Wanna bet?
Note to Klan. If you want people to take you seriously then don't hold your "White Power" signs upside down.
Posted on 03/15/2010 10:08:18 AM PDT by liege
The South is rising again. Before I go any further, let me clarify. Sadly, too many in our country possess the superficial and ignorant perception that the only impetus behind southern secession was to perpetuate the abhorrent practice of slavery. Therefore, when they hear such a phrase, their kneejerk reaction tells them this must be about race. I assure you, it’s not.
When the North invaded the South during the 1860s, it was to deny the southern states the ultimate expression of their sovereignty – the ability to withdraw from a union they had voluntarily joined.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
Actually 1814. During the War of 1812. It destroyed the Federalist Party.
This is a possibly unintentional misstatement of what Lincoln said in his speech.
At the time Lincoln and a great many other Free Soil men believed there was a conspiracy among southerners, using the power of the federal government, to force slavery on the rest of the states. There was some evidence at the time and since to support this position. That is what he was concerned about.
Lincoln himself at the time of this speech and up to the Emancipation Proclamation recognized the federal government as having no power to interfere with slavery within a state. He even recognized this in the EP, as it affected only areas in rebellion against the Union.
If the south would’ve won, we’d have it made.
If you haven’t, you should, read “The Grey Book.” It offers insight into freedom for the individual.
Depends on your color, of course.
How many slaves would you own?
Well-written article; thank you for posting it.
But the increase in the size of the federal government brought with it problems of its own.
I love this book.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to The South
http://www.thepoliticallyincorrectguidetothesouth.com/
The Biggest Myths About the South
The South is unsophisticated compared to the North and West Coast. The truth is Southerners invented musical forms like rock and roll, jazz, blues and bluegrass. We created the motion picture industry. The first women’s colleges and the oldest public universities were all started here.
The South is “rural redneck.” The nation’s largest banks and the world’s largest corporation are based here. The first successful black politicians on the national stage were Southerners. The first two Jewish U.S. Senators were Southerners. The most popular destination for people of all races to move to is The South and away from The North.
Southerners supported slavery while Northerners hated it. No Southern alive today disputes that slavery was morally wrong, but the fact remains that all Northern states once had slaves, and virtually all of the slave ships were owned by Yankees. Profits from the slave trade stayed in the North.
Southerners tried to break up the Union. It was New England which invented the idea of secession; first in objection to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubling the nation’s land area, and then in 1814 when New England wanted to trade with enemy England during the War of 1812.
The War For Southern Independence was about “slavery.” While the South foolishly defended slavery in early 1860s rhetoric, The War was really fought over power and money. If Northerners had a moral objection to slavery in the 19th century, why did they finance the slave trade in the 18th century?
The Confederate battle flag symbolizes slavery. The battle flag, designed to resemble the cross favored by Jesus’ disciple St. Andrew, as well as the ancient flag of Scotland, did not fly over any slave ships. It flew over the Confederate ancestors of at least 30 million Southerners who fought, bled, and died defending their homes from invading Union armies.
The Confederate flag is used by the Klan. The largest march ever staged by the Klan was in 1925 Washington, D.C. Thousands of American flags were carried, but not a single Confederate flag. The Klan, when it does march, still carries the U.S. flag.
That was a Hank Williams Jr song
I love my southern brothers but this revionist history is crap. The LEADERSHIP of the South forced a civil war. The SCOTUS decision to open the Territories to slavery guaranteed war.
The first shot was fired by the South at Fort Sumter.
And don’t forge that there is a God in Heaven. The grievous sin of slavery needed attonement.
The South shall rise again, indeed.””
And the blueprint for it can be found in this book—
“The Grey Book.” You won’t find a better read.
>Depends on your color, of course.
>How many slaves would you own?
What about slave-holders who were, themselves, black?
See:
http://www.uwec.edu/Geography/Ivogeler/w188/south/charles/charles3.htm
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
http://www.blackinformant.com/uncategorized/more-buried-history-black-slave-owners-in-the-us
“One should not overlook the impact of the Scots-Irish on the South’s disdain for centralized government.”
Sounds like you have also read. “Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America” Great Book!!!
