Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Author of the Civil War
New York Times ^ | JULY 6, 2012 | CYNTHIA WACHTELL

Posted on 07/07/2012 11:51:43 AM PDT by nickcarraway

At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."

Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.

In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."

Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Hobbies
KEYWORDS: dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-485 next last
To: rockrr
Thanks for keeping me in the loop with regard to your little notes to X (sic).

The “Great One” also said this: “I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns.”

He, of course, is speaking about Lincoln's and the Republican party's violations of the Constitution.

101 posted on 07/11/2012 2:18:12 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; central_va; Idabilly
“So thanks to Lincoln the US was ahead of Brazil. Just wanted to see if you were paying attention.”

I'll bet you were. You did not pay attention to my prior post which gave the date that you now want to claim that you misquoted to see if “I” was paying attention.

That looks silly of you, doesn't it.

“The “threat” was from the destruction of the Union and the Constitution not from economic competition from planters.”

If I remember my history correctly, at the time Lincoln took office, there were 20 Union states, all with stable governments, commerce occurring, ships sailing to and fro, newspapers printing, banks lending, legislators legislating, roads and canals bustling, and so forth.

No evidence of any collapse of the Union...at that moment.

The only thing that Lincoln and the Union government did not have was any international trade on which to collect tariffs.

In fact, as Lincoln took office, there was only enough cash in the Treasury to run the entire government for about three months, with no source in sight.

That is when the Northern “Fire-eaters” began to visit his office in the White House.

You know the rest.

102 posted on 07/11/2012 2:30:33 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

That is your opinion, and a wrong one at that.


103 posted on 07/11/2012 2:31:41 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: central_va

That is that class warfare mentality thing........only the rich and the rest the poor..........that some of this crowd talks about.

They never consider that there were dirt farmers, who had land but no money. Some owned slaves that worked just as everybody else did on the farms.

I liked “Gone With the Wind” but it is evident that Margaret Mitchell’s depiction by Selznick and Fleming has unfortunately degraded into the have and have not struggles common in today’s class struggle culture.


104 posted on 07/11/2012 2:40:20 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; rockrr
Those who go out of their way to post material denigrating the honor & ethics of the Old South. Those who disparage men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, etc., and continue 147 years after Lee surrendered to Grant, to belittle the Confederate cause.

I don't think you get it, Flax. The rest of us are just trying to cope with what's going on now.

Some braying jackass out there tells us that Lincoln was evil and Yankees are scum and the Old South was some kind of libertarian paradise -- 147 years after we assumed all that was over and settled -- and we respond as best we can.

Most of us don't have anything against the South and aren't looking for a fight. We're just tired of hearing how wonderful the South was and how horrible the rest of us are supposed to be.

105 posted on 07/11/2012 4:06:22 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
You must have passed your “Charm School” finals with flying colors.

I did, thank you! It's regrettable that you washed out but remember that it's never too late to try!

106 posted on 07/11/2012 4:47:07 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
He, of course, is speaking about Lincoln's and the Republican party's violations of the Constitution.

With your track record for proffering opinion as fact it would be interesting to see how you substantiate this claim.

It must stick in your craw that a great American like Ronald Reagan thought so highly of Abraham Lincoln. Let's add a few more quotables, shall we?

Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln..

Inaugural Address

West Front of the U.S. Capitol, January 20, 1981

As Lincoln once said in another turbulent time, “If we do not make common cause to save the good old ship of the Union on this voyage, nobody will have a chance to pilot her on another voyage.”

Radio Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1984 Budget February 12, 1983

President Lincoln once reminded us that through their deeds, the dead of battle have spoken more eloquently for themselves than any of the living ever could. But we can only honor them by rededicating ourselves to the cause for which they gave a last full measure of devotion.

Remarks at the Normandy Invasion Ceremony, Omaha Beach Memorial at Omaha Beach, France. June 6, 1984

107 posted on 07/11/2012 5:18:28 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; rockrr; central_va; x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5cEhtge_BE


108 posted on 07/12/2012 6:53:11 AM PDT by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The author of the Civil War was Roger Taney.


