Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9
What do you mean by that?
According to one author on the topic, Charles Adams, total Federal revenue during the 1830s and 40s was $105.7 million, of which $90 million came from the South. So I was wrong, it was over 85%.
And I can point out that in his book "Lifeline of the Confederacy" Stephen Wise quotes congressional reports that show that in the year prior to the rebellion upwards of 95% of all tariff income was collected at three Northern ports. So that must mean that it was the North that paid 95% of all taxes, right?
Or if the South had taken the time to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all possible matters of contention before separating with the approval of all the parties impacted.
It's immaterial if the South was "right" or "wrong"...
Especially if you've already blamed the North for the whole matter.
If the South didn't have the right to leave the union, for whatever reasons they chose or for no reason at all, then our founding as a nation by severing ties to Britain is a farce.
Our 'severing ties with Britain' was accomplished only after a little seven year period of unplesantness known as "The American Revolution". So the real difference is that the founders won their rebellion while the confederates did not.
One example we have, of how things could have been very different, as others have pointed out, is Great Britain, who abolished slavery without a civil war.
In every single case where slavery was ended peacefully, it was done through government action and over the strong opposition of the slaveowners themselves. So how long do you think it would have taken for the U.S. slaveowners to agree to end slavery without launching a bloody and protracted rebellion?
Britain was a monarchy in which the distant colonies that held slaves didn't have effective veto power over the entire government.
Surely after LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and two Bush's the South has gotten it's revenge on the rest of us?
Your kind of govt only exists in your imagination.
The People, in any form, always have the natural right of rebellion. But that's not the same as saying they have a legal right. Even the Constitution gives the government the power to put down insurrections.
Decades? Reconstruction lasted 12 years, and the worst part of reconstruction and the only thing that made it last more than a year or so was brought upon the south not by the North, but by southerners in the Klan and other organizations who used the same tactics of terror, murder and intimidation as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan now.
To say reconstruction was wrong is saying that terrorists should be rewarded.
Maybe, but then you Yankees resorted to Obama. Just like a bunch of Yankees to place a socialist over all of us, even if he wasn’t born in the USA.
So which has preeminence, natural rights granted by our Creator or legal rights granted by man?
New England pay-rolled them? Was there a "New England' government that did that? Was it a "New England" government policy to do that? Did all the people of "New England" support that? Or was it individual ship owners who did it?
There were also southern ship owners who engaged in the slave trade -- not as many because, the south did not have as many ships or as many salors as 'New England." But they were sure as hell willing to buy slaves when one of those 'New England' slave ships showed up.
New England pay-rolled them? Was there a "New England' government that did that? Was it a "New England" government policy to do that? Did all the people of "New England" support that? Or was it individual ship owners who did it?
There were also southern ship owners who engaged in the slave trade -- not as many because, the south did not have as many ships or as many salors as 'New England." But they were sure as hell willing to buy slaves when one of those 'New England' slave ships showed up.
I’m giving you one, and only one, warning. You refer to my ancestors as terrorists again and we’re going to have some serious problems.
There was more going on in the South than what you seem to know about and the reason the KKK was originally founded, long before it became a racist organization, was to protect Southerners from Northern Carpetbaggers who literally stole everything they could get their hands on.
Legal rights aren't granted by man, but they are protected by man at the cost of other rights. This is the essence of the Social Contract.
Here's a question: Did black slaves in the south have a natural right of freedom and the right to rebel to obtain that freedom? Did they have a legal right to do so?
Marx and the commies of '48 supported him.
We also gave you Ronald Reagan. What have you done for us lately?
The Civil War was a great tragedy. To turn it into the evil Lincoln's victimization of the South is to distort the historical record and to diminish the tragedy.
But it was largely predictable and predicted. You can look up Webster's and Clay's warnings of what secession inevitably would mean -- war, destruction, and misery. There was no way to make unilateral secession at will work peacefully -- or if there was such a way, it wasn't the one the Confederates took.
Arguing over and over that secession was a constitutional right is like repeating over and over again that an experiment that always produces a given result ought to have a different one.
Secession at will wasn't constitutional and it wasn't a thing that could be made to work in our system -- or if it was, the people who attempted it weren't the kind of people who could make it work and they didn't approach dissolution of the union in a spirit that could have made it successful.
Who were they supposed to support? The slaveocracy of Jefferson Davis?
"Traitors" would not be inaccurate either.
I don’t know if I agree with you that legal rights aren’t granted by man but are protected by man at the cost of other rights. I need to think on this and process it, but I will admit that my first reaction to it is that legal rights are granted by man but only as a recognition of the natural rights granted by God.
As for the natural rights of slaves in the South, let me ask you this.
Does mankind have a natural right to freedom or just liberty? Is there a difference between the two? Can liberty exist without freedom, or can it exist despite the lack of freedom?
We use the words “liberty” and “freedom” interchangably, but are we correct in doing so?
I honestly don’t know. I have a hunch that they are interchangable, but there’s a nagging doubt that I’m missing something here.
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.