Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
Well of course the people of the south have nothing to apologize for. It was their ancestors, not they, who brought on war against their neighbors and brothers.
Yeah well there’s you, and there’s DiogenesLamp. But I’m talking about people who did an in-depth study of Chief Justice Taney and wrote detailed biographies of the man. And none of them apparently found enough evidence to support Lamon’s claims because none of them included the arrest warrant in their books. Not one. Why do you think that is? I know why DiogenesLamp thinks they all ignored it but I’m curious why you think so.
So you’re trying to tell us no authors/historians have cited it?
Then name them.
You failed again and you’re going to fail every time you try this most basic of trolling gambits.
The definition of "conservative" is key to this discussion and "conservative" can mean many different things to different people, times & places.
For examples, in Europe "conservative" often meant monarchist or supporter of official government churches, like the Church of England.
Even fascists claimed to be "conservative" in protecting some traditional values, and of course Communists were only too, too happy to call their fascist fellow socialists "conservative", so the public in general has a distorted view of just what exactly "conservative" means -- -- is it racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes, you know, that whole "basket of deplorables"?
No, of course not, not in this country.
For Americans "conservative" boils down to just two words: Constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order.
If you believe in both as originally intended, then you are an American Conservative, regardless of whatever else ideas you may hold.
So here's the problem for central_va and Democrats in general: from Day One in 1787, the Democrat party began as anti-Federalists, opposed to ratifying the Constitution.
Those anti-Federalists included Thomas Jefferson who went on to lead the anti-Administration faction, in time renaming it the "Democratic Republicans" today's Democrats.
Jefferson's Democrats showed their disregard for the Constitution by proposing Nullification and Interposition to block Federalist laws they didn't like.
But once in the majority, like any typical Democrat, Jefferson expanded Federal powers by, for examples, approving the Louisiana Purchase and authorizing the National Road, today's US-40 from Baltimore to Ohio.
And Democrats after Jefferson expanded Federal powers along with fighting wars & adding territories.
Among the new Democrat powers was the 1850 Compromise which made Fugitive Slave Laws a Federal, not state, responsibility -- how is that even nominally "conservative"?
And speaking of radical, what could be more radical than the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision effectively making all African-Americans (not just the slaves) non-people!
And Democrats with straight faces claimed to be "conservative"?
Of course the first rule of being a Democrat is: you must lie about everything, no truth-telling allowed.
The old Federalists were the party of the Constitution, destroyed by secession talk, succeeded by Whigs who were destroyed by slavery and succeeded by Lincoln's pro-Constitution, anti-secession, anti-slavery Republicans.
Those were the true Conservatives in 1860.
In 1860 Democrats were ruled over by wild eyed Fire Eaters hell-bent on destroying the Union by whatever pretext necessary, the most obvious being slavery.
And while slavery was their biggest complaint it was not the only one -- Robert Rhett said it clearly: having spent the better part of 60 years expanding Federal powers beyond what the Constitution intended, Democrats were now horrified, horrified!! to see all that political power fall into the hands of "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.
Nothing could be worse, so Democrats did in 1860 what Democrats often do when kicked out of power: they went berserk, and in 1860 that meant secession & war against Black Republicans.
In summary, there was never anything "conservative" about Democrats.
From Day One they were the party of anti-Constitution radicals and have only ever been happy when they themselves rule the roost in Washington, DC.
Power is their drug of choice and without it they go through severe withdrawal agonies, becoming politically insane.
In 1860 just as today.
Sorry other way around. Confederates didn’t invade, plunder, burn and rape their way through Illinois but the blue locusts did to Mississippi, much of Louisiana and anywhere else they could insert themselves in Dixie.In short if yankees had stayed in yankeedom they would have not had any problems from the new nation to their south. But the puritan/yankee habit of combining self righteous moralizing with financial greed would not tolerate having many persons escape their grasp. Thus the charter of the US to be the universal hall monitor of the planet and moralizer of the universe came to be and led us to so many interesting places and peoples, not the least our recent visit to the putative land of the Garden of Eden.
Total delusion on your part....but if you’re comfortable living a lie that I’m happy for you ;’}
I'm saying none of Taney's biographers have cited it. Men like James F. Simon, Charles W. Smith, Bernard Christian Steiner who researched and wrote books devoted to nothing but Taney's life and career, and who did not mention the alleged arrest warrant at all. Why not?
I'm just trying to establish that you're making claims without any supporting documentation, and it appears I'm being very successful at that.
“The” political spectrum is a set of views on various positions the evolves from the continuing efforts of the two major parties in a U.S.-like two-party system to gain a political advantage. (The U.S., by the way, is the only country in the world with a U.S.-like two-party system.) In this evolution, there are elements of continuity and change.
Jeffersonian Republicans (renamed Democratic Republicans by historians) favored state versus federal government, and freeholders versus manufacturers and bankers. They also favored free trade and the commodity money. Up to the War of 1812, they were inclined to side with France in the interminable conflicts between England and France through the Napoleonic period. In some ways, they were conservative by the present definition of conservative.
Jacksonian Democrats (or simply Democrats), similarly to Jeffersonian Republicans, favored state versus federal government, but were radical. As stated by another, they were for nullification of federal acts. They were also for nullification of court decisions. They did not think a constitution or lifetime judges should stand against the will of the people (at least not as they saw the will of the people). They, like their predecessors, favored free trade and the gold standard. Here, again, they went radical with regard to banks and debt. In Mississippi, they outlawed banks and repudiated debt. Virginia was not only a border state geographically, its Democratic Party never bought into the radical wing of their kin in the deep south. By the time the Jacksonian Democrats emerged, we were in Pax Britiania, so siding with one or the other European power was not an issue. You can see that the conservatism that marked the Jeffersonian Republicans is mixed with radical elements in the Jacksonian Democrats.
The rise of progressivism marked another shift. During the election of 1896, William Jennings Bryan’s brand of radicalism eclipsed the so-called Bourbon or conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Although Bryan lost that election, the Democrats shifted from gold to silver and/or paper money, and from supporting a private-property based, free enterprise system to advocating a progressive income tax and regulation of the economy. They continued to advocate free trade, but this may have reflected the interests of their voters, many of them being farmers. By the time of Woodrow Wilson, getting sucked into European wars in the name of peace and democracy was also part of the agenda. Wilson combined the racism of the Jacksonian Democrats with the pseudoscience of eugenics, as developed in the replacement of Biblical teaching on the basic equality of all human beings with Darwin’s idea that we evolved from monkeys, and some of us not completely.
Modern Democrats take all the bad things of Wilson and make them worse and, furthermore, argue that White people and Jews have evolved too much and are to be hated because of their superiority. They will add Asians to the list of people to hated as soon as they figure out how far evolved they are. I, clinging on to my guns, my Bible and my Constitution, continue to believe that all men are created equal and that the observed differences among the peoples of the Earth reflect natural selection to local conditions not much important to the economic circumstances of today.
You can be stupid and obtuse but you don’t get to redefine words.
And it’s not all the ancestors. Every state in the pretend country of the confederacy had troops that served in the Union Army. They were true loyal Americans and should be honored with plaques and monuments, but for the some reason these neo-confederate losers don’t want to mention them.
Lost Causers bristle at the implication that the rebels could have been traitors because they waged war with the United States but I’ve seen them (straight-faced) call (Civil War) southern union loyalists turncoats and traitors (and worse).
It’s a funny world....
Not a revisionist, am correcting the deliberately revisionist record.
Of course you are.
If the new nation to the south had not started a war with yankeedom then the blue locusts wouldn't have gone anywhere now would they?
You claim that Florida and the other states seceded for no reason at all. This is not true and you know it. You could at least say Florida seceded because they wanted to legalize marijuana or because the people of that state wanted open borders, and then provide a source. But, no, you refer me to a source that doesn’t give a reason.
This is quite a bit of license with what I actually said. I never said they had no reasons for seceding, I merely pointed out that only a minority of them mentioned slavery as a significant reason, and that people who make the assertion that this minority speaks for the majority are deliberately misleading people so as to create the illusion that the war was only about slavery.
We were part of a movement that ultimately put an end to it. Would that we had done so peacefully, like Britain did. But we didn’t. For us, it took a civil war.
Lincoln did not launch the war to end slavery. He launched the war for the specific purpose of maintaining economic control over the revenue producing South, and to prevent Southern industries from using the additional capital that independence would give them to build competing industries to the northern power barons that were his financial backers for the Presidency.
Lincoln was a "mercantilist", and the South was producing the vast bulk of all the revenue collected by the Federal government, and so his money supply was trying to get away, and he wasn't going to let that happen.
Lincoln wasn't trying to stop slavery. In fact he condoned the creation of a new constitutional amendment to strengthen legalized slavery in an effort to keep his money supply from running away.
Lincoln was literally supporting efforts to keep slaves in chains indefinitely. He only chose to announce his policy of freeing them when he believed it could best serve the effort to subdue the South. He did not attempt to free the slaves then under his control in the North.
Exactly right. They had been effectively barred from ever achieving sufficient control in congress to protect themselves from the mercantilist (crony capitalists) interests in New York and Washington DC. (Same people screwing with us today.)
Not that taxes were being passed without representation, but that the majority of the country was oppressing the minority of SLAVEHOLDING STATES.
"slaveholding" is a descriptive adjective. It identifies the group of states being oppressed. It is a mere statement of recognition that the states being oppressed happened to be slaveholding states, which was pretty much the case for any state south of the Mason-Dixon line.
And Virginia's point was exactly accurate. The Lincoln administration had chosen to invade states because they no longer wanted to be ruled by Washington DC, and they would have remained slave holding states had they not seceded.
Therefore their description as "slaveholding states" is irrelevant to the point of why they were being invaded. They were being invaded because they wanted to throw off Washington DC control of their economics, not because they held slaves.
Yet Slavery was not the problem?
Clearly not. They weren't being invaded for being slave states, they were being invaded for wanting to get away from Washington DC.
As the London Spectator dryly noted in 1863;
"the principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
I am reeling from the intellectual force of your rebuttal.
Sit down, take deep breaths, you'll get over it.
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.