109 posted on 07/12/2012 6:56:38 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Thanks, it’s always a pleasure to hear him speak. Here is a link to his first inaugural address in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPt7xGx4Xo


110 posted on 07/12/2012 7:38:46 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: x
I don't think you get it, Flax. The rest of us are just trying to cope with what's going on now.

What is going on, right now, is that we must deal with a demagogue in Washington, whose conduct over the years attests his hatred for various aspects of the American tradition--some of it identified with one region, much of it virtually ubiquitous.

He sat for years in a Church, where his Pastor damned America. He organized discontent among the poor, as an occupation, before he ran for office. He studied Marxist values & techniques from others who hated America.

That demagogue was elected because a large segment of our youth, who should have known better, were never taught the positive things about the American tradition, which motivate most of us at this Forum.

You want to cope with what is going on now? Then do not encourage this endless disparagement of traditional American values. What I allude to is not people expressing different opinions on historic issues; but disrespecting one another's forebears. That is not the way to rally once more to rekindle the coalition of traditional Americans who created the Constitution, now being deliberately ignored in Washington; no way to uphold values that must be upheld, if America is to survive in any recognizable form.

Of course, anyone who suggests that "Yankees are scum," is doing exactly the same thing that I deplore. A far better example of the right sort of interaction, would be the respect that our neighbor from Clermont County, General Grant, showed for General Lee, at the end of the War; or which General Lee showed in teaching his students at Washington & Lee, not to hate the North..

William Flax

111 posted on 07/12/2012 9:00:59 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Son, it is clear you do not understand what a constitution is much less are capable of interpreting it correctly.

I don’t care about your opinion of what states thought or didn’t think at any point since “states” never think at all. PEOPLE at the conventions did not believe they based their ratifications on an ability to leave the Union via ILLEGAL means.

Ratification by the American PEOPLE gathered in states was the means EXPLICITLY chosen by Congress so that idiocy such as you pine for could not occur.

Thank God, that the Founders realized that such anti-American sentiments would be dangerous.


112 posted on 07/12/2012 11:57:45 AM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

THE law book of that era was Blackstone’s Commentaries. Politicians writing books was not unusual.

Even accepting your argument that the federal government is a “creature” of the states does not make secession legal. There was NO procedure placed into the constitution wherewith a state could regain its independence. This is strong evidence that such a thing was considered unthinkable and impossible without modifying the document.

If such sentiment had ever been strong throughout the country it should have been easy enough to propose, and ratify an amendment allowing just such an event.

Why was it never even suggested? Answer: everyone knew such a proposal was dead in the water.

You view the constitution like a Islamic marriage. “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee” and the man is not married.

I don’t think so.


113 posted on 07/12/2012 12:07:36 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

The Continental Congress preceded the states and they were formed as a result of the admonition by CONGRESS to write constitutions and transform themselves from colonies into states. It was a NATIONAL action.

All the Founders and the vast majority of the People understood separate states had no chance of survival.

It is a distortion to claim that the states preceded national government which existed since the FIRST Continental Congress.

In case it slipped your mind that body first met in 1774.

This was YEARS before any state was formed.


114 posted on 07/12/2012 12:15:26 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

The desperation of these arguments is HILARIOUS.


115 posted on 07/12/2012 12:17:18 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

You should ponder the concept raised here “co-ordinate.”


116 posted on 07/12/2012 12:19:33 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

An insult to those who support anti-American insurrection perhaps certainly not to a Patriot.


117 posted on 07/12/2012 12:21:47 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

No one smears the “South” by telling the truth about the fools in the Slaver Ruling Class which led the region and its people to disaster via the Slaver Rebellion.

It is not unusual historically to see societies leap to their own destruction led by foolhardy and incapable political leadership. The Cornfederacy is just another example.

Leadership is critical and had Lincoln been the leader of the South and Davis the leader of the North the Union would have been split.

The only reason Lincoln was even president was because the Slavers split the Democrat Party. Laughable fools.


118 posted on 07/12/2012 12:27:33 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

I am sorry if you believe I only “belittle” the Slaver cause.
Let me make it clear to you. I am EXCORIATING it and those who voluntarily embraced it.

Those who were dragooned into its armies (as many were) I sympathize.

Likely some of my ancestors voluntarily enlisted but that changes nothing.


119 posted on 07/12/2012 12:31:55 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

I hope you don’t teach your students that a properly deeded property can be taken back decades after the transfer.

And do not LIE to them that the state of S.C. had ANY authority over the fort. It gave it to the federal government LONG before 1860. Surely you are not ignorant of this simple fact?

Did you not even read the link? Lincoln’s proposal was contingent up the fools ceasing their secession activities.
It was haughtily rejected by said fools.


120 posted on 07/12/2012 12:44:21 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

I realize that telling you to get your facts straight is like King Lear raging against the storm.

There were no shots fired at Fort Pickens until after the Slaver forces attacked Ft. Sumter.

Confederations of states are forbidden in the constitution without Congressional approval. Secession was illegal.

Federal property is always federal property unless Congress allows it to be returned. Ft. Sumter was federal property in 1860.

Indeed it took 700,000 deaths to defend the Union and the constitution from the Slaver Revolt. Freedom does not come cheap.

Why would you mention my education as if it was I who brought it up rather than one of your deluded friends?

I do have a bias in history, I am anti-Anti-American and totally biased towards those who love and protect the United States of America.


121 posted on 07/12/2012 1:01:10 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

The prosperity you reference was because there was a strong Union. And you don’t remember any history correctly only as a mint-julip drenched compendium of crap.

See Washington’s Farewell Address for the warnings of our greatest president against the poison of secession. That was what the document was really about.

I might “know the rest” but you apparently do all you can to substitute falsehood at every step of the way.


122 posted on 07/12/2012 1:06:10 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Treasonous destruction of the Union is the farthest one can get from “American tradition” and “traditional American values”.


123 posted on 07/12/2012 1:10:47 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

It is and opinion and a fact.


124 posted on 07/12/2012 1:13:26 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

It is an opinion and a fact.


125 posted on 07/12/2012 1:13:36 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

I will let that pass since you are quoting Mr. Reagan.


126 posted on 07/12/2012 1:46:38 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Thank you for that great speech link.


127 posted on 07/12/2012 1:48:18 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
For me, and I suspect for others, this started with people saying that "we" all lost our freedom and became "slaves" with the Civil War, and all the badmouthing "Yankees" that went along with it.

I certainly didn't have anything against Robert E. Lee when I came here, but after years of Yankee-bashing and Lincoln hating, I don't really care to hear any more about the saintly Marse Robert.

Maybe that's part of growing up -- being able to see the faults or flaws of Lincoln or Lee or Davis or Jackson or Grant or Sherman. It doesn't mean that you don't have respect for them, just that you can see that they had their own failings as all people do.

The idea that Johnny Reb and Billy Yank were the best of friends and wouldn't have had any quarrel with each other if it weren't for those pesky abolitionists is gone and isn't coming back any time soon. It was a sweet story, but certainly not the whole truth. That doesn't mean America is going to put Che Guevara, Mao, or Malcolm X in the place of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, though.

But you might be right. There might be good reason to worry about the future. If you're concerned you might tell your secessionist friends to cool it and not antagonize conservatives and Republicans who don't share their point of view about what happened long before any of us was born, rather than always taking their side. Respect is a two-way street.

128 posted on 07/12/2012 2:08:09 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Clearly we are dealing with someone who knows nothing that wouldn’t have been at home in Margrett Mitchell’s nonsense.

Years ago, people had to make tough choices, for or against slavery, for or against secession, civil war, reconstruction, segregation, industrialization, desegregation. Nowadays people don't even have to put up with the weather, thanks to heating and air conditioning.

So it's easy for some people to forget all those hard choices and pretend that it was always much simpler, always just the good us against the bad government. Nothing against a little libertarian rebelliousness against big government, but Washington DC isn't the only enemy liberty's ever had.

What I think they forget is that the Confederate government was a government that aspired to exercise power over people, not a bunch of anti-government Tea Party guys who got together in their garages to chew the fat and were attacked by the feds.

129 posted on 07/12/2012 2:25:54 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
You started your commentary with: "I realize that telling you to get your facts straight is like King Lear raging against the storm.

"There were no shots fired at Fort Pickens until after the Slaver forces attacked Ft. Sumter."

It looks like you should be more careful in your assertions.

Union troops at Ft. Pickens opened fire on Florida militia around midnight, January 8, 1861. Here

The Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter three months later. here What is to be learned here is that if you have a preoccupation with who fired the first shots, you have been wrong up until this point.

You are also not King Lear.

"Confederations of states are forbidden in the constitution without Congressional approval. Secession was illegal."

There was no confederation of states in the Union. There is no Constitutional prohibition regarding secession. The United States Congress upheld that understanding in December of 1860. Point irrelevant.

Federal property is always federal property unless Congress allows it to be returned. Ft. Sumter was federal property in 1860.

In December of 1860, there were three commissioned, staffed, and occupied Federal posts in Charleston S. C. . Sumter was under construction and not a commissioned or posted Federal emplacement. At the time that Anderson seized it, it was nothing more than a reinforced field position.

The land had been ceded to the Federal government with stipulations regarding its improvement and occupation, which the Federal government had let expire over the 33 year history of its construction.

You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.

130 posted on 07/12/2012 2:37:28 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

I think I will let those ignorant comments just stand for all to see.


131 posted on 07/12/2012 2:41:31 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
THE law book of that era was Blackstone’s Commentaries. Politicians writing books was not unusual.

That IS Blackstone's Commentaries annotated to incorporate the Constitution of the United States you twit! And it was THE law book of THIS land for more than 50 years whether or not YOU or Lincoln like it!

There was NO procedure placed into the constitution wherewith a state could regain its independence.

There sure does appear to be someone around here who clearly does not understand the Constitution and that would be YOU!

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Show me the article, word, or phrase of the constitution which prohibits a state from withdrawing from the union and you've won. Fail to do so and you loose!

If such sentiment had ever been strong throughout the country it should have been easy enough to propose, and ratify an amendment allowing just such an event.

Why on earth would they need to do that since they already had, and still have today, the right?

132 posted on 07/12/2012 3:18:12 PM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; arrogantsob
I knew that Fort Pickens had resisted repeated assaults by the confeds throughout the war but wasn't aware of the date of the first such assault.

It's interesting that person or persons unknown operating under no flag chose to attack a federal structure in a time of peace. Seeing as how Florida didn't make their attempt at secession until two days later this assault would constitute the textbook definition of rebellion against recognized authority. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.

Even if so (which wasn't the case) it was a vacant building that belonged to the US government.

133 posted on 07/12/2012 3:26:08 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
The Continental Congress preceded the states

You are truly confused. The Continental Congress & the Committees of Correspondence between the leaders of distinct & functioning communities preceded the States gaining recognized independence in the Treaty Of Paris; but the colonies that later achieved their sovereign independence had functioned as established societies, in some cases for five or more generations.

No one later joined the Union to have their diverse cultures overridden by bureaucrats or politicians, seeking to force social change on other people. If you read the Declaration of Independence--actually read it in context--you will see that much of it relates to opposition to an over-reaching central authority. The Founders did not rebel against an overreaching Government in London, to create one in Washington or Philadelphia.

For the deliberate revival of an anti-Southern ideological sectionalism by the American Left, see Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today.

Your peppering you comments with abusive terms reduces them to rants. You will not likely persuade anyone who does not already hate traditional values; but, in so ranting, you do help others to understand who are the real aggressors in all of this.

The real issues concern the rights of distinct peoples & communities to define their own cultural values. We do, indeed, have many cultural values in common in America--at least among those rooted in American culture. We also have a great many local nuances of culture. The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.

William Flax

134 posted on 07/13/2012 7:37:08 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The real issues concern the rights of distinct peoples & communities to define their own cultural values. We do, indeed, have many cultural values in common in America--at least among those rooted in American culture. We also have a great many local nuances of culture. The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.

Well said!

Well said indeed and ABSOLUTELY true!

