Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed

St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

[stand watie]

if you know about & have access to such pictures of the klan DIS-honoring the sacred CROSS & US FLAG, why don't you post them?

you're really good at posting drivel, lies & distortions of everything about the CSA flags; perhaps you'd be thought better of on the forum, if there was some balance to your posts.

BUT i guess that's why we southrons on FR call you the Yankee Minister of Propaganda.

free dixie,sw

[capitan_refugio]

Have you actually read the decision, or do I need to post it for you? The US Supreme Court is the ultimate authority when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution. The reasoning in Texas v White still stands. There were plenty of legal ways for the Southerners to propose, and maybe even effect, secession. They chose none of them. In 1860-61, they even had a sympathetic US Supreme Court that had just given them Dred Scott. But cooler heads did not prevail.

I think you would like Look Away by historian William C. Davis. It is available in paperback.

[stand watie]

if you know about & have access to such pictures of the klan DIS-honoring the sacred CROSS & US FLAG, why don't you post them?

you're really good at posting drivel, lies & distortions of everything about the CSA flags; perhaps you'd be thought better of on the forum, if there was some balance to your posts.

BUT i guess that's why we southrons on FR call you the Yankee Minister of Propaganda.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

if you know about & have access to such pictures of the klan DIS-honoring the sacred CROSS & US FLAG, why don't you post them?

you're really good at posting drivel, lies & distortions of everything about the CSA flags; perhaps you'd be thought better of on the forum, if there was some balance to your posts.

BUT i guess that's why we southrons on FR call you the Yankee Minister of Propaganda.

free dixie,sw

[sheltonmac]

The US Supreme Court is the ultimate authority when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution.

And that was decided by whom? That's right: the Supreme Court itself. So I guess the founders were wrong when they made the Constitution the supreme law of the land. Ben Franklin was just whistling Dixie (if you'll pardon the expression) when he said, "It is every American's right, and obligation, to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."

What it boils down to is not what is actually written in the document but what nine people in black robes says it means. Forgive me if I don't jump on board the judicial oligarchy bandwagon.

[stainlessbanner]

when I refuted the preposterous claim that President Lincoln wanted to send all blacks back to Africa.

"I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization"
-Lincoln (1862, Annual Address to Congress)

*Maelstorm, I found the supporting quote for you.

[stainlessbanner]

why do you condemn Lincoln for his view and not condemn Davis for his?

I do not recall supporting Davis for his views on "colonization/deporatation" - in fact, I'm not sure we have ever discussed it.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Spoken verbatim like a classic Democrat. Word for word KKK drivel. Didn't you know that?

[Held_to_Ransom]

Ben Butler shut down the KKK, and for that you hate his guts? Let me think what that means.....

[Paul C. Jesup]

A person is judges by their actions, not their words. And Lincoln's actions were those of a tyrant.

NOT ONCE DID HE EVEN TRY TO PREVENT OR SETTLE THE CIVIL WAR IN A PEACEFUL MANNER!!!!

HE WAS TO BUSY TRYING TO TAX THE SOUTH TO DEATH!!!!

Which by the way, if you actually read the words of his speeches, they will remind you of Clinton's speeches.

[Paul C. Jesup]

LOL!!

[Paul C. Jesup]

WhiskeyPapa, I think you actually breaking new records in the cut and pasting department.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> You forgot to highlight this clause:

"... nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

[stainlessbanner]

Post 486 refutes WP's posted letter

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Spoken verbatim like a classic Democrat. Word for word KKK drivel.

If you have disputing evidence, then present it, jackass.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thanks. But I don't think WP actually reads his posts, but cuts and paste then skims those posts.

[stainlessbanner]

HTR is getting close to Godwin's Law

He has no proof, but tossing red herrings in the debate serves his purpose.

[Maelstrom]

A state isn't bound to abide by the compact if they have left the compact.

It is especially and morally problematic to insist they abide by that compact when they have reached the conclusion that the compact has already been violated when deciding that they must leave the compact.

The decision is to leave the compact. All strictures upon them for abiding by the compact are null and void once they've left.

The seceding states did not first violate the Constitution by refusing to uphold all treaties...no...they first seceded. Such a secession was a formality as the Constitution to which they had been sworn had already been sundered by the actions of the Federal Government.

[Maelstrom]

Thank you, unfortunately, those abhorrent toward the concept of freedom have already exposed the argument that he was not as a strawman by changing that aspect of the debate from a preference to shipping out all the blacks to one of *forcing* out all the blacks.

Something they've added out of whole cloth in order to change a failed argument.

[x]

The supremacy clause makes the Constitution and federal law the supreme law of the land. Barring an explicit provision in the constitution, no state can exempt itself from the Constitution and laws of the United States. This doesn't mean some dissolution of the union is impossible, just that it can't be unilateral. The representatives of the whole country have to be involved.

This debate has been going on a long time, and other people are more expert and interested in these questions than I am. One thing I have noticed is how much Confederate types ignore the explosive situation of the times. It was a very chaotic time. The air was charged with thoughts of war and revolution, and we're told now that things were much more calm and peaceful than they were. The secessionists were hardly peace-loving petitioners for the redress of grievances. They flirted with war and, in Davis's case, embraced it.

The recklessness of Southern leaders might have been excused if there was a real threat of tyranny at the time. Had they acted more prudentially they might have achieved their goals without war, though the realization of their aims would hardly have been something praiseworthy either.

The fact that things have gone wrong since 1865 has been used to justify the rebellion, but it's not enough to whitewash the secessionists. Neither their aims nor their means were particularly laudable.