
You sound and come across as someone who has more of an open mind and i hope I am right about that and I hope mroe discussions on this subject resort to more open talk instead of the usual crap by a couple of traitors or get over it we won crap.
quick story my son was having a sub teacher form the north and he knows a lot about the war as I take him to as many places as possible and tell him both sides, even taking him to the graves of dead confederate black soldiers here in my town.
Anyway she says the north had no slaves and my son said about the border states which Lincoln did not want to free
she said it was not true and so at the age of 11 he addressed her but nicely and she walked off stating to the whole class this
“so what anyway we won ha ha the south lost”
you can bet that I got there right away putting in a complaint.
this weekend I went to a battle reenactment which was in FL near me .
There was a homosexual woman or she looked it anyway from CT who had just got a job with the park service.
I was talking to her and she made a lot of snide remarks about the south and the confederate soldiers who were dressed up.
When I questioned her she replied they’re just all racist hiding behind their history bla bla
that is the kind of crap many down south have to put up with, but it will not stop many of us flying the flag and going to reenactments too. infact it makes us more determined to do so and tell the younger ones there is more to the war than the PC version
again I believe as a man to say sorry if I think I am wrong so sorry
You are very welcome and thank you.
Thanks for the correction.
I make no claim to any real expertise in this area and it appears that my source for that was incorrect.
Reconstruction should almost be renamed, "Retribution" for some of it aspects. Although any reconstruction effort anywhere is going to be difficult, I do believe that some designed it to punish and humiliate people.
The unique problem with the POW prisons is that in the South, much of the food, supplies and medicine meant to feed both Confederate soldiers and Union prisoners was destroyed or not allowed to pass through. Southern families were trying to raise and survive on food crops worked only by women and small children (14 or younger?) left at home while the men went off to war. Many of those crops were deliberately destroyed or taken by the traveling armies. If they couldn't feed themselves, who was going to feed the prisoners? Sadly, the prison camps up North didn't have the same excuse and yet they deliberately denied their prisoners of food, shelter, blankets, clothing and medicine. (Look up Rock Island prison in IL http://www.illinoiscivilwar.org/cwprisons.html )
Cruelty has no excuse. I have family members that fought on both sides as they lived primarily in Tennessee and Kentucky. One older great-grandfather (too old to fight for the Confederates) was hung from his front porch in front of all his children and grandchildren until he almost died. I have a great-grandmother on the other side (Kentucky) who threatened to disown any family member who didn't swear allegiance to the Republican party and Lincoln lol because during the war, she was pregnant and the Confederate army came through and took all their food and belongings...including tearing up the baby clothes that she had made in preparation for the child's birth. When she asked what she was supposed to do for her child, a soldier supposed tossed a low value coin at her and laughed as he walked away. Family story is she had a hole poked in that coin and wore it on a necklace around her neck the rest of her life. I'm sure the other family hated the North as much as my g-grandmother hated the South. ;)
All the “traditional” freeper arguments aside, it is NO accident that Lincoln’s greatest ambition was to remove and expatriate all African Americans from the United States...bar none. Lincoln was the Poster Child of all White Supremacists, of all ilks. It’s just the truth, it’s time we deal with it. Lincoln was a racist. The Clairmont Institute can re-write history as much as they like, it doesn’t change the truth. Lincoln didn’t even want black people anywhere near white people. He said so.
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.