135 posted on 07/13/2012 7:57:34 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Your legal arguments are sound, but you are tilting with a man apparently driven by hate. His seasoning of his arguments with slurs against historic figures who offered reasoned arguments that he rejects out of hand, without a reasoned response, demonstrates that.

He also seems to confuse the significance of even the terms that he uses. The debate in 1860 was over the Union. It was a Union of States. To understand the concept, the term "Nation" does not really apply. For example, Sioux were a Nation. England & Scotland were States, united in the United Kingdom at the time. In the Elizabethan era, Scotland was a State, the Scots as a people, scattered in many cases as mercenaries all over Europe, were a Nation--hence the term "Mary Queen of Scots," not "Mary Queen of Scotland."

The fundamental issue over the American Union was really the same in 1860 as now. It goes to the function of a political institution that the Founders Created. It is a structure adopted by an American ethnicity, intended to secure the common interests & liberty of those of that ethnicity. The question then, as now in the age of Obama, is has that structure been corrupted from its purpose.

Those who appeal to it as something created in Heaven--something analogous to the former doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings," need to go back and read the foundational documents--need to understand what the Declaration of Independence, actually demanded; what the Constitution actually required.

William Flax

136 posted on 07/13/2012 8:04:34 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; x
Thank you! Our latest posts to each other crossed, as you will see.

While on this thread, I will agree with x to this extent--and this extent only. We ought all to try to resist the temptation to hurl insulting adjectives at others who simply disagree with historic interpretations. That does not mean that Lincoln, Calhoun or any other advocate of an historic position is above challenge on a position. But people who may be dead wrong on historic issues may yet be reachable on current issues, and we need every ally we can muster to regain the America intended.

Besides, gentlemanly methods of discourse are always more persuasive; and posts at Free Republic may be read by a great many people who do not chime into the debate, but may yet be influenced by it.

William Flax

137 posted on 07/13/2012 8:13:00 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Thank you!

You are of course right as rain.

The poster I’m tilting with has a VERY long history on this site, albeit under another screen name, and it is sometimes hard for one to contain himself.


138 posted on 07/13/2012 8:24:15 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
There are many clues to the individual's fanaticism in his posts on this thread, alone. For example, he disparages the journalist Margaret Mitchell, who simply wrote an excellent historic novel. Does that have anything to do with the subject, or even with the arguments that broke out? But it displays a need to deny reality--Mitchell's picture of the old South was based on the lady's spending an enormous amount of time, interviewing survivors of the era, before they died.

That race relations in the Old South were as she pictured, is fully confirmed by the address of Booker T. Washington at the Atlanta Exposition in 1895.

Why would any American feel the need to endeavor to spread hate by denying the existence of relations based upon mutual respect, that did in fact exist? If you can answer that, you will begin to see a pattern that has persisted in the West among people of a certain mind set, since the Jacobins began butchering traditionalists in France in the "Reign Of Terror." It is the world view of Karl Marx, the sociopath John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot and many others who have compulsively sought uniformity of the human condition.

The American South has long been the object for the hatred of such, perhaps because you have produced so many smiling, happy & tolerant, individualists. (But see, Compulsion For Uniformity, for examples of manifestations of this form of intolerance.)

William Flax

139 posted on 07/13/2012 9:37:27 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Why would any American feel the need to endeavor to spread hate by denying the existence of relations based upon mutual respect, that did in fact exist? If you can answer that, you will begin to see a pattern that has persisted in the West among people of a certain mind set, since the Jacobins began butchering traditionalists in France in the "Reign Of Terror." It is the world view of Karl Marx, the sociopath John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot and many others who have compulsively sought uniformity of the human condition.

We are in complete and total agreement and you should know also that every bit of this has been discussed on previous threads of this nature on this site.

140 posted on 07/13/2012 9:48:01 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Here are a couple of links to the more recent threads of the type I mentioned above should you care to indulge.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2468441/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2453657/posts


141 posted on 07/13/2012 9:55:06 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; Ohioan; Bigun
The “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison, wrote to Alexander Hamilton describing the nature of the Union formed by that constitution as “once in the Union always in the Union”. There was NO “conditional ratification” which could be revoked.