Follows the path of my own family line very closely, which went from a direct line of Robert the Bruce to the Grapes of Wrath migration West.
The North started the war by trying to resupply a Fort in southern land. They baited the south into it.
The war was based on tax collection. Lincoln actually never cared about slavery and he wanted to send slaves back to Africa or their country of orgin. Lincoln was a tyrant
Be careful, winners write the history books
A house divided cannot stand.
It’s rather silly, when the country is in danger, to go back to the civil war. The South did not win. We ‘are’ one country. The best country on the planet. It’s useless speculation that solves nothing and sounds a bit whiney.
Great song
I used to say “If the South would have won, it would be a third world nation right now.”
My father said “Have you seen Arkansas? It looks like and is run as a third world country.”
Same question then, how many would they own?
LOL if the south wouldve won it would be a third world country??? Well why do people here believe in the majority of what the south stood for. Lesser government, family values, importance in Christian values, patriotism. Will america become a third world country if conservative values succeed?? I think not
Well, as much as I was in the mood to nettle someone here.
(My blood is a bit up from coming off the Catholic bashing threads here)
I really shouldn’t. I don’t care that much about sloppy blogging. But, I don’t like revisionist history no matter who is doing the revising.
So, I will let it alone except for one final remark.
Given the choice between Hank Williams Jr., country music in general, and the Confederacy rising again....I’m torn, really torn. :-)
It is revisionist crap indeed! The above leads to the obvious, and damning, question: Why did they want to withdraw? The South did not want slavery ended.
When the state of Mississippi's Secession Resolution reads as follows, what else are we to conlclude?
Whereas, The Constitutional Union was formed by the several States in their separate sovereign capacity for the purpose of mutual advantage and protection;
That the several States are distinct sovereignties, whose supremacy is limited so far only as the same has been delegated by voluntary compact to a Federal Government, and when it fails to accomplish the ends for which it was established, the parties to the compact have the right to resume, each State for itself, such delegated powers;
That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the Federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter, and all efforts to impair its value or lessen its duration by Congress, or any of the free States, is a violation of the compact of Union and is destructive of the ends for which it was ordained, but in defiance of the principles of the Union thus established, the people of the Northern States have assumed a revolutionary position towards the Southern States;
That they have set at defiance that provision of the Constitution which was intended to secure domestic tranquillity among the States and promote their general welfare, namely: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 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 service or labor may be due;"
That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies and State legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slave-holding States;
That they have enticed our slaves from us, and by State intervention obstructed and prevented their rendition under the fugitive slave law;
That they continue their system of agitation obviously for the purpose of encouraging other slaves to escape from service, to weaken the institution in the slave-holding States by rendering the holding of such property insecure, and as a consequence its ultimate abolition certain;
I am a Southerner although I have lived most of my life in the Midwest. I know that whenever the term, South, is used in discussing the Civil War, it conjures up all sorts of baggage. Maybe it is better to discuss the principles rather than the fight for southern independence. I make no defense of slavery. It was wrong even though it had been practiced throughout human history, even by the Founding Fathers. The issue deals with the authority of a central government over against a state’s authority. It is plain from the Constitution that the federal government was to be a limited government and that individual states were tasked with providing for the needs of the people in those states. The Civil War created a situation in which the Union’s interest superseded the interests of an individual state. It marked a dramatic turn in which America was no longer a nation composed of sovereign states, but a unified central government. Washington became America. As we have seen, the expansion and intrusion of the federal government into the lives of everyone living in the nation’s borders has all but destroyed state’s rights. We have an imperial hegemony sitting in Washington. More and more power is distributed amongst fewer and fewer people. It is truly closer to a dictatorship than a republic.
Firing upon U.S. soldiers defending land that was, and hopefully always will be, sovereign U.S. territory - does not display Conservative value, nor a family value, nor Christian value, and certainly not patriotic value.
Do you think the Yankee’s invaded because of slavery??
The south saw that federal government was becoming increasigly large and robust.
This country was suppose to be a loose Republic with free states.
Regardless of what your history book says why the war was started or not. The south, per their constitution was moving away from the slave trade internatioally. There was also religious pressure to begin removing slavery.
I don’t know about you- I will be in Texas when they secede and if NC gets worse. I don’t think Texas will be doing this because of one issue either
Pah-leeze.
Lincoln actually never cared about slavery...
Read the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Jackson threatened to "hang from the highest tree" any South Carolinian who spoke of secession. Was he a tyrant too?
Wanna bet?
Note to Klan. If you want people to take you seriously then don't hold your "White Power" signs upside down.
Nope. They invaded to preserve the Union. Thank goodness they did! However, your question is a rather transparent attempt to deflect the point that the Southern states seceded to perserve that "peculiar institution", slavery.
That land was not US territory at that time. It was CS territory.
Also one must be dense to think when I talk about values I was referring about slavery. Do you think the war was about a bearded man saving black people? Do you want crayons to help you highlight the facts??
>And don’t forge that there is a God in Heaven. The grievous sin of slavery needed attonement.
But is slavery itself a sin? Abraham himself possessed slaves, as did Isac and Jacob. Paul, in I Cor 7, speaks about Christians being bought with a price: that of Christ’s blood & life, even His death. Paul says that the slave [socially-seen] is free [spiritually] in Christ and also that the free [socially-seen] is a slave [spiritually] in Christ as well.
To take a step back, in Proverbs [12:10] it says:
“A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”
Now, God did not send Jesus to die for animals; Jesus even says “you are worth more than many sparrows.” [Mat 10:31, Lk 12:7] So, doesn’t it make sense that the actions of any slaveholder will be held to his account on the grounds that every one of his slaves carries the Image of God? {The same justification for the capital punishment of murderers.}
IOW, I think that God is more neutral on the issue of Slavery than he is on the issue of Men’s Hearts.
Slavery was the value that the South went to war to defend. That was the reason for their rebellious and seditious actions against these United States of America. It certainly wasn't to defend Conservatism or Christianity or family values.
Why do you suppose that the Conservative Hillsdale College was historically anti-slavery? There is a direct line between anti-slavery and Conservative thought; the natural rights of man and individual liberty and freedom of conscience are consistent with Conservatism (inasmuch as they are the foundational ideology) - while slavery is antithetical to it.
>Same question then, how many would they own?
Why would it matter?
You have any particular reason for believing the CSA believed more in "family values, importance in Christian values, patriotism" than the Union?
I'll give you a partial on "lesser government." Although it's only fair to point out that one of the major things objected to by the South in the years leading up to the War was northern states using state rights to protect freedom of escaped slaves. In this case the South insisted federal power be used to override State law.
He has stated many times slavery was not the cause of the war.
Lincoln was opposed to racial equality. He said whites were superior to blacks
He opposed sufferage for blacks, to serve on juries, or to intermarry
He advocated sending blacks back to their homeland
He opposed the extension of slavery in territories so blacks wouldn’t compete with free whites for jobs
He opposed black citizenship in Illinois
He said state soverignty never existed to justify war
He refused to meet with confederate peace commisioners before war.
He started a war with out the cosent of congress
He illigally declared martial law
He confiscated private property
Lastly he destroyed the system of federalism and states’ rights crated by the founders, destroying the volutary union
Silly rabbit. You brought it up.
No, don’t worry. I won’t get involved in the thread anymore. I am worn out from the Know Nothings on another thread. Just more of the same popping up here.
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
The 1860 census available on line shows 10,940 free blacks in Orleans Parish in 1860. According to your story, 3000 of them owned slaves. Now 4700 of those 10,000 were under 19 so the chances of them owning slaves was nil. That means that of the 6000 remaining, 3000 of them were slave owners. But it's likely that most of those remaining free black men and women were married so that would mean that of about 3000 married black couples in New Orleans all of them owned slaves. Does that make any sense at all to you?
The census also states that there were only 4187 slave owners in Orleans Parish out of a total free population of 160,00. So out of 6000 free black adults we're supposed to believe half owned slaves. But out of approximately 100,000 free white adults only 1187 owned slaves. Again, does that make the slightest bit of sense to you?
Feel free to check my math. Link
The question is whether or not we are a Federal Country, or a National Country. The difference is in the role of the State in relation to the federal/national government; in one it is fully subservient and inferior to the federal/national government, while in the other the State is a sovereign entity which has given the federal/national government s specific list of powers and agrees to abide by its rulings on those powers.
