Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederate Memorial Day (Virginia)

Posted on 05/30/2011 10:04:19 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis



We all know that today is a day to remember US troops that have fallen in battle.
In the state of Virginia today is also a day to remember our brave soldiers of the Confederacy.



The marching armies of the past
Along our Southern plains,
Are sleeping now in quiet rest
Beneath the Southern rains.

The bugle call is now in vain
To rouse them from their bed;
To arms they'll never march again--
They are sleeping with the dead.

No more will Shiloh's plains be stained
With blood our heroes shed,
Nor Chancellorsville resound again
To our noble warriors' tread.

For them no more shall reveille
Sound at the break of dawn,
But may their sleep peaceful be
Till God's great judgment morn.

We bow our heads in solemn prayer
For those who wore the gray,
And clasp again their unseen hands
On our Memorial Day.

-Author Unknown






TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: confederate; csa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last
To: ROCKLOBSTER
Dr. McWhiney also wrote that the War for Southern Independence was not so much a war of brother against brother as it was a war of culture against culture.

Anthony Trollope, a British citizen who traveled extensively in the North and South during the first part of the ware observed that "The South is seceding from the North because the two are not homogeneous. They have different instincts, different appetites, different morals, and a different culture."

Trollope observed that, other than language, there was very little that the two sections held in common: "They [the South] had become a separate people, dissevered from the North by habits, morals, institutions, pursuits, and every conceivable differences in their mods of thought and action. They still spoke the same language, as so Austria and Prussia, but beyond that tie of language they had no bond but that of a meager political union..."

The influence of the various cultures that populated Colonial America has been documented by David H. Fisher in his book Albion's Seed. Fisher, and Northerner, demonstrates the four primary emigration patterns originating in the British Isles. The various cultural distinctions of these people which he documents influenced such social behaviour as dietary preferences, mode of dress, and religious attitudes. The early emigration patterns to the South came principally from North Britain (Northern England and Scotland), Northern Ireland, and the Saxon areas of South England. The New England colonies received more emigrants from the traditionally English East Anglia (Puritans), and the middle colonies received the bulk of Quakers from the North midlands of England. Thus the cultural differences between the North and South originated in the British Isles. The People who came to this continent did not forsake their ancient folkways, attitudes, and grudges, but adapted them to the new environment.

John Adams, while attending the Continental Congress, wrote home to his wife describing the stark dissimilarity between the two peoples of the Northerner and Southern Colonies. He confided to his wife that his impression that these two peoples were so different that the political union could not be held together "Without the utmost caution on both sides."

George Mason also noted that the inhabitants of the North and South were "so very different in manners, habits, and customs."

51 posted on 05/30/2011 6:38:36 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Also, before the Nat Turner rebellion, there were nearly twice as many abolition societies in the South as in the North.

Just sayin'...

52 posted on 05/30/2011 6:41:19 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

If the South had one their INDEPENDENCE then Northern USSA would be allowed to do whatever they want including sheep fornication. Your posts are increasing in stupidity, like you are losing knowledge.


53 posted on 05/30/2011 6:45:22 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nnn0jeh

ping


54 posted on 05/30/2011 6:50:45 PM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Um, so how’s life going for you in 1861 Reb? Grow up stupid. This is 2011 and you’re living in the greatest country in the world, despite Obama.

Sh1t for brains has it ever occurred to you that with out the South and the Southern conservative heritage you hate so much the USA would have already become the USSA.. Regional differences plays a HUGE role in politics then and now.

55 posted on 05/30/2011 6:52:02 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

I support the principals of The Declaration of Independence, I also support The Constitution too, which is the legal basis of our form of government. You’re confusing two arguments here. I don’t want my state, with all it’s problems to seceed over anything. That what elections are for. But if you want better government by marching on Washington ? I’ll march with you . Only under The Stars and Stripes, not The Stars and Bars. ‘’ Liberal’? You got it right by half. I USED to be one. I know how they think. Let you in a a secret. Ann Coulter is right. They really do hate America.


56 posted on 05/30/2011 6:52:43 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Conservative heritage’’. Who was conservative, Ross Barnett? Lester Maddox?


57 posted on 05/30/2011 6:54:35 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
Worth repeating:

If there is anyone that should be apologising, it is the yankees, for denying the South government of the people, by the people, and for the people.


58 posted on 05/30/2011 6:55:32 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Ok Reb, keep a fightin’ the war. Never going to donate to The Civil War Trust are you ? you cheapskate.


