https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/mapping-how-americas-metro-areas-voted/508313/
Posted on 11/20/2018 1:49:02 PM PST by Mariner
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith smilingly posed for a photo in 2014 while wearing a Confederate cap and holding a rifle, then put the image on her Facebook page with the words "Mississippi history at its best!"
That image, taken at a Mississippi museum, resurfaced Tuesday as AT&T, Leidos and Walmart joined two other companies, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific, in asking Hyde-Smith, a Republican, to return campaign contributions because of controversy over her recent jest about being willing to attend a public "hanging."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
You go out of your way to justify the unjustifiable. But don’t use excuse that I claimed the slavery was endangered by the North in 1860.
And yes, the South fought the war for no good reason. It was in defense of the Union that the North fought until the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the South.
During the entire 1850s the Slavers were agitating to be allowed to take their slaves anywhere they wished many of the agitators candidly confessed that they believed the area was incompatible with slavery and it would not grow there.
That did not stop the movement engendered by Calhoun from carrying on about the right to take slavery into the new territories.
The South had no chance and suffered the consequences.
Modern economies have no place for slavery and someone should have told the South that. Not that the Fire-eaters would pay any attention but any perceptive Slaver should have figured that out.
But the British deeds were done away with. They held no future sway. Compensation may have been paid, but that was after the fact. Efforts to pay compensation to the Union for Fort Sumter and other facilities were made, but these were deliberately rebuffed by Lincoln. He didn't want to settle the matter peacefully. His backers in New York stood to lose enormous amounts of money if the South was allowed to establish it's own trade with Europe.
The Union was perpetual and not dissolved by the choice of one or more states.
So was the United Kingdom, but we found this thing called "natural law", and it convinced our founders that no one had the right to hold people in allegiance against their will, and so they wrote the Declaration of Independence which says it is a right of nature and of nature's God for people to have independence if they so wish.
The constitution explicitly gives the fed gov the power to suppress Insurrection.
It isn't an "insurrection" or a "rebellion" when states vote to leave the Union. It was called an insurrection" to unleash those powers, but that was a lie.
Chief Justice Samuel P Chase said that "secession is not rebellion" and he also cautioned Federal prosecutors not to bring Jefferson Davis to trial, because if they did, they would lose in the court room everything they had gained on the battlefield.
The trial would have exposed the lie that was used to unleash all that power on the South. The Federal prosecutors wisely chose not to pursue this idea further in Court.
I heard she spoke to a WHITE MAN once.
Arkansas, and the second ring of states were in the control of the Planters and aristocracy (like the rest of the South) just as were the original would-be Secessionists. Behind all the political maneuvering was the problem of slavery even when dressed up as a concern for state’s rights.
The insurrection was different than the Revolution.
The colonies were governed by an empire which restricted self-government and political rights.
The insurrection was a revolt against a government governing with the blessing of the People. A government which had been in the control of the South with only three presidents who were not from the South or accepted slavery
Big difference, as you should know.
Hamilton was critical in the Founding and set it on a course for success with Jefferson and Madison sabotaging him every step of the way. There are many good books about Hamilton and his role. He was one of the greatest statesmen of his period.
Prior to Jefferson’s return from France, Madison was a reliable ally of Hamilton and with him a principle reason for the Constitution.
I am embarrassed to be a stockholder in one of those companies!
Almost everything in your post was incorrect and/or misdirected.
You couldn’t tell me one policy espoused by Trotsky that was part of a platform.
And one of the biggest loads of crap is that the blue states have turned Red ones purple and blue.
What an insulting excuse. It implies the people of those states are politically incompetent boobs easily swayed by the omnipotent Californians
It is only of late that California had a net outflow of population since its founding there were net inflows.
One reason slavery was defended was that it gave the lowest class of Whites someone to look down on.
There were no effective financial institutions in the South capable of handling the finances required for the region to establish a direct relationship with foreign nations. Nor would any European power recognize the rebel as a legitimant government, not even Emperor Napoleon.
You obviously know nothing about Lincoln since he made repeated attempt to quell the rebellion. No president would consider surrendering federal property.
As to Lincoln’s “backers” International banking was much more important than that in NY, Boston or Philadelphia.
There was no authority for the South to rebel no matter how many “conventions” were called. There were several in the 1850s which only generated a lot of hot air. Every state that joined the Union agreed to creating a perpetual Union and some of the Southern states were even created by the Union.
Just as there is no illegal method from getting another union dissolved but through the courts, there is no reason to think such an act could be taken unilaterally. It would destroy the very meaning of “Union.”
Was the Revolution an insurrection?
