Posted on 07/23/2013 8:18:43 AM PDT by Bon of Babble
Rush Limbaugh would have sided with the confederacy during the Civil War, according to MSNBC analyst Dorian Warren.
Warren, a Columbia professor and fellow at the progressive Roosevelt Institute, explained that Limbaugh “represents the Confederacy. He would have been on that side that went to war around the question of slavery.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Sherman did not follow any rules of war his policy was “skorched earth”!
And the lost causers write the myths... ;-)
Fine assertion, but not so in fact.
His orders to only burn houses from which his men were fired upon are a matter of record.
By contrast, Wheelers use of land mines and other infernal devices were calculated to cause civilian casualties long after the US Army forces left the area. Sherman’s response was adequate to end that practice, and saved many southern lives.
Davis wrote a fine book of fiction. Hood wrote his memoirs. Longstreet wrote his memoirs.
When ever an enemy loses a war, they console themselves with their valor in the lost cause. The winners, if they are intelligent, never disagree.
It was a backwater, not because of what the US did 100 years ago, but because of what the people who lived there didn’t do.
Perhaps you think that illegal lynching of scapegoats as an accepted practice would lead to rapid growth? It doesn’t because investors and enterpreneurs knew that the same forces could be unleashed against them. The KKK was deployed against blacks, but also against people from outside the south who sought to develop it (aka carpetbaggers) and people from the south who sought to develop it (aka scalawags).
So development was not permitted. That led to the slow growth, or even refusal to maintain what businesses were there.
Shame on you. Making threats is not appropriate for this forum.
Military installations were set up to defend the south from foreign countries. Tarriffs were collected at particular locations separate from the military installations.
That wasn’t just in the south. Tarriffs were also collected in the northern states that imported goods (a counter example: no tarriffs were collected in Kentucky or Arkansas as they had no ports for international trade!). More tarriffs were collected in the north than in the south.
The various states agreed to that when they agreed to the constitution. Therefore they pretense at secession and war to support secession was unconstitutional, particularly when they pretended that secession and war was their selected method of resolving a disagreement with the federal government.Indeed... The states were most definitely NOT signing on to the new constitution without an exit, hence they agree to the compact bound only by VOLUNTARY ACT. Your comment is pure assumption of which I find no such language in Article III or any support in historical debate or founding documents that backs up what you said.
Anyways, my commentary dealt with a literal interpretation in the day when Federalism was hotly debated and feared because it established a central authority and required the states be bound by union and pledge. The states feared, and rightly so, of having to give up their sovereignty in any capacity. The Federalist essays and the debates made it clear that argument was sensitive and nonexistent to bring up the idea of a “perpetual union’ that you cannot divorce from at will or whim.
Madison never argued in the Federalist Essays for a perpetual union but a union bound by pledge. Indeed that would have surely killed the fledgling new Constitution for a United States. “....Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own VOLUNTARY ACT. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
Regarding James Madison... Madison wrote to express his appreciation of a speech he felt was a passionate plea AGAINST such actions by a state which had a RIGHT to succeed either at-will or thru rapid revolution for whatever the reason. No where in the convention debate or Federalist papers is succession argued but only mentioned to be less of a concern amongst the several states because of improved “science of politics” which helped improve or cured against quitting the union on a petty whim or by revolution.
Madison says in that response:
The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
So basically Madison is saying that you can’t quit the club because you made a good-faith pledge to honor the compact. That is a hindsight comment which was purely made from emotion and a passion to perpetuate the union and its members saying that each state made a good-faith pledge to be honored and not to be taken willy-nilly.
Yes, I would agree with Madison’s sediment in spirit and intent. If I worked my ass off arguing with delegates for a new constitution that I felt passionate for in its design and function... I TOO would not want it vulnerable to the slightest breeze of revolt or dissatisfaction and sell it every day screaming “WE MUST SAVE THE UNION!”, but again... NO-WHERE in the debates or Federalist papers is there an argument that binds a states pledge in perpetuity. The union is an object of the states NOT the general government or the constitution. The ratification of the Constitution was a FEDERAL ACT as well as the establishment of the constitution being FEDERAL in form.
Ok, so Lee made a personal emotional interpretation of which none of it is grounded in reality or historical debate. That’s just his “WE MUST SAVE THE UNION!” speech.
Lee pretty much was clueless what he said about the Constitution having had established a perpetual union when it did not. The Constitution IS A COMPACT between the states which AUTHORIZES the general government. Again.... The states are sovereign and are bound together as a union of separate nation states by VOLUNTARY ACT. The Federal Government exists to preserve and protect the sovereignty of the states and their governments and CANNOT interfere with state affairs or its people! The Federal Government exists by authority of the States and continues ONLY at the discretion of the states!