59 posted on 05/30/2011 6:56:34 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
I support the principals of The Declaration of Independence,

Then you support the right of a people to rid themselves of government that does not secure or respect their rights to life, liberty, happiness, and etc? Hmmm?

marching on Washington

Look. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but often times marching on Washington does nothing, or very little. Somtimes you need more than just marches. The colonists seemed to think so.... ;-)

Only under The Stars and Stripes, not The Stars and Bars.

Yeah, throwing off government that is NOT of the people, by the people, and for the people is BAD. The South should not have done it, the colonists should not have done it. We should still be under the old British flag, because breaking from such governments is bad because,.....well.....it just is!

60 posted on 05/30/2011 7:02:52 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Indeed.


61 posted on 05/30/2011 7:04:02 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Donating to CW trusts was never an argument. What is your problem, dude?


62 posted on 05/30/2011 7:04:40 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
Dr. McWhiney also wrote; Trollope observed that; David H. Fisher in his book Albion's Seed; John Adams; George Mason also noted...

Yeah yeah yeah, what do they know.

I've seen the recruiting posters that these Maine recruits responded to. The posters appealed to the men's innermost honor by asking them to end the horror of slavery, and respond they did...many or most to die on the battlefield.

So whatever intellectual arguments the high-up mucky-mucks may have had for prosecuting the Civil War, the cannon fodder from Maine were fighting and dying to end slavery.

By the way, aren't you supposed to give attribution when you copy/paste stuff like that?

63 posted on 05/30/2011 7:11:59 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Yeah yeah yeah, what do they know.

Yeah, I'm sure that YOU know tons more than stupid old Trollope, Fisher, John Adams and George Mason. /s

from Maine were fighting and dying to end slavery.

LOLOLOLOL! Chamberlain (from Maine) said that most of the men he knew were NOT fighting the war because of blacks. Very few in the North cared for blacks. Didn't you see the post farther up on the thread showing how many northern states barred blacks from entering? And haven't you heard of the draft riots up North where numerous blacks were lynched?

(Most of the data I have given in this thread is from a book by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy. They cite a bazillion original sources.)

64 posted on 05/30/2011 7:20:24 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
Very few in the North cared for blacks. Didn't you see the post farther up on the thread showing how many northern states barred blacks from entering? And haven't you heard of the draft riots up North where numerous blacks were lynched?

Ever heard of the Underground Railroad?

Most of the data I have given in this thread is from a book by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy. They cite a bazillion original sources.

Ah, there it is, better late than never.

65 posted on 05/30/2011 7:36:07 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Ever heard of the Underground Railroad?

Lol. Or course. The few who helped with that are NOT representative of the majority of Northerners' sentiments towards blacks. If you have studied the war and etc. you should know that abolitionists were a minority. We hear a lot about them today, but they were only a small group of people and did NOT represent the feeling of most Northerners towards blacks. Again, have you read the post upthread about many Northern states barring blacks from entering and Northerners saying they want the territories slave free because they want those lands reserved for white labor and white labor only?

66 posted on 05/30/2011 7:42:35 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
Northern states barring blacks from entering and Northerners saying they want the territories slave free because they want those lands reserved for white labor and white labor only?

How typical, damn democrats, they're everywhere.

Blacks used to know which side their bread was buttered on, most black elected officials were Republicans until about 1935.

The Klan was a democrat domestic terrorist outfit whose purpose was to keep blacks from voting for Republicans....now they have been replaced by the "New NAACP".

Look, if you want to identify with the racist Southern Democrats, that's your right. Nobody's trying to stop you.

But I repudiate it and want nothing to do with it.

67 posted on 05/30/2011 7:55:35 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

Lol. If you want to think that go ahead. Just remember: Lincoln wond by a landslide up North. And up North was the same place where many states had banned blacks from entering their states. Seems like there were a lot of racist republicans too. And those free soilers who wanted the territories for white labor? More republicans for you.... :-)


68 posted on 05/30/2011 9:01:11 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

Oh, heck yes. Let’s rationalize. Southerns want freedom and states’ rights. So then take away the freedom of Africans, bring them to the South as slaves, then blame the Muslims and other Africans. Then, Southern freedom becomes racist.


69 posted on 05/31/2011 2:27:04 PM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a U.S. Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
More republicans for you....

OH! So you really are a democrat.

I knew it.

