MF ugly.
Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
“But might was against the colonists. They were fighting one of the strongest countries on earh and they beat them”
Exactly. The colonists beat the British. That’s how “might makes right” works. It matters not how strong the British appeared to be before the war. Today we say the patriots were right largely because they won. If the British had won, we’d probably be saying they were in the right. Those who win the war write the history.
“What I disagree with is the way the confederate supportes seem embarassed by slavery and are willing to go to any lengths to avoid admitting it was about slavery.”
That’s fine, and I agree. Personally, I think slavery spoils the entire Confederate experiment. Can’t be the ones for liberty when you keep a large portion of your population in bondage. However damning the “s” brand is to their reputation, though, it doesn’t make their claim to sovereignty wrong. There can be two wrong sides on an issue (the North for denying sovereignty and the South for defending slavery).
“’or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along).’
‘No, I’m glad that the United States remained whole and unbroken because that is how our Founding Father’s had left it to us.’”
I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying “no” to, or why you’re telling me that’s what the Founders wanted. Everyone knows they did (or most of them did, the ones we remember best), why else would they have bothered Confederating themselves or writing and pushing for the ratification of the Constitution?
“But tell me where it says that you have the right to revolt and Stalin or Obama or whoever is not supposed to oppose you.”
If you’d paid attention to what I’ve been saying, you’d have noticed I said that governments have the right to defend themselves. That is, legitimate governments, which respect the natural rights and sovereignty of its citizens, have the right to defend themselves. Sadly, none of knows where the invisible line is drawn. None of us knows where or when governments stop being legitimate and slide over into tyrannies. So long as it isn’t as clear as it was in the case of Hitler and Stalin—who ran more what can be called criminal conspiracies against their people than legitimate governments—I say lets assume both the people and the people have a right to revolt and the state has the right to defend itself.
Now, when you say the government is “supposed” to oppose revolutionaries, that’s not so. They can. And perhaps in the case of the Civil War they should have. But they don’t have to. There’s no cosmic reason why the South couldn’t leave the union as peacably as it entered. Especially considering Lincoln was no Stalin.
“The fact that Lincoln’s ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ didn’t apply to the ‘border states’ like Maryland pretty much puts the whole idea of slavery as the driving purpose of the Civil War to rest.”
There were mitigating Constitutional, political, and military circumstances. I think the fact that he waited for two years to recognize slavery as an essential issue in the war effort is a stronger point on its own.
“I say lets assume both the people and the people have a right to revolt and the state has the right to defend itself.”
That is, “I say lets assume both the people have a right to revolt and the state has the right to defend itself.”
“If it were just about partisan power grabs...there’d be an apparent divergence of words, ideas, and behavior from the ‘different’ sides of the aisle. The absence of such divergence...and the pathological conduct of the Washington establishment to an extraordinary popular ‘outsider’ -Sarah Palin- is confirmation of Senator Durbins assertions.”
Well, Bush was all-in for the original bailout, and he’s a Republican, but he doesn’t speak for the entire party. A significant proportion of Republicans voted against the original bailout and spoke out against subsequent measures. They haven’t been as loud or as radically opposed to the measures as you or me, and they have been weak in opposing the Obama administration. But you can probably chalk that up to the fact that Republicans are weak in general, that this is a down period for the party, and the old “conservatives hold the line where liberals last moved it” truism.
Anyway, conservative Washington opinion-makers have turned against massive government intervention. They may have bought it in the beginning, when we were warned of bank runs, marshal law, and apocalyptic delfation. But not anymore. There is opposition. It is a partisan issue. Democrats have Wall Street, bankers, car makers, and GE behind them, but they also have unions, lawyers, and a thousand other interest groups. They pursue the interests of each, even when they clash. Because whatever cause helps grow the size of government, they’re behind.
You've opened up a can of worms! Obama thinks he is Lincoln!
I take it personally when you blame Southern people FOR his election. His election is directly because of a lack of Conservative effort A.K.A “McCain”- Don't blame “it” on anything other than what it is/Communism has taken root in American and now Secession may be the only hope!
Note- Southern States remain Conservative but two-Northern States that fought during the Civil War are largely Liberal
Kansas and others may not be But/New York,New England,Maine,Ext would fit right in with the U.S.S.R
Like father, like son
Liberal to the bone
Then when it comes to the Southern rebellion you must be a very sad individual.
MF ugly.
I was just looking over how many known Marxist fought for the Union- Lincoln must have known? I forget-He didn't even know his Generals murdered or ordered rapes either.
Thanks!
-- Honest Abe
Look at this
# VaSteve Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Was he against slavery?Was he gay?I see the Abe lovers get a little touchy.They should.Abe was anti-slavery “expansion”.He wanted a White West.And actually wanted a White US.His being an ‘active’ member of the
American Colonization Society clearly shows this.Lincolnites like to say he changed his way of thinking but written history shows he appropriated money from congress for colonization thru his presidency.Gay?Well,again the Lincolnites ‘blow off’ the 4 years of sleeping with his buddy Speed.It was common for men to share a bed.Being cold and all.Of course what they don’t say is that was reserved for poor men,not lawyers.And then there is
Derickson the body guard.Staying with Abe when Mary Todd was gone.This too WAS blown off as gossip ‘from a woman’s diary’,which is partly true.It was in her diary.I say WAS because after further review,the Derickson saga shows up in several other writings of prominent men.There was an intersting piece on this on the History Channel.Did I mention Dickerson was part of the “Bucktail Brigade”? BTW Why do you think the Gay Republicans are called ‘Log Cabin Republicans’? Hello.
