Skip to comments.Confederate history month proclamation causes massive outbreak of Offendeditis
Posted on 05/17/2010 7:04:35 PM PDT by Idabilly
I would also remind any Conservative that America is in the hole it is today because we have forgotten so much of our history. We are right to demand that our representatives remember the founding documents, we are right to demand these documents be taught in school. Again, how is studying the Confederacy any less important? Is not the essential question right now, on so many issues, NOT States rights? And what was the fight from 1861-65 over again? Yes, States rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Heritage and history, I don't care much if you don't like it!
Had something to do with that Constitution-usurping war criminal Lincoln getting elected, as well. (now the lincoln-lovers’ll come out of the woodwork with their erroneous views of the scoundrel)
The Confederate Territory of Arizona!
Like this quote,,,thanks for the link ,,,, outta get good when the d. yankees show up
Correct, if you are speaking only of the rather narrow view that states have the right to secede. But presumably the author is in this case speaking of the rights of states under the Constitution. And of course seceded states have no rights under the Constitution as secession removes them from the Constitution.
In actual fact the discord leading up to secession was largely based on southern demands for an expansion of federal power to override the claimed rights of northern states to resist the return of fugitive slaves. They also demanded that federal law and if necessary federal troops enforce toleration of slavery in the territories.
None of the southern Declarations of Secession pointed to any actual violation of their states' rights by the federal government, although there was much and possibly justified concern that such might occur. IOW, secession was a pre-emptive response to possible future violations of states' rights.
That Sir, is well said
Well, at least no one will challenge you on facts...
“Had something to do with that Constitution-usurping war criminal Lincoln getting elected, as well.”
Like seven states seceding from the Union before Lincoln was inaugurated (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) So it happened on President Buchanan’s watch. Oh, snap. Just pretend, then.
Then, when the South fired on Sumter and Licoln called up troops four more states joined in their complaint of... fishing rights (After all, what rights were they arguing over? HMMMM? Couldn’t be SLAVERY, could it? Must have been fishing rights, or Federal Highway dollars. Yea, that’s the ticket.)
I do love the state’s rights revisionism from junior Klansmen though. It is always a giggle to point out the Confederate Constitution (along with the suspension of Habeus Corpus: Article 1 Section 9-3.The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.) is pretty much the same as the United States Constitution in structure except for the whole fishing rights parts.
Here they are. Just insert “fishing rights” where you find “negro slavery.” It’s probably just a typo:
Article 1 Section 9
1.The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2.Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(This protected domestic slave breeding and was made to appease the international community and gain recognition for the Confederacy.)
Article 4 Section 2
1.The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
3.No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
There you go. History unvarnished. Enshrined in the utopia of revisionism is the ugly spector of real history.
Imagine how cheap goods would be if the South had succeeded and Lincoln, twisted war criminal that he was, had failed. You think Chinese stuff was cheap. Imagine if you didn’t have to pay anything. Course, now you could just micro chip your labor force. No underground railroad for you, no sir.
Yea, those Lincoln lovers. Man, their views were just so erroneous. Good thing we got real thinkers like you that compares conservatism, the TEA Party, and the CSA. They go together like oil and water.
The great unremembered Truth about State’s Rights is NOT that southern state’s were objecting to the federal government trying to free the slaves, because that was not happening.
The TRUTH is that the Civil War was directly caused by the violation of the NORTHERN STATES’ RIGHT - NOT to have slavery in their territories when the Supreme Court nullified northern laws against slavery with the Dred Scot decision and then the Democrat-dominated Congress’s passage of the Fugitive Slave Act forced northern states to enforce southern property rights over escaped slaves by returning them. These blatant violations of NORTHERN STATE SOVEREIGNTIES so enflamed the North that many people began taking the direct action of going to southern plantations and taking the slaves north to Canada in the Underground Railroad. The Northern Republicans were united by these laws to throw out the norhern Democrats and elect an anti-slavery President. In the documents proclaiming secession, the southern states did not complain that the federal government was violating their rights, only that the Democrat-controlled federal government was unable to stop the stealing of their slaves, the killing of slave owners and the burning of plantations by bands of northern abolitionist which had exploded after Dred Scot, and the likelihood that it would be much worse under Lincoln.
An analogous situation today would have been if the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision had prompted an ongoing nationwide wave of destruction of abortion clinics and deaths and injuries of abortionists. Since it did not, abortion remains legal and the Roe decision, like Dred Scot, a continuing violation of state’s rights. They don’t want you to know that the meaning of state’s rights at the time of the Civil War was the EXACT OPPOSITE of the propaganda then and what is taught now because you might get the wrong idea and take matters into your own hands on current issues like the people of the Underground Railroad did. As long as you only talk, blog and complain, you can safely be ignored.
“Had something to do with that Constitution-usurping war criminal Lincoln getting elected, as well.”
Then history repeats itself nearly a century and a half, later.
Then why did he only free the slaves in Confederate states?
The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.
The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception). In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863.
Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census) were freed by July 1865.
Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.
Sounds like he was real tore up about *all* those poor slaves.
[sounds mighty “fishy” to me]
true history is so important and yet the left with the NEA do not want to teach it.
We all know why and there needs to be a big push back over this from the next president, providing we get a president who will actually have some guts and not be afraid of being called a name by the NY Times
And if there’s another war and the right loses, then illegal immigration will be remembered as slavery.
Maybe it was Lincoln's double talkin' lawyer mouth they didn't like. Every speech given would make the vote pandering Obama envious. Furthermore, both Union presidents bamboozled the South. Whether it was provoking hostilities, or invading a Sovereign State. Neither is an action of friendly neighbors.
I. W. Hayne, to President Buchanan
You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and is held for the same purposes for which it has ever been held since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avowedly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is perhaps the highest insult which one government can offer to another? But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent fort, which was then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter into her own possession, only because of her misplaced confidence in a government which deceived her.
War criminal? I must have missed that trial...
Not too steady in his grasp of constitutional law, President Buchanan signed the joint resolution the day the Senate approved it: an unnecessary step, given the fact that Congressional power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not subject to presidential approval or veto. Two days later, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the sixteenth president of the United States and the proposed amendment was largely forgotten, although two states, Ohio and Maryland, actually ratified it! An Illinois state constitutional convention that met in 1862 purported to ratify the amendment, but had no legal authority to do so. Interestingly, Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln's detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis.
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.