70 posted on 05/31/2011 3:03:53 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
HAHAHAH! I remarked about many Northern states banning blacks from entering. You said: "How typical, damn democrats, they're everywhere." I was just pointing out the stupidity of your statement (which was ever so full of fail), because the North went solid republican. It was republican states up North who wanted to keep blacks out, not democrats.

Also, as a side note in case you didn't know: The democrats of that time have almost nothing in common with today's liberals. The parties have changed a lot since that time. On many issues the democrat party was the more conservative party back then.

71 posted on 05/31/2011 3:15:29 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44
So then take away the freedom of Africans, bring them to the South as slaves

Oh, you're talking about the Yankee slave traders now? yeah, they made lots of $$$$$$ on that business. They would make lots of rum and then trade the rum for slaves in Africa. The New England colonies threw a fit when Britain wanted to tax the rum industry. They said it would ruin the area's economy.

Btw, did you know that of all the slaves the Yankee slave traders made $$$$ from selling, only 6% ended up in the South? (The south was never a really good market for slaves) The rest went to markets with more demand, such as the carribean and south america, and most died there from the cruelty inflcted on them. In contrast, Blacks in the South were treated much better. More blacks die every year from black-on-black crime than ever died from lychings, beatings, and etc. during all the years of slavery in the South.

72 posted on 05/31/2011 3:21:44 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Celebrate "Republicans freed the Slaves Month"

ROFLOLOLOL!

Aside from a few abolitionists, Northerners did not care about the slaves. And guess what? The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. Aside from its very dubious constitutionality (you can't overturn established law with just a presidential proclamation. If you could, Obama would be doing it all the time), Lincoln was declaring slaves to be free in another country where he had no authority. And regarding those slaves in union states or union held areas it was specifically written that they were to be left as before. Grant didn't have to free his slaves until the 13th amendment was passed. Lincoln cared about the slaves. Sure.

The proclamation was a war measure, plain and simple. Lincoln said that "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." The proclamation's goal was to cloak the Northern invasion in morality and discourage England and France from joining in and helping the Confederacy. It made lots of Northerners mad though, and there were lynchings of blacks up North because of it.

Btw, Britain offered freedom to any slaves that would join them against the colonists in the War for American Independence (and there were slaves in EVERY state at that time). I guess that makes Britain the good guys. We should celebrate them too, right? After all, they just cared about the slaves so much....

73 posted on 05/31/2011 3:36:43 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

Donating to the CWT isn’t an ‘’argument’’, I know that and I wasn’t directing it at you necessarily, though you could donate if you wanted to. I was directing it towards ‘’central va’’ and have been for some time but he always avoids the issue. Whats my problem? My problem is with Confederate losers like you romancing a dark and ugly time in America, a time you really know nothing about. You think you do but you don’t. You’re living in a land that people the world over literally DIE trying to get to and all you can do is bitch and moan about how terrible it is and try and apply a socio/political template from 150 years ago to the present that makes no sense. And as to The Civil War Trust? For all this f’ing “Southern Heritage’’ (i.e , The Confederacy, Confederate ancestors, Civil War battlefields, etc. ) you all go on about like it’s so glorious and enduring, and sacred well I’m here to tell you bub THEY”RE DISAPPEARING!! OKAY? Developers and big corporations want to bulldozer it all over and make ‘em into Walmarts and Marriot Hotels. You okay with that? I’m not. I’m trying to get you jackasses TO CARE! Politics aside if these battlefields disappear for good than what do we tell the future generations? “Well, you see over there in aisle 3, that’s where General Picketts men began their charge’’. Sound okay to you? Not to me, bub, not to me. Donate damn it!


74 posted on 05/31/2011 5:42:31 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

Do understand anything I’ve said? You don’t, do you? I’m not happy with the present situation and Washington , if you haven’t noticed , is the literal center of power here. And what is it with The Stars and Stripes that you have a problem with, particularly?


75 posted on 05/31/2011 5:47:12 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
try and apply a socio/political template from 150 years ago to the present that makes no sense

I guess trying to apply a political template from the the 1770-80s to today's present politics makes no sense either. We should just forget about what the founders thought and stood for and embrace our new socialistisc big government. It is obvious that no people anywhere have the right to declare themselves free from a government they don't like. It must not be a fundamental right anymore. It was wrong for the south to seceed and form its own governemnt, so it must have ben terribly wrong for the states of the former Soviet Union to leave the USSR too. And it must have been wrong for Panama to seceed from Colombia. And of course the Founders of this country were wrong to seceed from Britain.