It was about slavery and what the South saw as the threat to its expansion caused by the election of Lincoln. Any other reason you care to mention pales in importance when compared with slavery. And he evidence supports that.
I have to take into consideration the North’s position in order to understand why the war started, especially since they were the invaders (yes, after Fort Sumpter, which was an act of war, but wasn’t by itself the reason the North invaded, as we all know).
That's like calling the U.S. Army the invader in World War II, which may be strictly true but ignores the fact that if the Germans and the Japanese had not initiated a war then the Army wouldn't have invaded anything. The same is true with the rebellion. The confederacy initiated a war. The North accepted the battle forced upon them and fought it to what was, for them, a successful conclusion. The Union army would not have gone anywhere had not the war come.
How can his side be wrong, when you admit yourself he’s right about Lincoln?
What little Napolitano got right about Lincoln appears to have happened by accident.
Unless you think the North had no choice but to wage war, and everything that happened happened because the South started it.
Well the North did have a choice I suppose. It could have surrendered following Sumter. It could have given in to that at of confederate aggression and given the confederacy what it wanted. Or Lincoln could have recognized the attack for what it was, a act of armed rebellion, and responded accordingly. He chose the second path. There is nothing underhanded or sneaky about that.
It had its own motivations and invaded for its own reasons.
Because the South chose war for its own reasons. No more and no less.
Yes, only a precursor of Hitler could possibly write something like this:
"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before. Insomuch, that our Governor has ventured to propose one to the legislature. This will probably not be acted on at this time. Nor would it be effectual; for while it proposes to devote to that object one third of the revenue of the State, it would not reach one tenth of the annual increase. My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to receive them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions."
I mean imagine, how can someone talk about emancipating the slaves and forcing them out of the country? Only a Hitler could possibly take a position like that. Only someone who was pure evil could possibly sign on to such a plan. Damn and double-damn that Abraham Lin....oh wait....that quote wasn't from Lincoln...it was...could it be...yes, a letter from Thomas Jefferson, written in December 1820 to Albert Gallatin.
Damn. You must really hate Jefferson now, what with him supporting deportation and colonization and all.
I'm not sure what field your playing, or else I totally misunderstood one of your posts, or else you completely misunderstood one of mine because I never deliberately made any mention or any point about Britain supporting the confederacy.
The states had the right to secede whether or not the federal government opposed them. That much is clear.
Sorry, but I disagree. Madison said that a proper secession requires the consent of the other states and I see no reason to fault his assessment.
Why? Why was the Union position wrong to begin with? What if the confederacy had won? Would that mean that the confederacy cause was wrong but 'might made it right'?
Those who win the war write the history.
And those who lose the war write the myths.
There’s no cosmic reason why the South couldn’t leave the union as peacably as it entered. Especially considering Lincoln was no Stalin.
Bombarding a fort for two days is an odd way to leave peacefully.
That is being dishonest
Can you show me anywhere that he said- States had a Right to Secede?
He was a intelligent fella and knew that sending “supplies” would cause at least a problem {by his own words}
If you threatened me and then showed up at my door- I'd punch you square in the mouth- If I lost the coming fight?
I figure,I'd be right next to Davis
Palmerston's in a pretty big glass house to be throwing stones. Read up on the Indian Mutiny of 1857--a people fighting for self determination if there ever was one--and the British suppression of it by Palmerston's government. Hundreds of thousands of rebels and their civilian sympathizers were executed, many by being tied against the muzzle of a cannon and blown apart. So spare me Palmerston's tender sensibilities.
When did I say Lincoln believed a state could leave? Lincoln, like Clay and Webster and Jackson and Buchanan, believed all secession was illegal. Personally, I think Madison was more on the mark when he said secession was permitted with the approval of the states.
He was a intelligent fella and knew that sending “supplies” would cause at least a problem {by his own words}
Which is, of course, why he made his intentions clear to Governor Pickens prior to the resupply attempt, leaving the whole issue of peace or war in the hands of Davis and his regime. And we know what their decision was, don't we? Damn Davis for falling right in Lincoln's trap. </sarcasm>
If you threatened me and then showed up at my door- I'd punch you square in the mouth- If I lost the coming fight?
But Lincoln threatened nothing, unless the resupply was forcibly opposed.
He said, In his first inaugural that if the South didn't pay the tarrifs-he would- Fill in as you want
Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system [sic] they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." [November 13, 1860]
Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." [November 14, 1860]
Abraham Lincoln sworn in as President of the United States [March 4, 1861]
CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." [March 21, 1861]
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.