Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the sympathy for the South?
2/18/2003 | truthsearcher

Posted on 02/17/2003 5:53:30 PM PST by Truthsearcher

Why the sympathy for the South?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; civilwar; dixie; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-228 next last
To: ml/nj
I don't blame Lincoln for destroying the Federal system. I blame FDR. America needed to transform from These United States to The United States to become the power it became in the 20th Century and it needed to get rid of slavery (a problem since the Constitution was written and a growing problem as new states were added to the Union as slave or free states). The Civil War did that for America. But it was under FDR that the Federal Government really made its power grab far beyond anything the founders imagined.
101 posted on 02/17/2003 8:31:13 PM PST by Question_Assumptions (``)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
There can be no legitimate right for a state to enforce slavery on her people

Well abe sure didn't agree with you.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.--abraham lincoln First Inaugural Address

Which begs the question if the original Thirteenth Amendment was backed by him, and had passed the Senate, what was the war over again?
102 posted on 02/17/2003 8:32:20 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Catholic in New Orleans.
103 posted on 02/17/2003 8:38:19 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Excellent post... Makes the point beautifully and in Lincoln's own words.

All this self pity and revisionist history written by N.Y and Massachusetts historians has changed all the arguments by giving quoted materials that were just as untrue then as they are now.

But, they still exist as doctrine and history. They are still referred to as the real truth, when in reality, they are old lies.

104 posted on 02/17/2003 8:47:28 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Why did South Carolina secede one month after Lincoln was elected? Lincoln did not make the Emancipation Proclamation til nearly two years later. So how could it have been all about slavery?

Geeze, read what South Carolina said itself. You slavery deniers should at least read what the slave holding states were giving as their reasons for secession. Not about slavery? Talk about revisionism run amok.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right....

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation....

105 posted on 02/17/2003 8:49:07 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: docmcb
Indeed, Genovese is one of the best living historians,and I used to correspond with him in the late 60's. Genovese got lots of attention in the mid-60s by making some very intractably radical comments at some of the first University teach-ins against the War in Vietnam...."as a Marxist, not only do I not fear a Vietcong victory, I welcome one". The scholary/scientific tools he's always used (at least as far as "analysis" goes in his first several books) have alway been from the Marxist toolkit.
He was always at the same time one of the most trenchant critics of the New Left and called for them to be "put down and put down hard" at a American Historical Association conference. I suspect he's always been a Roman Catholic (which is not incompatible with being a Marxist), and I doubt he's completely given up his Marxist perspective. I haven't read much of him lately, but his writing was always lively and never burdened too much by doctrinaire Marxist rhetoric. He was always way too smart for that.
106 posted on 02/17/2003 8:49:27 PM PST by willyboyishere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Yeah, I get all teary eyed when slave holders talk about their "rights" being trampled.

Why would you say such a stupid and pointless thing? Do you think that was clever? How many times do you have to be told that very FEW people in the South owned slaves? You apparently just like to hurl sarcastic insults without considering the facts of the case.

Libertarians on this forum talk all the time about the WOD and 'invasion of privacy' when the truth is they just want to smoke dope. The Southerners were about to be invaded, and whether you owned slaves or not, the Union was coming. What would you do, huh?

107 posted on 02/17/2003 8:52:38 PM PST by mumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
It also still exist in Islamic countries.
108 posted on 02/17/2003 8:53:27 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
And that the Government supported railroad from the North to the West would be paid for by the unfairly heavy tax burden placed upon the South.

Just like any liberal scheme of today, paid for with the money taken from someone else's purse.
109 posted on 02/17/2003 8:55:33 PM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Yes, I forgot about the religion of peace.
110 posted on 02/17/2003 8:56:11 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
The main difference between Lincoln and Davis:

Lincoln was elected.

111 posted on 02/17/2003 8:58:21 PM PST by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
Prepare for this thread to be invaded by folks who attend Civil War Battle Simulations Weekends in finely pressed gray cotton uniforms.