Look bud. Either secession is a fundamental right as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or it is not. If the South was wrong for seceeding and had no right to seceed, than the colonies had no right to leave Britain, Texas had no right to leave Mexico, the former states of the soviet union had no right to leave the USSR, and Panama had no right to leave Columbia, and south sudan has no right to leave north Sudan (as they are trying to do right now). Which is it?

big corporations want to bulldozer it all over and make ‘em into Walmarts and Marriot Hotels. You okay with that?

Of course not. But that is not what we are arguing about. You are just using a red herring to attack others because you cannot come up with a real comeback to the facts and principles stated.

76 posted on 05/31/2011 6:03:03 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Washington , if you haven’t noticed , is the literal center of power here

Duh. It wasn't meant to be that way though. The constitution only gave the Govenrment very very limited powers. Everything else was left to the states. The States delegated powers to the federal government when they created it. You don't delegate to an entity who is above you, but to one who is equal or inferior. Of course it didn't take long for the federal govenrment to begin enlarging itself and trampling on the rights of the states. When a government becomes the sole judge of its own power, what can be expected?

There are times to throw off old government. The colonists thought so. They didn't say "We should march in peaceful protest" or ask other colonists what it was with the flag of Britain that they had a problem with. The time had come to create a new government of the people, by the people, and for the people, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The same with the War for Southern Independence. When a governemnt becomes too powerful or destructive of the rights of the citizens (and in this case States as well), a people have the right to throw it off. At least the Founding Fathers thought so....

77 posted on 05/31/2011 6:13:40 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

By the very words of the Declaration of Independence, any change in government for the purpose of perpetuating and extending that ultimate denial of its basic principle, that "all men are created equal," chattel slavery, is not and cannot be legitimate. Any powers such a government might use could by definition not be "just powers."

78 posted on 06/01/2011 6:29:28 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

Yeah. It was the Yankee slave traders who sold the slaves to the Southerners, Who made it a states’ rights issue to hold on to enslaving human beings. And oh, yes. Let’s go to relativism. Our slaves were treated much better than your slaves. You may not be stupid, but that argument is about one of the slimey-ist that exists on the planet. There should not have been slavery at all.


79 posted on 06/01/2011 7:15:01 AM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a U.S. Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

“Didn’t take a war to end it in the north.”

Yes it did. It took 80 years total and a full year into the war before an edict at the Federal level abolished slavery.


80 posted on 06/01/2011 7:31:44 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
LOL! You should know that the declaration was NOT talking about slaves. Also, did you know that the colony of Virginia wanted to stop the further importation of slaves from the slave trade in its borders? Britain would not let them.

Did you also know that when Britain tried to put some taxes and regulation on the New England rum industry, the New England states howled that it would ruin their economy. (Rum was used to trade for slaves in Africa) Did you also know that in the Declaration, one of the reasons the colonies gave for breaking with great Britain was that the King had encouraged domestic insurrections (slave revolts)? At that time there were slaves in EVERY colony. Did you also know that Britain offered freedom to all the slaves that joined them in their fight against the colonists?

By the very words of the Declaration of Independence, any change in government for the purpose of perpetuating and extending that ultimate denial of its basic principle, that "all men are created equal," chattel slavery, is not and cannot be legitimate. Any powers such a government might use could by definition not be "just powers."

If you take the words of the declaration to include slaves, then why didn't everyone free their slaves after it was issued? Why did the slave trade continued legally for twenty years after the constitution and illegally for many years after? The new England states fought Britain and it seems that one of their reasons was the protection of their slave trade and rum industry. Does that mean that their fight for government of the people, by the people, and for the people was not legitimate? And who are you to decide what just powers are? The importation of slaves and the slave trade continued for a while after the start of the union. Does that mean our government under Washington, Jefferson, Adams and etc. was not exercising just powers? It was not legitimate?

The Founders were not talking about slaves when they wrote the declaration. Trying to construe such is ridiculous. They considered slavery and the slave trade a legitimate practice and considered Britain's attempt to get the slaves to revolt against them to be despicable.

The point is, a people can separate themselves from an abusive government whether or not they have slaves. The founders didn't think having slaves was a problem when they declared themselves free from Britain. Your argument that having slaves disqualifies one from forming a new legitimate government is ridiculous.

81 posted on 06/01/2011 8:07:26 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44
Yankee slave traders who sold the slaves to the Southerners

Yep, and only 6% of the slaves sold by the Yanks ended up in the South. The rest went elsewhere, but the Yanks sure made a hell of a profit.

