Posted on 06/06/2009 2:57:37 PM PDT by Dick Bachert
by Charley Reese
Most of the political problems in this country won't be settled until more folks realize the South was right.
I know that goes against the P.C. edicts, but the fact is that on the subject of the constitutional republic, the Confederate leaders were right and the Northern Republicans were wrong.
Many people today even argue the Confederate positions without realizing it.
For example, if you argue for strict construction of the Constitution, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you oppose pork-barrel spending, you are arguing the Confederate position; and when you oppose protective tariffs, you are arguing the Confederate position. But that's not all.
When you argue for the Bill of Rights, you are arguing the Confederate position, and when you argue that the Constitution limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, you are arguing the Confederate position.
One of the things that gets lost when you adopt the politically correct oversimplification that the War Between the States was a Civil War all about slavery is a whole treasure load of American political history.
It was not a civil war. A civil war is when two or more factions contend for control of one government. At no time did the South intend or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States . The Southern states simply withdrew from what they correctly viewed as a voluntary union. They formed their own union and adopted their own constitution.
The U.S. government remained intact. There were just fewer states, but everything else remained as exactly as it was. You can be sure that, with as much bitterness and hatred of the South that there was in the North, the Northerners would have tried Confederates for treason if there had been any grounds. There weren't, and the South's worst enemy knew that.
Abraham Lincoln's invasion of the South was entirely without any constitutional authority. And it's as plain as an elephant in a tea party that Lincoln did not seek to preserve the Union to end slavery. All you have to do is read his first inaugural address. What Lincoln didn't want to lose was tax revenue generated by the South.
As Northern states gained a majority in both houses, they began to use the South as a cash cow. Here's how it worked: Most Southerners who exported cotton bartered the cotton in Europe for goods. When the protective tariffs were imposed, that meant Southerners had to pay them. To make matters worse, the North would then use the revenue for pork-barrel projects in its states. The South was faced with either paying high tariffs and receiving no benefits from the revenue or buying artificially high-priced Northern goods.
Southerners opposed pork-barrel spending. Their correct view was that, because the federal government was merely the agent of all the states, whatever money it spent should be of equal benefit. Their position on public lands was that they belonged to all the people and the federal government had no authority to give the lands away to private interests.
Northerners had announced they would not be bound by the Constitution. What you had was the rise of modern nationalism fighting the original republic founded by the American Revolution.
So, regardless of where you were born, you may be a Southerner philosophically.
True, and not everyone is perfect.
Still, “be proud you’re a rebel ‘cause the South’s gonna do it again!” — Charlie Daniels
North, East, and West are directions, but the South is a country.
I thought this was a discussion about the justness (or unjustness) of the Southern cause in the Civil War. Then you went off on this weird, irrelevant tangent about black liberation theology and reparations, none of which has anything to do with whether the South was justified or mitigates the wickedness of slavery. Color me confused. Oh well, you started the thread, it’s your baby. I’ll move along now.
We need a leader like Sherman today — making war so hard on the enemy that they will not want to fight us for 150 years. War is hell, not a social program.
I happily argue the Confederate position and I believe I have the Constitution on my side. We have the right to dissolve a government that no longer serves us and reform it in a way that meets our satisfaction. That is the point of Charlie Reese’s argument. He is correct.
Quite so.
Aside from the good points of the Southern position, we are where we are, today is much different.
It simply appears somebody forgot to tell this gentleman the North won the war.
Question. When the Romans became an empire, who got to write history???
Where is Ft. Sumter?
I guess North Carolina and Virginia have seceeded from the South since they elected Obama. If not, can we kick them out?
Where’s Gettysburg?
I gather from your screen name that you are not clever enough to come up with your own but had to hijack the derisive nickname applied by a hostile media to the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.
You probably don’t know or care but he actually outed some 55 commies nested in the State Department who — because there were still a few Americans in government at the time — lost their sensitive jobs and the ability to spy for their marxist masters.
Sadly, he didn’t get them all and we are now paying the price for that.
Now it’s back under your comfy rock over at Dimocrat Underground to bask in the praise of your fellow travelers for so successfully lurking at FR.
Buh-bye!
No, no, we are on your point here of first shot fired.
If you are against the internationalist New World Order, you are supporting the Confederate position. If you are pro-NWO, you are for the “Union” position.
As the Civil War was nearing its close, even Lincoln realized that he had (perhaps inadvertently) created a monster, with giant corporations with international reach calling the shots. But then he was assassinated, the South lay prostrate, and poor Andrew Johnson was overwhelmed by forces he could neither master nor understand.
Before the Civil War, the US (a decentralized republic) was in no position to participate in a NWO, let alone host it. After the Civil War, that all changed. We are still living with the consequences, which grow worse and worse with every succeeding decade. This is all accelerating under Obama.
Its probably because Lee fought very valiantly, ultimately failed, and then retired gracefully (becoming I believe, a surprisingly effective educator).
Grant OTOH, fought very valiantly, won by a cynical if effective process of attrition, and then went into politics, which is a surefire way to get folk riled up at you at the best of times. He was a great general, but not a particularly successful president, and as he did the latter after the former, he tended to get remembered for his failures as POTUS rather than his successes as General of all the armies.
What really matters is who fired the last shots.
Did I err in perceiving that your comments starting me down that road WERE alluding to SLAVERY??
Well, so did the US constitution - at least until the emancipation proclamation after Antietem.
Curiously, the Confederate constitution outlawed slave trafficking.
HAHAHA, where is Ft. Sumter?
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.