Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
The principal at a Fayette County middle school has banned all clothing with the confederate flag emblem...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsbtv.com ...
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
As you have honestly acknowledged.
It is recognized that other issues were in play that exasperated the issue, but slavery was the one that could not be compromised on, by either side.
No doubt 'slave' States would have lost power had slavery been restricted but slavery was going to be ended eventually, as Lincoln said, the nation could not permanently remain free and slave.
Slavery was holding the South back as well.
As for what the Confederate flag represents, I am not speaking of sentimental attachment, I am speaking of what the South was really fighting for.
Expansion of slavery is not a noble cause, no what the justification, no how wrong the North might have been in how they handled the situation.
If you agree that the central issue of the war was slavery, then the Flag that was for slavery, (no matter what the individual soldier thought) was the wrong Flag.
truer words were NEVER spoken by a DY before, here on FR.
NOW, if we can just get that REVISIONIST bigot to LEAVE FR & take "x" & "JSU&TI" with him to DU, we'll be able to get back to a CIVIL discussion of the WBTS!
free dixie,sw
No, what I admit is that I am at least 1% less of a nitwit, a bigot, a liar and fool then you are.
Yes, he did. As I have stated on these threads before, I would have preferred to wait and see whether he would do as he said before seceding. As Sam Houston said in December 1860:
As the Chief Executive of the nation, he will be sworn to support the Constitution and execute the laws. His oath will bring him in conflict with the unconstitutional statues enacted by his party, in many of the States. Elected by that party, it is but natural that the conservatism of the nation will watch his course with jealous care, and demand at his hands a rigid enforcement of the Federal laws. Should he meet the same resistance which our Executives have met, it will be his duty to call to his aid the conservative masses of the country, and they will respond to the call. Should he falter or fail, and by allowing the laws to be subverted, aid in oppressing the people of the South, he must be hurled from power. From the moment of his inauguration, there will commence an "irresistible conflict" different from that which the party of Mr. Lincoln is based upon; it will be an "irresistible conflict" between the Constitution, which he has sworn to support, and the unconstitutional enactments and aims of the party which has placed him in power. He has declared the Fugitive Slave Law is constitutional. In its enforcement the conflict is with the North alone.
I need not assure you, that whenever the time shall come when we must choose between a loss of our constitutional rights and revolution, I shall choose the latter ...
After states started seceding, some Northern judges and lawyers realized that their state's personal liberty laws contravened the Constitution and called for their repeal, but it was too late. Elvis had left the building.
Lincoln pledged to uphold all of the Constitution, including enforcement of Southen rights.
Well, he certainly shredded the Constitution once he was in power, so his word apparently wasn't worth much.
FEW other people, ANYWHERE, cared at all about slavery and/or "the plight of the slaves". they SHOULD have;they did NOT! (fwiw, anybody who says that slavery was "the issue" or even ""the major issue" is IGNORANT,a DUNCE, a NITWIT & possibly a HATER.)
in 1860, you couldn't have found a THOUSAND people ANYWHERE,who would have gone to war and KILLED a MILLION Americans. (fwiw, MANY THOUSANDS of the WAR-DEAD were slaves! they were only FREED from being ALIVE, by the very same DAMNyankee soldiers who came south "to free them"!)over slavery, UNLESS they ACTUALLY owned a slave/slaves! FACT.
free dixie,sw
Now, that is not true.
Moreover, The South cannot have it both ways.
They cannot violate the Constitution by secession and then complain about Lincoln's 'abuses'.
But once again, the South had no legitimate reason to secede just on the basis of Lincoln's election.
They still had representation.
Lincoln gave full assurance that all the laws of the land would be upheld and a strong united Democratic opposition would have ensured that compliance.
you should head over to DU to be with your DAMNyankee HATE-filled cronies.
free dixie,sw
Both Jeff Davis and A.H. Stephens admitted as much.
But what did they know compared to you?
Let me ask you a personal question, do you foam at the mouth as you are writing your nonsense?
try reading the 10th Amendment & you won't look so STUPID! NO state would have FREELY joined the union, IF they had believed they could NOT just as FREELY left it.
IF tomorrow, the states of AZ,CA,CO,NM,OR & WA decide by POPULAR vote to LEAVE the union & form a NEW HISPANIC/Roman Catholic republic (imVho, this WILL happen within 10-15 years!), the rest of the states will simply have to ACCEPT their leaving, IF the 10TH Amendment means ANYTHING. it's called "SELF-determination" & LIBERTY!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
No, but the Southern leadership would go to war to keep slavery alive and that meant expansion.
No one foresaw how long and bloody the war was going to be.
But according to Jeff Davis, the South stood to lose alot of money if slavery was limited and that was why the South was willing to rish secession.
Thus, slavery is the central issue of the Civil War, on whether or not it was going to be allowed to expand and live or be contained and die.