And, perhaps, some who show up at same in finely pressed blue cotton uniforms.

foreverfree

112 posted on 02/17/2003 9:01:02 PM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mumbo
How many times do you have to be told that very FEW people in the South owned slaves?

Very few Germans were Nazis and very few worked for the extermination camps. Even fewer Japanese were related to Hirohito. But we blew a lot of them away with the A-bomb, now didn't we.

To any German or Japanese who says those were "the good old days" I say f''' you.

Sorry but if you fight on the side of evil you become an enabler of evil. Actions have consequences.

113 posted on 02/17/2003 9:03:05 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
"Slavery was not "invented" by the southern states of the USA.Even today, the northern states accept the slavery of illegal immigrants, because it is convenient, and financially advantagious for them to do so.

If and when the southern states try to seriously stop the importation of slave labor of illegal aliens,the northern states will again protest the loss of cheap labor,and refuse to pay the actual costs of food and supplies to their cities, once again."

Whoa! This is an astute observation. Thank you for something more to ponder.

114 posted on 02/17/2003 9:03:38 PM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
You have already lost the debate. By assuming the war was about slavery, you have closed off other perspectives.

This narrow interpretation of the War fails to account for political issues, economic factors, regional/cultural differences, taxation, constitutional rights, etc. Yours is an abolitionist view. The tendancy to simply the cause of the War is an injustice.

115 posted on 02/17/2003 9:04:27 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
See #105 above. South Carolina explicitly states the reason for their decision to secede was because of slavery.
116 posted on 02/17/2003 9:06:02 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Yeah, I get all teary eyed when slave holders talk about their "rights" being trampled.

All I ask is that you look at it from their view. It is easy to wear 2003 goggles and diss those from the past because you are not there.

Let's look at a situation from the present day. A European can claim that same point of view expressed above to any "right" you hold dear. They can poo-poo talk you have of "rights" because your government is so barbaric that it kills -- flat out kills -- those poor wretched souls to whom life has been difficult and who have simply committed some crime that in enlightened Europe they would be placed in prison for. So much for yor "rights." I guess it would be justified if Europe invaded to set this injustice right. Too bad if your family dies, too bad if your possessions are destroyed, it's just too bad -- because the ends justify the means. No one in Europe gets teary eyed over a people climing "rights" when they kill minorities in the name of the state.

Or another one. During the cold war, the Soviet Union thought it cruel that fat cat industrialists were exploiting the labor of the working man in the US. Fat cat CEOs were living large while poor working men were worked to early graves to satify the opulent lifestyle of the rich and famous. They had the power to destroy the United States for that crime. In 1962 they almost did. In your world they would be justifed. Would it have been acceptable for the Soviets to have nuked us? After all no one in the Soviet Union got teary eyed when fat cat industrialists "rights" were on the line.

You know, in the Jacksonian world honor is important. The southern states joined the union under the proviso that the federal government would not interfere in slavery as that was to be wholly a decision of the individual states who would eliminate it under a schedule of their choosing. When it became apparent that this was not the case, the southern states viewed their honorable agreement as being broken, therefore action had to be taken. They chose secession because they were honorable men.

117 posted on 02/17/2003 9:06:24 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty" not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
Note that almost every Constitutional Amendment before 1865 featured some variation of the notion "Congress may not"... and almost every Amendment since then has featured some variation of the phrase "Congress shall have the power".
118 posted on 02/17/2003 9:07:26 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
How would you respond to the pro-choice argument that banning abortion isn't about protecting infants, but about continued oppression of woman.

To me it seems the same sophistry as saying the war wasn't about slavery.
119 posted on 02/17/2003 9:12:15 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
I think there is always the danger that once power is concentrated in pursuit of a good cause, that even when the fight is over those who hold that power won't reliquish it.

But that doesn't mean it was wrong to band together for the good fight.


120 posted on 02/17/2003 9:16:16 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson