Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
So who would you recommend as non-biased—and are they really “non-biased” or do they just agree with you?
I know it’s hard for you but try not to be a buffoon...
Brilliant!
There was a pretty good thread here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2036596/posts where people discussed their favorite Civil War reference books.
Especially Sherman. lol
I think the key phrase is right here:
"Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Washington considered himself a citizen of the United States. His loyalty was to country over state. As it should be.
I would recommend reading both sides. Read David Herbert Donald as well as Tommy DiLorenzo, Doris Goodwin as well as the Kennedy Brothers. Read the writings of the Founders as well as those of the leaders of the rebellion. Go into it with open eyes, take nothing at face value, and come to your own conclusions. Not Tommy's.
My belief (worth exactly what you paid for it) is that the United States was “founded” as a treaty between equal and sovereign nation-states and the Constitution is that treaty. I believe (there goes that word again) that the states agreed to support that treaty (and NOT to be subject to a government greater than themselves—who would DO that?)...and I believe that the original intent was for the federal government to provide and maintain a unified armed forces and provide a uniform judicial system to arbitrate disputes between the states...I DO NOT believe that forcing one of those states to remain in the union if they chose to leave was their original intent, nor do I believe that many of Lincoln’s actions (i.e., suspension of habeas corpus, arresting the elected officials in Maryland, consolidation of federal power) was anything the founders had envisioned or would have approved.
You should read the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Madison is the author.
ML/NJ
The Union army didn’t only make the Confederate Army pay, they took it out on the women and children, too. They stole their food and livestock, tore up their fields, and burned their homes and left them to starve. They did other things even worse. I don’t care what you say, the Confederates didn’t fight their women and children. Sherman was ruthless and cruel. Its been well documented. Slavery was wrong and maybe the war needed fighting but they could have extended the same courtesy to the southern women and children that the south did to their women and children. After all, enemy or not they were still fellow Americans.
This cartoon may be funny but it is to the point. If we were free to leave the individual states could leave one by one when the government stepped upon them too much. Political divide and conquer would no longer be as practicable by Federal politicians. If we were free to leave it is not unlikely that we would not peacefully reassemble in time, under a new Federation with stronger limitations.
Patrick Henry has entered the forum:
"Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others.
If we admit this consolidate government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.
You don’t care what I say.
But non-seq..I don’t see it as a “sides’ issue. I see it as a “truth” issue. Lincoln was NOT the hero that history books make him out to be...he wasn’t Satan, either. He was a man, in an extremely untenable position. Add in the dynamics of the time, and it was a powder keg. He consolidated power in the federal government that has snowballed into the mess we have now...granted, if it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone else..but it WAS him, and he has been made out to be a hero...and the entire Civil War issue keeps folks off balance. How can anyone be against Lincoln?—He freed the slaves!! And as conservatives, espousing smaller government, that is anathema...if you sully the name of Lincoln, you’re a racist hate monger. It’s hard to reconcile love of Lincoln with conservatism.
The Battle Flag sure looks more like it means business ... and way more not guilty.
Well done. Both sides do definitely have their strong points ;-)
Well done—you have made excellent points!
Lincoln DID tread on constitutional and Founding principles. But I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a “terrorist” (boy, that word is slung around so much now since 9/11). Misguided, but basically a good man, and no terrorist. Closer to that would be some of the Repubs in Congress.
"I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the Federal branch of the government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their powers. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further, and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress, (log-rolling, &c.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed, shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.”
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.