And if you think that states rights means slavery that is sad. The principle of states rights goes back to our countries founding. The states delegated limited powers to the federal government. All other rights were left to the states. Thus, states rights.

There should not have been slavery at all.

Then punish Massachusetts, the first state to legalize slavery!

Then there should not have been the slave trade at all! Punish the evil New England states who monopolized the trade and made themselves filthy rich from it!

Dude. So many more blacks died in the middle passage on the slave ships. About one third of any slave ship's cargo of slaves died on the trip. Yet nobody talks of this as much. It still has to be the South that is evil.

never mind that the North only freed their slaves when they had so much white labor that the whites would not tolerate their work to be done by slaves and would have rather killed the slaves as John Adams said? Never mind that Many Northern states then banned blacks from entering. The North, who started the Slave trade, they are the good guys! The South, which in the 1830s had about twice as many abolition societies than the North, are the bad guys. Never mind also that only 6% of white Southerners even owned slaves, and that half of these had 5 or less and often worked side by side in the fields with them. Never mind the facts, the slave trading racist North was good, the South was just eeeeeevil because they had some slaves that the yankee traders sold them!

82 posted on 06/01/2011 8:21:19 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

AFAIK, not one of the Founders publicly stated that slavery was a positive good, all viewing it as a great evil, but one that couldn’t be eliminated at the moment without great risk to society and the Union. This is certainly true, by their own words, for Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others who owned slaves themselves.

In hindsight this refusal to boldly face the contradiction between their principle of equality and the practice of slavery was by far their greatest mistake. It would have been much easier to put in place a gradual system of emancipation in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, before the cotton gin made the institution wildly profitable and the South built its economy and society on it.

I hope you can comprehend the difference between recognizing that immediate full implementation of the principles of the Declaration is impractical and proclamation that those principles are obsolete and untrue. See the Cornerstone Speech and numerous other southern proclamations that the Founders had been mistaken. All men are NOT created equal. And to prove it we will spread slavery far and wide both in time and in space.

The root principle of the Declaration is that “all men are created equal.” By its very wording all the other principles grow out of this one. If you reject the foundation, as the CSA did, you are left with no solid base.

Either all men are equal or some are more equal than others. Once you start down the second road, on what basis do you draw the line on who is and is not equal?

In the words of a great man, some years before the War, “Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.”

Luckily the Know-Nothings never got control, and their spiritual brethren of the CSA were defeated.


83 posted on 06/01/2011 8:22:37 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The root principle of the Declaration is that “all men are created equal.” By its very wording all the other principles grow out of this one. If you reject the foundation, as the CSA did, you are left with no solid base.

Yes, but we both know that the Founders were not talking about slaves. One can try to construe it that way, but it doesn't work. And what makes you think the CSA rejected this principle? Because they had slaves? All the colonies had slaves when the Declaration was passed, were they rejecting the principle? Sure, most recognized slavery as an evil, but so did most Southerners. Most Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation. For a long time the South had more abolition societies than the North. Many Southerners freed their slaves. Washington did. My great x5 grandpa did. Many others had no slaves at all, such as Generals Lee, A. P. Hill, J. Johnston, and J. E. B. Stuart. Do you think they were somehow fighting for slavery? Does that make logical sense to you?

Your attempt at trying to make the issue that 6% of the white population had slaves a reason why the South could not form a legitimate government is lame. Here is what Lincoln had to say about secession:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. "

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848 Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

84 posted on 06/01/2011 8:47:56 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. "

I don't think Lincoln intended to propose that a minority has no right to fight back against such a revolution.

Or do you propose that if liberals manage to cobble together a 51% vote to get rid of the Constitution, the rest of us have no right to resist them?

BTW, your 6% number is wildly inaccurate. That is the percent of the white population that held title to slaves. Of course, when a family owned slaves title was held by the head of the house, but we wouldn't say his wife and children were not also slaveowners.

Actual percentage of white families that owned slaves in 1860 in all slave states was 26%. The percentage ranged from 3% in DE to over 50% in SC.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm

85 posted on 06/01/2011 8:56:03 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The first part of the quote was the important part, not the second part.

And lol at you trying to stretch the numbers. If having one person in a family own slaves makes everyone else like slaveowners, then when I was little living under my father's roof I was a house owner. I profitted from it for a short time in my life, so I must be just like an owner. Never mind that I didn't actually spend any money on it or that I didn't get to keep it when I got older, I owned the house too!

