Posted on 12/27/2002 6:50:38 AM PST by yankeedame
I'll sign your petitition to rename New York as New Amsterdam so the people of Dutch extraction don't have to have their noses rubbed in it, though.
OK, no statue of Lincoln, but I want Richmond re-renamed back to whatever the Indians called it.
Very few Yankees, even self-styled conservatives, fail to appreciate the balancing effect that the South and West have had on the Northeast and the Midwest.
These are the same people who bitch and moan about the socialist governments of Massachusetts and New York, the excessive taxes in the US in general and loss of a sense of freedom and self-reliance among the "sheeple" - yet they imagine that without the South there would be any freedom left in America.
Without the South America would be in the same spot England is in now.
God bless the Confederates.
Erm, no.... I see no problem with erecting a statue where an event actually occurred.
Wowie zowie. Let's make a list of all the places where a statue of Hitler could be erected simply 'cause "he went there."
If the Dutch had cared enough for New York to remain Dutch they would have fought for it.
Though, since you believe that the English conquered New York, why is Harlem permitted to remain Harlem? Why is the Bronx still the Bronx? Why does the Onderdonk House keep its name? Or Wyckoff Avenue? Or DeKalb Avenue? Why is the basketball team called the Knickerbockers?
Most importantly, why is there a statue of Peter Minuit in New York and no statue of the Duke of York?
Without the South America would be in the same spot England is in now.
God bless the Confederates.
Oh, please.... It's the collective guilt over the iniquities of the south that is constantly used to dudgeon the rest of us with.
During the Civ War, my Scottish Great, Great Grandaddy was a buffalo hunter on the plains and lived with the indians. Great-great grandma was an indian.
If your ancestors hadn't tried to maintain an agrarian feudal social heirarchy well after the industrial revolution, Grand Ave here wouldn't be MLK Blvd; There would be no Jesse Jackson, no such thing as 'white guilt', lower taxes, and a helluva lot less racial problems.
Either may be more sensible than pretending that a "big-government" party in 1860 is the same as a "big-government" party today.
Tariffs, a national bank, and internal improvements were all a part of Washington's and Hamilton's Federalist program in the 1790s. They were also all a part of Madison's and Monroe's Jeffersonian Republican policy in the 1810s. To defend a new and weak country and settle its open spaces made some role of the federal government necessary. And a weak federal government would not necessarily have meant greater freedom if state governments did as they pleased.
Radical Jeffersonians or Jacksonians might have taken such policies as "big government," but by today's standards the power and intrusiveness of the federal government under Washington or Madison was negligible. The same was true of Lincoln's initial program, though the requirements of war led both the union and rebel governments to intervene more and more in the lives and finances of the citizenry.
If "big government" meant the same thing in 1860 or 1810 or 1790 as they did today, then we have always been a big government country. Such a conclusion is absurd. The meaning of "big government" was transformed in the 20th century by Wilson, the Roosevelts, Lyndon Johnson and others.
One can certainly disagree about tariffs and internal improvements and national currency, and certainly take objection to high taxes and intrusive government regulation. But to take state sovereignty or near anarchy as the sole standard of true constitutional interpretation is to leave out a large part of American history.
There is a lot of room for a Republican party that supports less government and it will do well, but not if it dumps on or trashes valuable American traditions. If it becomes the party of Calhoun and Jefferson Davis and says that it is the party of freedom, the result would be laughable, and their support will tumble, and rightly so.
No. He lost. Just like Lee. Just like the American Indians. If he had won, you bet there would've been statues...
Uh-huh. And if Timothy McVeigh could show me where the Founding Fathers included blowing a few dozen children to smithereens in a sneak bombing as armed resistance to tyranny, he'd win a prize.
The Anti-Federalist is even more Confederate by its nature. I'm just pointing out that the Federalist more closely resembles the Confederacy than our current system.
No Confederate would have bothered to pick up a rifle if he didn't want to be part of a violent rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. I believe that's called treason.
The Confederates believed that the Union was violating the Constitution. They believed that they were rebelling against tyrants on behalf of the Constitutional principles of the Founding Fathers.
I believe the British Parliament called the American War of Independence treason as well. And it was. And thank God for it.
You know nothing about the Founding Fathers, as is quite clear from your posts. If you could cite for me any quote from the Framers calling for the establishment of a National Park Service and the requisitioning of tax dollars from the public to build supernumerary statues, please present.
Otherwise, stop babbling.
The framers of the Constitution clearly meant for it to be binding on the states in perpetuity. See the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 and the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Militia Act requires that U.S. law operate in all the states. The Judiciary Act requires that "Controversies of a civil nature" between the states be submitted to the Supreme Court.
THAT is U.S. law, which the Declaration of Independence is not.
"South Carolina...cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war. At the close of that war we can tell with certainty whether she is in or out of the Union. While this government endures there can be no disunion...
If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 4th of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed-- the President has no discretionary power on the subject -- his duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not.
Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
The secesh cretins went looking for a fight with the wrong prairie lawyer, and the wrong people.
Walt
Every argument you make against the Confederacy can be made with equal justice by an Englishman against the United States.
"Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards."
--Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
Walt
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.