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.
of course, you do NOT have enough "class" to do that.
laughing AT you, BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
Wow. So much hate. Sure sign of a liberal.
Seek help Squattie.
free dixie,sw
reference #483 = so much mindless drivel. must be just more ranting of a sociopathic Lost Cause Neo-confederate.
free dixie from shiite-heads like Squattie
the FACT is that almost every one of his post is OFFENSIVE to ladies & children, but he evidently doesn't care.
he is GARBAGE, imVho.
free dixie,sw
Hiya Squattie, you slack-jawed hypocritical moron. You failed to Ping me when you mentioned me by name. You made a big deal of that against others. You are a hypocrite.
It’s that simple
TRUTH is, not only are you MORALLY UNFIT (primarily because of your DIRTY "mouth" on FR) to BE a FReeper, but you are also TOO DUMB to be a member.
laughing AT you, BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
That’s better shiite~for~brains. Thanks!
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - I was out of State on business, and did not have internet access.
Quite obviously, you believe the "union" to be something other than a political union. That appears to contradict your suggestion that government should be bound by law, rather than morality (unless you are referring to some sort of unwritten law - in which case, you are welcome to the consequences, and please count me out).
Nine does not equal thirteen, in any political or rational sense. You are welcome to base your arguments on statements taken out of context, or upon imagined nuances of language - I will not. But (given the above) it never ceases to amaze me, when I meet people like you here on FreeRepublic...
laughing AT you, BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
You sir are wrong. Secession did not end the United States, it changed them. The South had every legal, moral and constitutional right to secede. Lincoln acted in defiance of the constitution and became a bloody tyrant.
Public school education, huh?
Have you ever even read the 10th Amendment?
You don’t get to make up the rules dumbazz. The “rule” for morons like you is that any time you mention someone by name you are obliged to cc them.
You apply that rule (or its omission) selectively against people you don’t like and then in typical Squattie hypocrite fashion don’t heed that self-same rule.
You are a hypocrite Squattie, and a dog-breath stupid one at that.
laughing AT you, BLOWHARD.
free dixie,sw
credit their "gubmint apruv'd pubick screwl edumakashun".
free dixie,sw
Bravo Squattie, you truly are an imbecile LOL....
buzz off, BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - I was out of State on business, and did not have internet access.
That’s alright, I understand. I have obligations too.
Quite obviously, you believe the "union" to be something other than a political union.
I never thought about it one way or the other considering the term “political union”.
That appears to contradict your suggestion that government should be bound by law, rather than morality….
As I wrote above I never thought about it one way or the other, so I don’t see how it contradicts my answer to your question “Should government be bound by morality, or by law?” In any case, the existence of the Union is independent of any government the members of the Union establish to take care of those things for which they find a government to be necessary.
You seem to be too hung up on government, which constrains your thought process.
Nine does not equal thirteen, in any political or rational sense. You are welcome to base your arguments on statements taken out of context, or upon imagined nuances of language - I will not.
To support my contention that the Union predates the “US Constitution and continued as the same Union through and after the establishment of the US Constitution, all I have to do is point to the clear words written at the time, which I have done.
On the other hand, for you to support your contention that the pre US Constitution Union and the post US Constitution Union are not the same, you have to demonstrate the dissolution of the pre US Constitution Union and negate the clear words written at the time to which I have pointed.
To demonstrate the dissolution of the Pre US Constitution Union, you could point to clear words written at the time, which I do not recall that you have done. I don’t know of any words in that regard. (If you had some we might have to discuss which words had more weight, those supporting your position or those supporting mine.) What you have done instead is put forth your 9/13 argument. That might be effective if the US Constitution had not ultimately been ratified by all thirteen original States, but that is not the case. The Union may have been in jeopardy till the Thirteenth ratification, but it was not dissolved, anymore than a marriage is dissolved by one spouse wanting to think about it before following another who relocates for some reason.
As to negating the clear words written at the time to which I have pointed, your attempt to do so needs to be strengthened, particularly in view of the weakness of your 9/13 argument. The statements mean the same in context or out, and your “imagined nuances of language” allegation just seems desperate.
But (given the above) it never ceases to amaze me, when I meet people like you here on FreeRepublic...
I too am amazed by the quality of thinking I sometimes find here.
“semi-human GARBAGE”?
Very nice Squattie. You’ve hit a new low...
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.