To put it another way:
In the National model the National government is the slave-owner of the state and the state MUST comply with its commands/rules/decrees.
In the Federal system the Federal government is like unto an expert given free-reign over his field of expertise by the manager/project-lead who is the State.
Actually, we are 50 sovereign states, a number of protectorates, and other territories under the umbrella of a large federation, an empire, if you will. If we were, indeed, one nation, there would be no need for individual state (as in nation-state) governments and bureaucracies; the federal government would simply administer everything. It is within our charter as sovereign states the ability to withdraw from the Union. Don't believe the bullshit you were fed in school.
Lincoln was a tyrant and a white supremacist, as can easily be gleaned from his own writings. He would not allow the Southern states to go their own way because that would diminish the power of the federal government, his government. His Emancipation Proclamation was an effort to begin an insurgency within the South as a means to force the CSA military to fight two wars. It remains an effective strategy.
Lincoln had every intention of sending freed slaves back to their land of origin, which the Nation of Islam has been demanding for years, by the way. His intention was to ship them to Liberia failing identification of the land of origin. Lincoln did not want them as slaves, true, but he also did not want them here.
If you want to know the role the South will play in America’s future after democracy reaches end game this Friday or Saturday, I would suggest you read William W. Johnstone’s “Ashes” series. And then prepare to follow Ben Raines!
>Silly rabbit. You brought it up.
I was addressing the assumption you seemed to be making regarding the dependence of race on slave-holding...
>No, don’t worry. I won’t get involved in the thread anymore.
>I am worn out from the Know Nothings on another thread. Just more of the same popping up here.
Ah, now that’s no fun. I was hoping to see the WHY/HOW of your argument.
Not so. The south seceded from the Union. They just wanted to be left alone. Why would they try to force slavery on all the states when slavery was legal, alive and well in the northern states already? Lincoln wanted no part of the slavery issue at the time. He just wanted to keep the Union together. He even stated words to that effect.
Not all southern people owned slaves and not all northern people were against slavery. The liberals have made the war about slavery when it wasn’t. It justt isn’t meant for one man to own another and if left alone, slavery would have collapsed of its own weight.
Good point. But there’s still the problem that there WERE black slave-holders... my point is that slavery is, in itself, a separate issue than ‘race.’ The correlation, however, may be strong or weak; that, however, is a different issue.
No, much better to believe the bullshit you're trying to feed us now.
Lincoln was a tyrant and a white supremacist, as can easily be gleaned from his own writings.
OK, so if being a white supremacist makes Lincoln a bad person then shouldn't that also mean that Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, and any Southern leader you would care to name was also a bad person? Should we not condemn them in equal measure?
Lincoln had every intention of sending freed slaves back to their land of origin, which the Nation of Islam has been demanding for years, by the way.
Let me post a quote for you from a U.S. politician who pre-dated Lincoln by several decades:
"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 recieve them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions."
So what do you have to say about this person, who wanted to free slaves and ship them off to Santo Domingo? Are they an evil, vile, racist in the mold of Abraham Lincoln? Or are you going to let Thomas Jefferson slide on that whole white supremacy thing? That quote was from an 1820 letter of his to Albert Gallatin. So apparently Jefferson didn't want them as slaves, and he sure didn't want them here as well.
Not nearly as many as you all would have us believe. But what I posted is an indication on just how outrageous Southron myths can get to be.
But regardless of whether there were 10 black slaveholders in the pre-rebellion South or 10,000. Free blacks had no rights. They were severely limited as to where they could live, what trade they could practice, or where they could travel. Every Southern state at one time or another had laws prohibiting free blacks from entering, and many debated forced deportation of free blacks within their borders. The fact is that as bad as life was for free blacks up North - and it was pretty grim, no doubt about it - it was as bad if not worse down South.
>Firing upon U.S. soldiers defending land that was, and hopefully always will be, sovereign U.S. territory - does not display Conservative value, nor a family value, nor Christian value, and certainly not patriotic value.
You’re conveniently forgetting Lexington/Concord, where British Citizens fired upon British Soldiers. {Though, to be fair, it is unknown who fired the first shot.}
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.