No where in the Constitution does it say YOU CANT LEAVE. If that were the case why do we have a national senate, state borders, state sovereignty and state constitutions? Gee-wiz, I mean this is for ever right?? Because if you try to leave the Fed is going to wage war on you, conquer you and annex you back! So once you join who needs borders or sovereign state governments with constitutions and a legislature. Why don’t we just dissolve the state borders into one big happy NATION, install a puppet senate (call us a Republic in name only, a RINO America) and have a make-believe republic just like the Romans did? Have the senate exist only to appease the people and to make the people feel they matter in DC. We should even install a petty tyrant dictator that can flip off the silly puppet senate and rule by edict anyway?
Oh wait!! We already have that!!
And yet they did.
They signed onto the constitution to include its dispute resolution process described in Article III.
It was a voluntary act to join, after that, their options to resove disputes were limited by law to mutual agreement, to Article III resolution of controvery by case at the supreme court as original jurisdiction, or by illegal methods such as revolution.
We are bound to conflict resoultion procedures in Article III despite state borders, state laws, and a common legislature and separate judicial system for state laws, and common judicial system for federal laws in part because separate state laws and state judicial systems resolves most issues without federal involvement, in a way agreeable to most people.
“as original jurisdiction” in Article III means that the supreme course is expected to need only a small number of cases, so the limited capacity of the supreme court acting over its original (as opposed to appellate) jurisdiction is adequate.
So they could get a job in obamaumao administration? Or Citibank or any number of similar slave/plantation work for the leftist oligarchy. It is great preparation.
And their descendants write the truth as it happened to their families. Not academic drivel. It’s ok, much tougher than anything that can be spewed.
It wasn’t vanity— it was fear. Much written about his llth hour conversion, and will be discussed for years from now by the other justices. Chicago way— threaten the Chief Justice.
Shame on you— describing scalawags and carpetbaggers as developers is like calling Soviets in Poland “liberators”. That takes some kind of mind to form the description.
First requirement- supercilious self righteousness.
The proper definition of scalawags and carpetbaggers is: thieves. And lower end ones at that.
See: Samuel Spencer and JP Morgan for proper perspective on the successful development of the South.
See, there you go. People who might have invested didn’t, because the usual suspects would describe them as carpet baggers, and commit terrorist acts to destroy their investment. People who would have worked with them to build the south were intimidated into not doing so, for fear of being called scalawags, and having their families murdered.
Anyone local who wanted to use a developed brain would leave, as the neo-confederates would be threatened by anyone trying to better themselves or their community.
It took years to recover from that. Thankfully, neo-confederates are a small minority, mostly laughed at.
My brother’s father in law talks the biggest neo-reb line you can imagine, but does that to cover his cooperation with a non-US manufacturer for which he is a distributor. Once we understood each other, with noone else around we got along just fine.
In other words you perpetuate the myths - elaborating and enhancing as you go. I understand how emotionally invested you are.
For the Lord’s sweet sake, bubba-—they WERE carpetbaggers and scalawags not “investors”— they were thieves. There wasn’t any mystery, the “usual suspects” as you call them were the citizens of the South, who knew them for what they were, and that is why they were run out of town on a rail.
Someone comes into your town at the side of an imposed military government, empowered by Freedmen’s bureaus of corrupt kleptocrats who ripped off their own people. It took the removal of the Union army of occupation, and people pulling themselves up by their own hard labor and personal investment... to THEN work with proper investment channels to develop and recover from the devastation.
The Radical Republicans would have NONE of any kind of recovery that they did not 1.)profit from and 2.) control. These same were mighty glad Lincoln wasn’t around anymore, the same ones who profited greatly from “shoddy” and the misery of war. Stanton and his corrupt pals, who tried to off Seward as well, and impeached Johnson.
Some kind of “community organizer’s” view of the post war South—clintonian in scope and malaprop wording—”investors” and “developers”—LOL. Like Ambassador Dodd’s naivete in 1933 Germany— no clue.
Which one are you— of the tag team three? Will we next hear of Manifest Destiny in the westward expansion— for the Union? Bully, just bully.
Not “in other words”-— those are YOUR words.
You understand very little— it isn’t emotion, it is fact, as differentiated from the academic drivel self posters spew on any FR thread of this nature. Wannabe armchair lecturers, likely whose people were never there, pure and simple. You want to regurgitate some needle neck scholar’s BS go right ahead. It is like reading Walter Duranty’s version of the Soviets-delusional purposeful ignorance. Kevin Costner in Cuba w/ Sean Penn. Viva!.
There are very few historians who have gotten it correct, unemotionally and factually, and there are even some above the Mason Dixon line.
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.