Not according to the architect of the Constitution, James Madison, it wasn't.
when i was a college student (4 decades ago) you would have fled the campus (of ANY college in the USA) in TEARS of HUMILIATION had you posited seriously such a STUPID position! face it, "ftd" you are a "vicktumm uv duh gubint pubic screwls kuricullum" which is INTENDED to FOOL fools & nitwits like YOU. in your sad case, it OBVIOUSLY did.
free dixie,sw
No State created by the Union has a right to leave the Union.
The only God-give rights are individual rights, and that is found in the Declaration of Independence, when a nation becomes so tyrannical that no recourse is left but to resist it with arms, and overthrow it and reestablish a new one, protecting individual liberty, as our Founders did.
But you have to have no other political recourse before resorting to arms.
How is the foam at the mouth doing?
I hope you have tissues nearby.
[ftD]: Now, that is not true.
From the Congressional Globe, July 16, 1861, page 150 and 151, Representative Burnett of Kentucky speaking:
The President of the United States has, since the adjournment of the last Congress, and prior to the commencement of the present session, violated the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the Constitution. …
... first amendment ... Men have been arrested all over this country without process of law, upon no other charge than they had uttered seditious language. Where is your authority to arrest a man for the utterance of seditious language? ...
The president has likewise violated the second amendment, which secures people the right to keep and bear arms. ... Arms, the private property of the citizens, have, upon mere suspicion, been taken at the order of military commanders, and are now withheld from the citizens ... [A Member: Where?] [Mr. Burnett: In my own state (Kentucky)...]
The President has violated the third amendment of the Constitution, that no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. Repeatedly have soldiers been quartered in the houses of private citizens during war, without any authority of law, but upon the order of those who are controlling the movements of the Government.
He has violated the fourth article of that amendment to the Constitution, which is, that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated; and that no warrant shall issue except upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. ...
The [fifth] amendment to the Constitution also declares that no person shall be held for a capital or otherwise infamous crime -- the highest crimes known to your law -- except upon the presentment and indictment of a grand jury; and yet, sir, citizens are now being deprived of their liberty, incarcerated in your fortresses and jails, and deprived of even the right of a preliminary examination, upon the mere order of the President of the United States.
No person shall be deprived of life liberty, or property without due process of law [fifth amendment]. That is another of the rights locked up in the Constitution secured to us by our fathers, and yet the President of the United States has violated that right; and the plea upon which a justification is sought is that of necessity. ...
Men are now arrested in Maryland, and they have been in other portions of the country, upon warrants issued by the Secretary of State alone, and confined in the jail of the District of Columbia. They have not been able to be reached by a writ of habeas corpus; and after they have been kept there for weeks, they have been dismissed without a statement of the charge against them [sixth amendment].
I state, as a member of this House, that the President has violated the Constitution of the United States by his proclamations of the 19th and 27th of April last, declaring a blockade of southern ports. It is one of the incidents of the war-making power to declare a blockade. It is an act of war, and Congress alone has the power to declare war. ...
Article one, section nine, clause five [sic, actually clause six], of the Constitution, declares that no preference shall be given to the ports of one State, over those of another; yet the President of the United States, of his own motion, and without authority of law, shuts up ports still claimed to be within the Union, according to the theory of the Republican party and of the President himself.
As this proclamation was made by the President with full knowledge that the Congress of the United States had, at its last session, expressly refused to pass a bill conferring upon him the power to blockade southern ports and collect the revenue outside of the ports. This blockade has been extended to our interior commerce and trade; and today, sir, the ports of loyal States are closed. My own State furnishes a striking example. Her ports are to-day closed; and her principle railroad virtually under the control and management of the Federal Government. The Constitution confers upon Congress alone the "power to regulate commerce among the several States. " ...
The President of the United States has also violated the Constitution by his orders of the 27th of April and 10th of May, authorizing the Commanding General to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. ...
The President has also violated that clause of the Constitution which says that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the United States, except in consequence of appropriations by law. He has taken appropriations made by Congress for one purpose and applied them to another, in violation of law ...
By his proclamation of the 3rd of May, calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand volunteers for three and five years, by his increase of the regular Army twenty two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and adding to the Navy eighteen thousand seamen, he not only violated the plain letter of the Constitution in article one, eighth section, and twelfth clause [actually 12th and 13th clauses], but usurped the powers of the legislative department of this Government.
Moreover, The South cannot have it both ways. They cannot violate the Constitution by secession and then complain about Lincoln's 'abuses'.
What part of the Constitution did the South violate by seceding?
if it means anything CONCRETE, it means that ALL POWERS which were NOT ceded to the central government REMAIN within the SOLE discretion of the STATES and/or the PEOPLE of those STATES!
secession is ONE of those RIGHTS reserved to the STATES & to the CITIZENS of those STATES!
free dixie,sw
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.