Posted on 06/05/2010 6:51:11 PM PDT by jdfromny
Except it wasn’t the National Anthem then.
Eh, as a Southerner, I think it kinda, well, sucks.
But of you apply the words to our present state, it’s pretty timely.
I know. That makes it even funnier to me, seeing conservatives celebrating this stuff.
Yeah, but this time around, *we’re* “Dixie” and look how that worked out.
So, being a southerner overshadows being an American?
So, being a southerner overshadows being an American?
__________________
Southerners fought to defend the Constitution. What we have today in Washington, DC is a result of the LOSS of the Civil War to the Washington Establishment by those who believed in States Rights in favor of centralized government/Statist policies, which have continued to increase incrementally and progressively since that time: (1) Reconstruction (2) Progressivism (3) The New Deal (4) The Great Society — and these are just some of the main “movements”...
The ultimate outcome of the War Between The States was that the States which desired to “preserve the Union at all costs” did so by destroying the Constitution — which was to be the BASIS of the Union. That’s why the Constitution can be and HAS been so distorted and perverted by Progressives in the past 100 years — it was made possible BY the Civil War era and the precedents set then...
So, no, I don’t think being a Southerner overshadows being an American. I think being a Southerner, and being true to the principles of those who stood for the South and for the Constitution, IS being an American. That are not contradictory. Hope that explains where I’m coming from...
That must be why Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt swept the South every time they ran.
And why Harry S Truman and Lyndon Johnson both considered themselves Southerners.
Come to think of it, Wilson was born in the South and FDR considered himself at least an honorary Georgian from spending time at Warm Springs.
Say what?
Just like the North look at any large city in the South and tell me if there are Constitutionalists or liberals running the show?
The only problem the secessionists had with centralized government is they wanted one in Richmond that would be dedicated to the protection and expansion of slavery.
That must be why Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt swept the South every time they ran.
And why Harry S Truman and Lyndon Johnson both considered themselves Southerners.
Come to think of it, Wilson was born in the South and FDR considered himself at least an honorary Georgian from spending time at Warm Springs.
__________________________________
The South voted Solid Democrat because in the aftermath of the Civil War they were the only party that had any vestige of the former concept of States Rights under the Constitution left.
If you’ve studied history, you know that the Progressive movement first infested the Republican party (Teddy Roosevelt) then the Democrat party (Woodrow Wilson) whose control and perversion of the party, the press and the political culture was so complete that many in the SOuth never missed a beat — they just marched right along.
Calvin Coolidge managed to rein back Progressivism in the Republican Party to some extent, though Herbert Hoover once again tried to acceperate it as the Depression hit. The Democrats said “no” to many of his programs which they would later approve under FDR — only MUCH BIGGER. THAT ought to sound VERY familiar — it’s the SAME scenario that’s happened with “W” Bush vs. Obama.
History tells the story if you learn how to read it. Anyone who believes the Union sought to preserve ANYTHING other than POWER for Washington, DC has bought into the EXACT thing that BROUGHT us the plague of Progressivism. Did the Civil wAR “END SLAVERY?” Sure — it ended “chattel slavery” on the agrarian plantations of the South, and I as a Southerner would have joined BOTH Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson (neither of whom owned slaves and both who opposed slavery) in saying good riddance. But the Union REPLACED the slavery they claimed to hate in the South with the slavery of ALL men to a tyrannical government in Washington, DC that is only now coming into its full potential as the threat to the liberties it was created to protect and defend.
The only problem the secessionists had with centralized government is they wanted one in Richmond that would be dedicated to the protection and expansion of slavery.
__________________
Initially, you are correct, slavery would have been established as an economic “necessity.” But it couldn’t have lasted. It was already illegal in Europe. It was already becoming prohibitively expensive in the South. In fact, the Confederate Constitution made it ILLEGAL to import new slaves from foreign lands (an industry usually perpetrated by NORTHERN shipping interests anyway)Wilberforce had forced a peaceful end to slavery in England in 1833. And interestingly, nowhere else in Europe or the New World was there a war needed to END slavery. Why then did the Civil War occur? Because slavery was an excuse for a centralized government — and one particular region — to lord it over another. And it has worked.
