Posted on 05/23/2002 8:52:25 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Ignorant maybe, but not stupid if you can see through Demoncrat propaganda and understand that the good old boy Southern Demoncrats kept Martin Luther King so far back in jail they had to shoot peas to him through a peashooter to feed him. I lived through that time in the Deep South and was subtly threatened with murder once by a scary country hick for saying that blacks should have the same rights as whites.
There are a lot of people in FR who are very familiar with the Constitution and its history. I've learned a lot by reading their posts.
From what I can see, the South had a legitimate Constitutional argument for secession. The North and the South had compromised to agree on a Constitution. Slavery was recognized as legal, and the North agreed to return escaped slaves. The North reneged on its Constitutional duty to return the slaves. Perhaps they found it too onerous. Would the South had signed the Constitution if the North hadn't agreed to return their slaves? I don't know. Maybe some of the FR Constitutional people know (they probably won't agree with each other, however). Why should the South stay if the North was breaking a critical part (to them) of the Constitution?
Don't get me wrong. Slavery was morally wrong, but it was legal at the time. If that were so, why shouldn't a Southern slave owner have the right to move his legal property (i.e., his slaves) into newly acquired land opening up in the West. Could the Federal goverment or those Western states outlaw something that was accepted in the Constitution. (This may get into the Dred Scott decision which makes some awful arguments but perhaps has some good arguments too.)
I've always felt the South had the right to secede under the 10th Amendment. Others have cited the 9th. You might be interested in the opinion of President Hayes, a former Union brevet general. He said in his diary:
May 2 [1891]. Saturday.-At the G. A. R. [State Encampment] there was a little demagoguery in the way of keeping alive the bitterness of the war. A motion was made and carried against the purchase of Chickamauga battlefield, against Rebel monuments, etc., etc. The truth is, the men of the South believed in their theory of the Constitution. There was plausibility, perhaps more than plausibility, in the States' rights doctrine under the terms and in the history of the Constitution. Lee and Jackson are not in the moral character of their deeds to be classed with Benedict Arnold. They fought for their convictions, for their country as they had been educated to regard it. Let them be mistaken, and treated accordingly. Their military genius and heroism make the glory of the Union triumph.
I think there was a Harvard law professor after the war who argued that the South was correct constitutionally.
Of course it's "beyond" you. Don't feel bad. It's a Southern thing and some people just don't understand.
You really need to study both sides of the issue and maybe talk to some folks with other viewpoints. Gain some perspective. I do have books I can recommend if you're interested -- which I sincerely doubt.
You also might try galvanizing for a change while you're studing "tactical strategy."
You do have a way with words, 4CJ! I appreciate your gallantry.
Why is it when someone disagrees with a southerner on the Civil War it is automatically assumed by them (the least objective of the two parties), that their critic is un-informed, uneducated, or simply hasn't read the "right" books? I was unaware until now that arrogance and condescencion were "a southern thing."
Tell me, how does it feel to be a fellow traveller of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Reverend Fahrakhan? They glom on to the silly arguments of Confederate apologists to support their silly arguments in favor of reparations, continued support of quotas, expandding the federal government, and every other silly welfare program they can think of. That in itself should tell you something.
P.S. should you respond to this, try to actually answer one or more of the points I've made instead of trying side-step them with cute phrases and tired witicisms. Oh, and the next time you hear some muslim making excuses for the misguided policies of Islam, remember this: you sound just the same when you try to defend the policies of the south that led to the Civil War. Not even your beloved Lee believed in the cause.
"God alone can save us from our folly, selfishness and shortsightedness.... I see only that a fearful calamity is upon us...." - Robert E. Lee, letter to Martha Custis Williams, January 22, 1861.
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution." - Robert E. Lee, letter to his son, January 23, 1861.
Name calling is such a petty response, I don't believe I'll respond further to your diatribes. Have a nice weekend.
I called you no names! I properly characterized your response to me as arrogant and asked a pointed question that must have hit too close to home. I'm not surprised you choose to characterize facts and reason as a "diatribe." What else could you do? What follows is a little excerpt of the Confederate Constitution I thought you might find interesting:
ARTICLE I.
Section IX. (Section IX is what passes for a “Bill of Rights” in the Confederate Constitution. Here you will find The first 10 amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights repeated: Paragrahs 12 thru 20. But take note of the Those “rights” which they felt were most important by their placement ahead of rights like free speech, excercise of religion, bearing arms, etc.)
1.The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2.Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
4.No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Section X. (And here is where the Confederates deny their own states the right they claimed for themselves when they left the Union - is hypocrisy a “southern thing” too?)
1.No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
3.No State shall, without the consent of Congress shall.... enter into any agreement or compact with another State....
ARTICLE IV.
1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Section III.
3.The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
There was only one "right" for which the leadership of the Confederacy fought, in spite of the disingenuous rhetoric they used to drag their states in secession. Many good men and women died on both sides fighting a war on behalf of men whom Andrew Johnson rightly characterized as "these traitorous aristocrats."
As it was then, the Democrat party is now, still being run by "traitorous aristocrats" who care nothing for the constitution. Extolling the virtues of Confederate soldiers and generals who were duped by their politcos into thinking their cause was noble and who fought gallantly is fine; extolling the cause itself, which was clearly not noble, or those who crafted it, is foolishness.
Yes, why not? Given that the concept of states rights was paid at least lip service by Jefferson Davis then why shouldn't the local states have the right to limit slavery if they chose to do so? The Constitution did not expressly protect slavery so there is no reason why it could not be limited by local governments.
I think there was a Harvard law professor after the war who argued that the South was correct constitutionally.
There have been professors before, during, and after the war that have argued the southern actions were legal. There have been others that have argued the southern actions were not. The only time it came before the Supreme Court secession was ruled illegal. But the debate goes on.
Yes, I realized some might argue this. Does the concept of states rights apply only to the North?
If slavery is recognized in the Constitution, how could the 10th Amendment be used to say that some states can prohibit slavery?
So who's your boy? The big mouthed kid who grew up in wealthy DC neighborhood, son of a high-paid bureaucrat who went to private schools and has pretended all his life that he was from a blue collar Irish family.
I'm from a blue collar Irish family, and Pat is nothing but a loud mouth punk who wouldn’t have lasted a week in my old neighborhood.
No one is perfect.
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.