“But those eight states could not prevent people bringing slaves into their states and then keeping them as slaves despite state law (this is what the Dred Scott decision was about)”
Really?! No kidding? So…you are saying that if somebody from up north steals my car and takes it to your state it would be OK to keep it? It may not have been pretty, but that was the standard of the day. The standard YOUR state agreed to. If you wanted to protest you should have protested to YOUR people.
“In other words, the Planters’ way or the highway. Yep. You’re a Democrat, all right.”
Utterly stupid comment given that Yankees are the ones who told the south “It’s OUR way, period. We will free your slaves and make YOU slaves. While I am NOT a democrat, I would rather be one than to be a tyrant. You can’t have it both ways.
“Too bad you don’t see the parallel with the situation in which anti-slavery people found themselves when their printing presses were being wrecked and they were being physically attacked for so much as opening their mouths.”
Never said I didn’t. What I was saying is that your thoughts, as expressed, have been so disjointed, based on false presumptions, and lacking of context that they were meaningless and impossible to rebut. You’re not very good at this.
“If you have no idea how ironic and arrogant that sounds, I pity you. So much for your “states’ rights.”
Perfect example of you disjointed debating. Your reply does not relate to my comment whatsoever.
“Why not?”
Go back and read my comments and then read yours. You respond to things I never said.
“Then I guess we’d better repeal the laws against murder and pull down all the traffic lights, since some people feel about organized religion the way others feel about speeding. Sheesh. “
What??? Your reply supports my case and you don’t even realize it.
“Then why do you insist on having it both ways? In one breath you claim that the Union was a mere alliance of sovereign nations, and no one state could dictate to another.”
I NEVER said that. Dude. You have GOT to quit inserting you fantasies into my comments. And, so, you ARE saying that one state CAN dictate to the another?!!!
That’s it. This is not a debate. It’s a conversation with the village idiot. Seriously. You’re too stupid to post on FR. What’s your mom’s email address? I need to have her shut you off from the basement and the PC.
God help us. No wonder the dims are winning.
Oh. Sorry then. I didn't realize moral qualms were so out of place in the utopia that was antebellum America.
It may not have been pretty, but that was the standard of the day. The standard YOUR state agreed to. If you wanted to protest you should have protested to YOUR people.
I am sorry you have chosen to ignore the fact that I am a Southerner from a former slave state. My ancestors were living in a slave state--a very divided slave state--when they fought for the Union. West Virginia, East Tennessee, western North Carolina, even northern Georgia and Alabama were full of Union sentiment. The "undivided Confederate South" is a myth, just as is the "undivided, morally pure North."
And, so, you ARE saying that one state CAN dictate to the another?!!!
Why not? Apparently that's what you believe.
That’s it. This is not a debate. It’s a conversation with the village idiot. Seriously. You’re too stupid to post on FR. What’s your mom’s email address? I need to have her shut you off from the basement and the PC. God help us. No wonder the dims are winning.
As a Southerner myself and thus keenly aware of anti-Southern prejudice and the fairy tales so many people are fed as "history," I can understand your emotional reaction. However, if you will take a moment to catch your breath calm down I hope you will realize that calling me, a fellow Southerner, "the village idiot" and a basement-dwelling otaku does absolutely nothing to advance your case. I will not respond in kind because I can understand the reason for your overreaction.
You have not responded to my remarks about the highly centralized nature of the Confederacy. Also, you ignore the important contributions to states' rights made by New Englanders during the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Have you ever heard of "interposition?" This means a state government may interpose itself between the federal government and its own citizens to protect them from federal usurpations. This doctrine was formulated by New England Federalists when there was talk of a military draft during the War of 1812. And for this they were branded "traitors" by rabid centralizing nationalists like the young John C. Calhoun.
Finally, please allow me to make myself perfectly clear. I am not only a religious fundamentalist but a Theocrat. I believe in G-d's laws and that they are universal, objective, and statutorily obligatory. The US Constitution is not perfect (being formulated in party by men who were highly influenced by the philosophy of the "enlightenment") and A-mighty G-d sits in judgment on it just as He sits in judgment on all men and their systems. It is undeniable that the Torah condones slavery and regulates it. I actually find myself disagreeing with the people I have been defending from you, because they believe G-d's laws had changed (G-d forbid). If anything, it is this belief--that G-d's Laws are temporary, mutable, and changeable--that has made our current morass possible. Considering that my own ancestors fought against slavery, don't you think that having to admit they were wrong on that issue requires a certain amount of objectivity?
Finally, there is no one on this forum who is more alienated from the politics of American Blacks. I find their self-righteous alliance with the forces of evil to be inexcusable and something for which they will pay dearly (not because a bunch of "low-life crackers" like me are going to do anything to them, but they will be punished by G-d Himself). I have also been the number one defender of our poor white Southern people on this forum from slurs of all kinds from all quarters. True, I have never included a defense of the Confederacy in this defense of our people, but there is a bit of a gap between the wealthy, aristocratic planters of the past and today's poor whites who are made the scapegoats. I am sorry if this disappoints you, but I will continue to stick up for our people. And I will continue to refuse to extend this defense to the Confederacy or the attitude of the wealthy planters of the past.
Finally, your accusation that I manifest the attitude of the "dims" is simply laughable. I am proud of the fact that, unlike most Southern conservatives today, my ancestry is free of the taint of that evil and accursed party. Yet I have to endure the self-righteousness of that evil blot on human decency which, it is obvious now, should have been outlawed during Reconstruction. Not only did my parents vote for Goldwater, not only did they not vote for FDR, they voted for Coolidge, Harding, Hughes, Taft, and McKinley. How you can detect "federal tyranny" in these men is utterly beyond me.
Hamilton and Jefferson have always struggled with each other throughout our history and always shall. Neither is completely right; neither is completely wrong. That struggle continues in you and I, and it will continue when you and I are long gone.
Be well, my fellow Southerner and honorable opponent.