The seccessionists never had a “centralized government” in Richmond for anything more than the sake of the war effort. The Confederacy was founded while under siege, and they had to put together what they could to try and make it work in an emergency situation. While during wartime the circumstances necessitated a more centralized authority structure to focus on the enemy forces invading the homeland, had the government and nation survived the war, it is probable that the Confederacy would have become far more reflective of the States Rights principles originally voiced by the Founders of the United States, and of those who followed them.
And yes, this is speculation. What is not speculation, but absolute certainty, is that the Federal Government of the United States has continued it’s expansion almost unabated since the time of the Civil War, with the exception of a couple of years after the disaster that was “Reconstruction” (1877-1880) and during the Harding/Coolidge Era (1921-24)after the disaster that was Woodrow Wilson.
We are where we are now — we can make it better by returning to the principles of the Founders — the ORIGINAL Founders, or we can stick our heads in the sand and proclaim the likes of the Roosevelts and Wilsons, or even the Lincolns and the Grants, “heroes,” and we’ll be in worse shape tomorrow than today. IF we survive at all.
How so?
In fact, the Confederate Constitution made it ILLEGAL to import new slaves from foreign lands.
Incorrect. It specifically protected imports from one foreign country.
And interestingly, nowhere else in Europe or the New World was there a war needed to END slavery.
Because nowhere other than in the southern United States was a region willing to launch such a war to protect slavery.
...it is probable that the Confederacy would have become far more reflective of the States Rights principles originally voiced by the Founders of the United States, and of those who followed them.
Speculation on your part. And which is not supported at all by the actions of the rebel government during the rebellion. The Davis regime consolidate power in Richmond to a degree never imagined by Lincoln. They trampled on the whole concept of states rights during the war, and the idea that they would suddenly drop that control once the war was one is naive. If as you seem to claim, it was the crisis that forced them to act in ways contrary to their true beliefs then the crisis would not end with the war. So why would their central control?
We are where we are now — we can make it better by returning to the principles of the Founders — the ORIGINAL Founders...
I don't disagree with you on that. But where we part is the idea that the confederacy would have headed in that direction, or that had they won then they would have somehow morphed into the small government, state's rights nation we would all like. That idea is ridiculous.
I don’t disagree with you on that. But where we part is the idea that the confederacy would have headed in that direction, or that had they won then they would have somehow morphed into the small government, state’s rights nation we would all like. That idea is ridiculous.
_________________________
One thing is certain — we will never know what might have happened if the Confederacy had won. They did not. But we KNOW what happened as a result (directly or indirectly) of the Union winning — and that is what we have today.
The only remedy is to return to the vision of the Founders. Period. Anything less is insufficient and will result in failure.
I don't see that. The Confederacy was founded as an engine of competition with the Union and external and internal pressures would probably have led it to becoming even more oppressive than it was during the war. That is what will happen when you try to impose a second central power over one nation.
I don’t see that. The Confederacy was founded as an engine of competition with the Union and external and internal pressures would probably have led it to becoming even more oppressive than it was during the war. That is what will happen when you try to impose a second central power over one nation.
_________________
The very nature of the Confederacy wasn’t “centralized.” That was one of the weaknesses from which it suffered and ultimately succumbed. The Southern States ALL viewed themselves much more independently than did those that composed “The Union.” And saying that the Confederacy would have become “even more oppressive” defies both history and economic realities of the time. But it’s also plainly based on wild speculation.
Again, what is NOT speculation is what HAS indeed resulted from the victory of the Union — either directly or indirectly. That is, an imperial and centralized governmental power in Washington, DC that runs the government and lives of the States, Communities and most individuals in one way or another today. This reality was made a potential outcome by the ascendency gained through the war persecuted by Lincoln, the Washington Government, abd the “Union” States. They effectively destroyed the Constitution to preserve the Union. Progressivism, The New Deal, The Great Society, and even the division of the races, Jim Crow/Segregationism/Civil Rights, etc. ALL came directly or indirectly out of THAT period. Manipulations meant to divide and conquer, NOT for the greater good of “We the People,” but for the ultimate power of THEY THE GOVERNMENT.
It's kinda like "It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." It also reminds me of the people on the birther threads who say that the only way to save the constitution is a military coup.
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.