Posted on 01/13/2017 8:14:54 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
On the first read, that sentence does not even make sense to me. I'm going to have to parse it apart to figure out what you are attempting to say. Perhaps you could simply put your point into a clearer form?
By the way, if it is of any interest to you, the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession was unconstitutional their 1869 ruling in Texas v. White.
No, I don't care too much about Supreme Court rulings made by picked judges from one side of an issue. Maybe they have employed good reasoning in their decision, but from observation I can tell that decisions are usually based on the political preferences of the judges involved, and not so much on actual facts.
You must be a Democrat. Your reading comprehension and pro-slavery attitudes are surely proof positive.
“No, I don’t care too much about Supreme Court rulings made by picked judges from one side of an issue.”
Spoken just like every Democrat pinhead in 2000! You are a donkey aren’t you?
Resorting to personal attacks against your debate opponent? My reading comprehension is just fine, but you didn't write anything that made any sense. Perhaps you had implied assumptions which I do not share?
And no, i'm not pro-slavery, as a matter of fact, that's what I am fighting now; The idea that someone else can be your master and keep chains upon you.
You know, like Washington D.C. has been doing since 1861.
The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition by Willmoore Kendall and George Carey.
More significantly, its arguments challenged core tenets of what had become received wisdom concerning the roots of our political beliefs and institutions. Willmoore Kendall and George W. Carey argue that a new, largely contrived political tradition has gained currency in many legal, academic, and political circles. This new tradition, set forth by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, holds that our fundamental political ideas are derived from the Bill of Rights and the "all men are created equal" clause of the Declaration of Independence. Proponents of this view not only champion individual rights but also believe that the achievement of a broadly defined equality represents a binding but as yet unfulfilled promise made by the American people in the Declaration...In the present work, Kendall and Carey instead maintain that one must look to the founding era and its key documents in order to understand our indigenous political tradition. In so doing, one sees that the right of the people to govern themselves, rather than the concept of individual rights, is at the heart of the American political tradition.
Kendall and Carey argue, citing America's seminal political documents, that Lincoln changed the fundamental focus of the American experience, and we are paying the price for that change unto this day.
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Symbols-American-Political-Tradition/dp/0813208262
What sort of funny conservative are you who believes we should simply accept Supreme Court decisions?
Most conservatives i've known all my life oppose Abortion and "Gay" marriage, as well as a whole host of other horribly bad Supreme Court decisions.
I will point out that virtually all of the horribly bad Supreme Court decisions which bedevil us nowadays are the consequence of the 14th amendment, which itself is the consequence of that same civil war.
The 14th amendment has become the liberal's favorite go-to tool to hammer the rest of us into accepting horribly bad judicial rulings which overturn existing law.
And you support accepting unconditionally Judicial rulings?
No, I choose political action, not rebellions like the stupid southern democrats who got their asses handed to them.
Don't malign the founders. They did exactly the same thing. The Difference is, Mad King George wasn't insane enough to murder 750,000 people to force his rule on the 13 states who broke away from him.
He stopped after 15,000 men were killed.
One would have thought that after the new United States declared independence was an absolute and God given right, there would have been no further debate on the subject, but four score and seven years later, they seemed to have forgotten the justification for their own founding.
The confederates exercised their God given right to rebellion, and got what was coming to them. When you name the tune, you’d better be ready to dance.
God given right to independence. Rebellion is only necessary when someone doesn't recognize that you have the right to leave.
And no, the Confederates did not invade the North. The North invaded them. The belligerents were always controlled from Washington D.C.
When you name the tune, you’d better be ready to dance.
Apparently Lincoln was willing to pay 750,000 lives to maintain control over states that didn't want his rule. Problem was, they weren't his lives to throw away.
“Rebellion is only necessary when someone doesn’t recognize that you have the right to leave.”
Hey if it was good enough for Georgre Washington, it was good enough for Jeff Davis. I suppose you support Nat Turner and Newt Knight too.
