Posted on 01/06/2005 8:00:30 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
It also destroyed the idea of state's rights as they should be.
Jim Crow did just as much to destroy state's rights. Jim Crow proved that state's rights could be harmful to US citizens.
My God. I can't believe you posted this. I have been in an email war with a guy over this very issue. I've been called everything from racist to stupid for suggesting these very ideas. Bless YOU and the Mr. Williams (one of my favorites) for this post! I'll be forwarding the link stright away!
I don't know where Dr. Williams get's his definition but every on-line dictionary I've checked defines a civil war as " war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Which is an accurate defintion of what happened.
It is quite evident to me that all men are created equal. Are you suggesting that the States have the right to suppress the civil rights of some "men" but not others?
Thank you so much for the kind words. by the way, I know what you are going through; I get the same treatment from time to time.
No. I just believe that state's rights have been changed for the worse because of and since the Civil War as a result of what happened. I do not feel that slavery was the number one priority or factor in the Civil War.
'...war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country..."
Then there is no such thing as a war for independence? Mr. Williams has it right. He is the maverick's maverick.He is a Southern Black man that displays the Confederate Battle flag proudly in his office.
As Granny said of the War on the Beverly Hillbillies, "it was when the North invaded America".
Or I could just make up a definition like Dr. Williams did.
Yes, but if a State gets too abausive its citizens can just move to another state (wihch many blacks did after the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era.) When the Fed gets too abusive you're stuck and out of luck.
Are you suggesting that the States have the right to suppress the civil rights of some "men" but not others?
No he was suggesting that the states were sovereign nations who delegated authority to the federal government with the express reservation that the states had the right to resume such delegated powers any time the federal government sought to overstep it's authority.
This entire concept is completely lost on most people today.
Lincoln's first intent was to preserve the Union. However, Lincoln certainly did intend to free southern slaves when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.
"When Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1861), raising tariffs to unprecedented levels, the South Carolina convention unanimously adopted and Ordinance of Secession..."
Congress enacted the Morill Act in March of 1861, three months after the South Carolina secession. Whoever you're debating might whack you over the head with things like that.
States' Rights are nice in theory. But then some State comes along and legalizes medical marijuana or assisted suicide, and we can clearly see the folly in the idea.
Which is the worst of two evils...the Federal Government usurping the States rights endowed by their Legistatures, or the State Government usurping the self evident rights endowed by the Creator?
Can you imagine the war - or secession - happening if slavery had not existed?
Well then call it a rebellion then, don't try to paint it as something it wasn't. Dr. Williams, and others, try to make the case that Lincoln prevented legal actions on the part of the southerners. He didn't. And Dr. Williams is wrong in another area. The Civil War didn't settle the question of whether secession is legal, it settled the question as to whether unilateral secession is legal.
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.