The colonies were governed by an empire which restricted self-government and political rights.
You don't have to justify morally what the colonists did. You have to cite the law that allowed them to do it.
What law allowed the Colonists to secede from the United Kingdom? Isn't that your argument for the Confederates? That they had no legal right to leave?
A revolution is only such when an insurrection succeeds.
Possession of the colonies was just a claim by Brits determined by the Right of Conquest. The violations of the “Rights of Englishmen” was one of the main causes of our revolt.
This is a completely different from an insurrection which revolts against a legitimate government proceeding from the consent of the governed.
The War came about entirely because of Southern fears about slavery. Even as you showed there was no threat except becoming less powerful as new states were added.
These states had formed a contractual relationship which cannot be dissolved on a whim, particularly since the rights of the South were never threatened.
This contract could not be unilaterally abrogated and treated like a Moslem marriage.
There’s nothing in my post that was about California. So I have no idea what your rant is about.
“This is a completely different from an insurrection which revolts against a legitimate government proceeding from the consent of the governed.”
Actually, the whole point of the rebellion was that those in the South no longer gave consent to be governed!
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I have a measure of sympathy for the idea that one doesn’t split off just because one has lost an election. But if the big cities on the coast reach a point where all of the US is expected to live IAW “San Francisco values” - and we are not far from that now! - then I can fully understand saying, “This government no longer represents me and will never represent me - so we are leaving!”
Which is EXACTLY what the American Revolution was about! And if Texas ever decides to leave the Union, I’ll hope Arizona joins them.
In 2018, in the vote for Senate, California gave 10 million votes split between 2 Democrats. No Republican was in the running. In the House, 10 of 53 seat went to Republicans. Democrats won a 3.5 million margin in California House races (65% - 33% split). Hard not to conclude that without California, the rest of the US would be in good shape!
“You couldn’t tell me one policy espoused by Trotsky that was part of a platform.”
Obviously you’ve never read anything by Irving Kristol concerning the roots of neoconservatism in the Trotsky faction in New York.
But then what would he know, since he was part of that founding group and he willingly accepted the title “the godfather of neoconservatism”. Maybe you should try reading more.
Still no list.
I read Issac Deutche’s three volume set of Trotsky’s life. It was very interesting and there is nothing in it which any conservative or neo-conservative would agree with except Stalin was bad.
Possession of legal and moral authority to stop someone from leaving your control was just a claim by Lincoln that was determined by the Right of Conquest.
But let us make no mistake about it. It was a conquest not a moral right or an adherence to existing law.
This is a completely different from an insurrection which revolts against a legitimate government proceeding from the consent of the governed.
Where did this "Consent of the Governed" idea come from? Why does it hold any moral or legal power?
That is a claim by those who wish to oversimplify the tension between the two sides. The election was just the final straw. The South had become the milk cow for the Northern oriented government in Washington DC, and that government had been deriving between 75-85% of all it's revenue from import taxes paid for goods bought with Southern exports. In other words, the Southern exports were paying 75-85% of all the taxes used to fund the Federal Government.
That was bad enough, but the bulk of all the revenue collected was also spent in the North. The South was paying the vast majority of the bills, and those who weren't paying them were collecting the vast majority of the benefits. The situation is pretty well summed up in this statement by Robert Rhett.
Additionally they had grown weary of hearing about what horrible people they were from the Liberal activists in the North.
Which is EXACTLY what the American Revolution was about! And if Texas ever decides to leave the Union, I’ll hope Arizona joins them.
In 2018, in the vote for Senate, California gave 10 million votes split between 2 Democrats. No Republican was in the running. In the House, 10 of 53 seat went to Republicans. Democrats won a 3.5 million margin in California House races (65% - 33% split). Hard not to conclude that without California, the rest of the US would be in good shape!
Yes, we are in a similar situation. California and New York effectively dominate national politics, and they invariably push for legislation that damages the rest of us, and often which we see as wrong or immoral.
I first starting feeling sympathy for the South when I realized that we are now experiencing something similar. These liberal states are forcing us to go in directions that are against our wishes. I do not approve of legalized abortion. (except for conditions in which the woman's life is endangered) I do not approve of homosexual "marriage". I do not approve of excessive government spending. I do not approve of unfettered immigration, legal or illegal.
I do not approve of countless things which states like New York and California are dragging us toward, and I foresee one day that we may very well need some form of escape from these lunatics.
And that is how I started feeling some empathy for what happened to the South.
“And that is how I started feeling some empathy for what happened to the South.”
Amen, friend!
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/mapping-how-americas-metro-areas-voted/508313/
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.