Also, don't forget about the free blacks who owned slaves too. :-)

86 posted on 06/01/2011 12:59:00 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

The Declaration isn’t a binding legal document. It’s a statement of intent. The Constitution is a legal document, bud. And what is particularly you don’t like about this system? Barack Obama not withstanding.


87 posted on 06/01/2011 4:43:33 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

No it isn’t a ‘’red herring ‘’ pal, trust me. Your entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.


88 posted on 06/01/2011 4:44:44 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
And what is particularly you don’t like about this system?

The "system" was supposed to be a weak Federal Govt and strong state governments. i.e. a republic. EVERYTHING IS BASS ACKWARD.

89 posted on 06/01/2011 4:46:41 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“Bass Ackward’’. Yeah, Irony isn’t lost on you. So then, In your mind secession is the answer, right? To what, is secession the answer to dude? Good luck with that. How big of a majority following do you have in the support of this ‘’secession movement’’? If the federal Government is too big and strong than maybe you should make your ‘’weak’’ state stronger. All politics is local bud, maybe you should start your secession movement closer to home. But this is a stupid conversation to have with a fool like you. You aren’t seceeding from anything. You’re going to sit on your ass in your parents basement fulminating at “Yankees’’ till the day you die.


90 posted on 06/01/2011 5:05:04 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
How big of a majority following do you have in the support of this ‘’secession movement’’?

The guys on my side are named Washington, Jefferson, Henry and Mason. The guys on you side, Stalin, Mussolini, Caesar and Hitler.

91 posted on 06/01/2011 5:07:52 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
But this is a stupid conversation to have with a fool like you. <

I, like many intelligent American students of history, understand the framework for the republic the founders gave us. Keep licking that Federal Boot boy one day maybe you to will get a clue; then you'll be a man. BTW this web site is named FREE REPUBLIC in case you forgot, not FREE FEDERAL DICTATORSHIP.

92 posted on 06/01/2011 5:11:28 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Um, actually dude,’’ MR History’’ guy, people like you have more in common with the names you listed last than the one’s listed previous.


93 posted on 06/01/2011 5:22:49 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Lets see, I want a weak centralized government, like our founders set up in 1787. Hmmm, which one of these guys, Hitler, Mussolini, Caesar or Stalin, EVER wanted that? Can you show me the historical reference to that?


94 posted on 06/01/2011 5:27:05 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Hmmm, which one of these guys, Hitler, Mussolini, Caesar or Stalin, EVER wanted that?

Well, they all were pretty soft on slavery. Or pretty harsh on slaves. Either way.

95 posted on 06/01/2011 5:41:12 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: x
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."

             -- Pres. Jefferson Davis CSA

96 posted on 06/01/2011 5:44:23 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
The Declaration isn’t a binding legal document.

Of course not. But the princiles in it are still as true today as they were then. The right for a people to break away and form a new government still exists just as much as the rights to life liberty and happiness. You don't dispute that, do you? ;-)

97 posted on 06/01/2011 6:16:40 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Yes it was. People here gave you hard facts and since you couldn’t answer them well you just attacked them about donating to battlefield preservation (donating is a good thing to do, but it was not what we were talking about). Fail.


98 posted on 06/01/2011 6:18:16 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

One can judge a man by his words, but it is better to judge him by his actions. Foolish, venal, selfish men sought to tear our nation apart out of petty vindictiveness and wrought unprecedented misery upon it in the process. You would think that people would learn from history but apparently there are some so weak-minded that they can’t see past their ears.

The (not so) funny thing about the confeds is that they pissed & moaned about their pathetic lot in life - even though they dominated American politics for most of the nation’s preceding history - and then in a fit of pique cut~n~run only to devise a structural order virtually identical to that which they had run away from. Well, with one distinct difference - the memorializing of a permanent and perpetual institution of slavery.

And that so-called confederation? It was worse, more disorganized, more cruel, more “F’d” up than anything they had experienced to date. If the United States was so bad why did they create a cheap imitation?

And have you taken notice of the south in the last hundred years or so? So much for “getting back to the country” - they adopted everything that they eschewed (not that that is a bad thing!).

The fact is the south is infinitely better without the confederacy than it EVER would have been with. They are the envy of much of the country and I couldn’t be prouder. Dolts like cva are the exception, not the rule.


99 posted on 06/01/2011 6:38:28 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

Facts? You call your bullsh!t argument facts? I can never understand what it is you’re going on about- the present state of affairs or 1861. Which is it?


100 posted on 06/01/2011 8:28:14 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson