Posted on 10/07/2010 8:12:40 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Southerners who celebrate their cultural heritage, are among the most misunderstood people in America. Italians who celebrate Colombus Day, and Irishmen who celebrate St. Patricks Day, never have to suffer the grief that Southerners who want to celebrate Robert E. Lee's Birthday have to endure.
Southern identity is partly about celebrating the Anglo-Celtic culture, which is the core culture that existed in America at the time of the founding of America in 1776. It is the culture that gave us the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, and others. Most Southerners, both white and black, are descended from people who were in America before the Civil War in 1860.
It is often said that America is a nation of immigrants. Southerners are not immigrants to America. When the first Southerners came to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, America did not exist as a nation. Southerners were the pioneers who built America. Southerners created colonial America in 1607, before the Mayflower folks arrived in 1620. Two sons of the South, the Virginians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, led America to independence as a Constitutional Republic in 1776. Why shouldn't Southerners be proud of such a great heritage?
Many of the Northerners who love to mock and insult the South, are people whose ancestors came to America as immigrants, after the statue of liberty was put up in 1886. They love to mock the people who created and built the America that their ancestors immigrated to. If someone could create a time machine, and we could go back to the 1890s, we would tell our Southern ancestors to stop those European immigrants from getting off their boats at Ellis Island. It is time that the Southerners who created American culture and the American nation, are shown a little appreciation by the Ellis Island Yankees, who just got off the boat the other day. If you are a pro-Southern Yankee, this complaint does not apply to you, of course.
RE: In other words, Virginia agreed to abide by the Constitution, and if that document did not allow certain actions on the part of the states then those actions were illegal. And the Supreme Court ruled that secession without the consent of the states, as practiced by the Southern states in 1860-61, was not allowed under the Constitution.
Your appeal to the decision of the Supreme Court fails to impress. Supreme Courts can be wrong and their decisions can be overturned.
Let us remember that the Surpeme Court also gave us the Dredd Scott decision. Chief Justice Taney gave us such unconsistutional gems as blacks were “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Taney concluded that blacks could never be citizens of the United States, even if they were born in the country and considered to be citizens of the states in which they lived. This also meant that Dred Scott had no right to sue for his freedom in a federal court.
In fact, Taney’s goal was to finally settle the status of slavery in the territories in favor of the South. Ignoring the plain language of the Constitution, Taney argued that Congress did not have power to pass laws to regulate anything, including slavery, in the territories.
So, to appeal to a Supreme Court decision, makes it legal AT THAT TIME, but it does NOTHING to tell us whether the Surpeme Court was RIGHT in its decision.
I would rather appeal to the ORIGINAL statements made by the framers.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said,
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
RE: While the southern people had a right to contend that “the people” in question were the people of the individual states, unionists had an equal right to contend that “the people” were the people of the United States.
Yes, but what was the INTENT of the framers and those who RATIFIED the constitution?
If we do not appeal to that, then all we can do is appeal to whoever has the most weapons.
As I wrote above, In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.”
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
Perhaps. But until the decision is overturned, unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states was and is illegal.
A decision that was later negated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
So, to appeal to a Supreme Court decision, makes it legal AT THAT TIME, but it does NOTHING to tell us whether the Surpeme Court was RIGHT in its decision.
But they are not wrong merely because you say they are wrong.
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
And where in that did Jefferson outline the means to go about seceding?
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
A complete misquote, but even in that Jefferson is clearly stating that separation is a mutual decision. No one state has the power to merely walk out at a whim.
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”
Madison also said, "...I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
States are also equal. No state can unilateally take any action that impacts the interests and well-beling of another state. Even seceding.
No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes.
Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the ‘Federal Republican’ that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is abominable heresy – which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of Federalist.
We call, therefore, upon the government of the Union to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it – and seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of the convention of Harford. This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it.
Countrymen of the East! We call upon you to keep a vigilant eye upon those wretched men who would plunge us into civil war and irretrievable disgrace. Whatever be the temporary calamities which may assail us, let us swear, upon the altar of our country, to SAVE THE UNION." -- Richmond Enquirer, November 1814.
“Honestly, how stupid ...”