The State in question:

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. ( New York ratification ordinance, July 26, 1788)

Here is the Mr. Madison that you've tossed aside:

Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833:

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.

James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830:

The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

31st of May, 1787

The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound

8th of June, 1787

Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress

-----------------------------------------------

I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves. - Thomas Jefferson

142 posted on 07/13/2012 1:14:00 PM PDT by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; arrogantsob; rustbucket
arrogantsob:The Continental Congress preceded the states

Ohioan:The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.

Virginia ratification convention:

Mr. John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,--as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states.

143 posted on 07/13/2012 1:39:09 PM PDT by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Well, again you have it wrong. Why not just do some simple research. (OR Series I, Vol. I, pp. 333-334.)

There was no assault on January 8 by any of the locals on Ft. Pickens. A group of local officials and state militia had heard that the fort was abandoned and walked there to investigate. Union troops, hiding inside the formerly abandoned fort, opened fire on them.

So all of that tongue mung from you about rebellion, recognized authority, assault, blah, blah, .... is just plain wrong.

144 posted on 07/13/2012 2:16:26 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Well said, indeed, Sir.


145 posted on 07/13/2012 2:20:00 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Opinions vary.


146 posted on 07/13/2012 2:24:53 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
The use of the term opinion is an insinuation of ambiguity. The information is cited in the OR and other factual accounts

Here and Here

Why not just step out of your usual role as Negative Man and simply do some reading. You can form your own opinion, but as you can clearly see, the events described were not opinion but factual, down to the day, time, and location

147 posted on 07/13/2012 2:43:57 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
I've done some reading. And thanks to your links I've done some more. They do not change the fact that person or persons unknown attempted to seize the fort and were repelled.

They were where they shouldn't have been doing something highly illegal and should have been shot in the head and left on display.

Thanks again for supplying more opinions

148 posted on 07/13/2012 2:55:24 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Colonies are not “states”. The Continental Congress receded the formation of any of the “states”. The “functional societies on the continent, the Indian tribes such as the Iroquoise, were not “states” either. I am not the one confused here.

There were no “diverse cultures” endanger of being overridden by the federal government then or now (except for the Indian cultures). Slight variations in the overwhelmingly American culture does not represent “diversity”. The Slaver “culture” was little higher than the “culture” of the criminal gangs of NYC, part of the democrat alliance.

The federal government in 1860 was TINY with a TINY army dispersed along the frontier. You will not get away with the outrageous LIE of federal “tyranny” to support the Slaver Revolt. It is a LIE through and through. It could not have tyrannized ANYONE in 1860. Stop LYING.

No one should mistake my view since I paint them in the most clear terms. There was NO justification for the Slaver Revolt and there is not a shred of justification for defending it. ZERO.

John Marshall would have been the first to volunteer to defend the UNION. That union his rulings had done so much to create and strengthen against its internal enemies. Marshall agreed almost entirely with his great friend Alexander Hamilton who put the Union’s safety above almost everything earthly.

The Slaver Revolt came about ONLY because the Slavers’ wanted it to protect slavery. NOT because of Lincoln, not because of capitalist machinations, not because of abolitionists. But ONLY by Slavers for Slavers.


149 posted on 07/14/2012 12:33:02 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
“Local men” does not equate to “militia”. If the Vice Lords tried to take possession of my house, I suppose you would say that it was the Chicago Militia. Slaver forces did not engage in battle until months had passed after Slaver forces attacked Sumter.

The entire definition of “constitution” makes secession illegal. It isn't an arbitrary law established in a unilaterally revocable manner such as an Islamic marriage.
No state can take back its ratification outside of a Constitutional amendment.

Ft. Sumter was not vacant when attacked by the Slaver forces. It was occupied federal property. Slaver revolutionaries had for weeks been seizing federal arms and properties all over the South treasonously placed in their grasp by secessionist traitors within Buchanan's cabinet. Lincoln, wisely and rightly, made sure that did not happen to Sumter.

150 posted on 07/14/2012 12:47:13 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-485 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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