...says the fool who keeps the threads going...
The problem with your theory is that it was the South which chose to initiate "an appeal to arms." The CSA had been very precisely informed that Ft. Sumter would be forced to surrender in a few days anyway for lack of provisions.
Despite this fact, they chose to initiate combat. The basic reason is so simple and obvious that it seems to not be paid much attention.
In April of 1865 seven states had seceded. There were eight more slave states in the upper south and border. Lincoln and many in the north believed, rightly or wrongly, that a long stalemate would lead to a rebound of unionist sentiment.
It seems Confederate leaders agreed. They chose to start the fighting, gambling most or all of the "states on the fence" would join them when forced to choose a side.
Virginia and other upper south states reacted with calls for secession as soon as news of the firing on Sumter arrived. Though they used it as their claimed reason, this reaction occurred before Lincoln's call for troops to repress insurrection.
Had all eight unseceded slave state supported the Union, the war would have been short and one-sided. Had all joined the CSA, it would have won, as Lincoln himself said.
In fact, they split 4 and 4, which ensured a long, bloody war.
It is also highly relevant that the Hartford Convention got together and talked about seceding. They made no attempt to actually do so.
“A state’s right and determination to do what?”
Which part of self-determination is so difficult for that pea brain of yours to figure out, little lady?
A typical duntno response. Hostile. Stupid. And makes no sense whatsover.
Lincoln himself said he was not going to disturb the internal institutions of the slave states. Reb partisans are continually calling him a racist for saying that. If the Confederates had merely wanted to be left alone they would have not seceded, but the secessionists were nothing more than a power grabbing class of political criminals not worthy of being defended by Southerners in either 1861 or 2010.
They didn't really talk about it. Those few who had come proposing secession were voted down ealy in the convention.
what you said.
"A typical duntno response. Hostile. Stupid. And makes no sense whatsover."
Find someone with a brain ... even though they will undoubtedly be a stranger and certainly not a relative, they may explain it to you. If they can figure out what you mean when you say "whatsover."
Could you provide some evidence of specific legislation that spoke to such precepts or prohibitions? Thanks.
That leaves you out right off the bat. Never mind. I'll just chalk it up as yet another vintage duntnoism.
“That leaves you out right off the bat. Never mind. I’ll just chalk it up as yet another vintage duntnoism.”
As if I would ever consider it.
Hilarious..btw...never knew you were in bed with the race card gang here. Shame.
I am not arguing that the firing at Fort Sumnter was right.
In fact, I personally believe that there were better ways to handle the situation without having to resort to fighting ( e.g., a diplomatic protest for instance at the presence of Northern soldiers in a state that considers itself independent. Negotiations should have been exhausted, I believe ).
The North didn’t help either by resorting to invasion when nobody got killed at Fort Sumnter.
So, both sides were belligerent and this war really was not necessary.
I also believe that slavery would have died without the civil war ( most countries that had slaves, north and south of the equator eventually abolished them without having to kill one another ).
My argument is that the original understanding of the union was that the states had the RIGHT to secede for reasons they deem necessary if their independence or well being was not being protected by being members of the union.
I still believe this to be the correct understanding of the original intent of those who agreed to join the United States.
btw...just as I predicted...look how they swarm in
they have gotten more plentiful with elction in the wings with many no doubt looking for some gotcha moment here to pass on to anti-freeper sites and media if need be
just look at posting history, you find quickly this is all they do and when they do venture off South bashing you can see how at least socially moderate they are and with race card at the ready time and again.
they should be purged, they are lucky Fresno ain’t in Franklin TN
btw...just as I predicted...look how they swarm in
they have gotten more plentiful with elction in the wings with many no doubt looking for some gotcha moment here to pass on to anti-freeper sites and media if need be
just look at posting history, you find quickly this is all they do and when they do venture off South bashing you can see how at least socially moderate they are and with race card at the ready time and again.
they should be purged, they are lucky Fresno ain’t in Franklin TN
btw, if they are so obsessed by the poor black man’s condition why do you never ever ever see them post one snippet about blacks being bad to one another?
never...ever...it ain’t gonna happen
they are here for racial redress and the South is a logical start for them
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.