“And no, the Confederates did not invade the North.”
Never said they did, though there were some folks in Pennsylvania around 1863 who might have argued differently. Secesh did fire the first shot though. Too bad those fine Southern gentlemen were too dumb to try the courts first. I mean they had those “hand picked” judges you mentioned. Like with the Dred Scott decision. The South controlled the court. But no, they had to get all uppity and peacock about.
“Apparently Lincoln was willing to pay 750,000 lives to maintain control over states that didn’t want his rule.”
“The South is invaded. It is time for all patriots to be united, to be under military organization, to be advancing to the conflict determined to live or die in defence of the God given right to own the African”
Richard Thompson Archer, in a letter to the Vicksburg Sun, Dec. 8, 1859.
Old Abe gave farmer Archer his God given rights, good and hard, that’s all.
Murdering women and children? Because we all know, those people were a great threat to his independence.
I would also note a distinct difference between a collection of states such as the 13 colonies or the 11 confederate states (with populations totaling around 5 million people) and a few hundred dissidents.
Never said they did, though there were some folks in Pennsylvania around 1863 who might have argued differently.
1863? You mean after numerous invasions of the South by the North? This is like saying "That guy punched me" after you had been punching him over and over again. "Yeah, he did finally punch you back."
Secesh did fire the first shot though.
When you are about to be caught between the guns of a Naval force and the guns of a fortress, your only chance of surviving the encounter is to take out one set of guns before the others can be brought to bear against you.
When word had reached Beauregard that another ship had joined the Naval Task Force assembled off the coast of Charleston, he knew he had better stop the fortress guns or he would be caught between the two forces and destroyed.
Had Lincoln not sent that Naval Task force (and in direct violation of the existing armistice) the Fort would not have been attacked. Confederate telegrams of the period indicate that it was precisely because those Navy warships showed up, that the fort had to be neutralized.
Old Abe gave farmer Archer his God given rights, good and hard, that’s all.
“The South is invaded. It is time for all patriots to be united, to be under military organization, to be advancing to the conflict determined to live or die in defence of the God given right to own the African”
-Richard Thompson Archer- (A nobody)
Except you are dishonestly leaving out the fact that Lincoln planned for them to keep owning Africans. How about a little truth for a change? The Liberal Lawyer from Illinois kept telling them "If you like your slavery, you can keep your slavery."
He even supported the effort to create the 13th amendment, (Corwin Amendment) which was to guarantee that slavery would be constitutionally protected permanently.
The truth indicates that the Union reasons for invading had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with controlling that Huge amount of money the South produced every year in European trade.
The fact that Lincoln didn’t want to end slavery shows just how stupid nineteenth century Southrons were.
To the contrary, it shows how dishonest the Northern history revisionists have been. The South had very good reasons for wanting to leave. The North, specifically New York, was siphoning off 40% of all the revenue the South earned by shipping their products to Europe.
In addition to that, the Union was maintaining artificially high prices for products manufactured in the North which were to be sold to the South.
Simply by leaving the Union, the South would have seen a massive growth in it's economic enrichment, and newly capitalized industries would have then competed directly with Northern Industries, and likely put them out of business.
The real reason for the war is the Power Barons of Northern industry had enough influence in the Lincoln government so that they could use the government to prevent the losses of money they would have suffered had the South been allowed to become independent and set up competing industries.
You may not understand this, but 3/4ths of the Money created by European trade were from Southern origin products.
Southern independence represented a horrible financial loss for the titans of Northern industry, and most especially for those in New York. Had the South been able to maintain independence, Charleston South Carolina would have become the financial center of this continent, instead of New York.
New York became wealthy primarily as a result of US governmental policies which favored it. Without the government enforcing those policies, Charleston would have became what New York is now. A center of wealth and power.
You really don't want to learn any history contrary to the narrative you have been taught, do you?
Apparently they did realize the Union was screwing them economically.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.
They knew what was going on, but the Union propaganda effort to smear the entire conflict as being solely about slavery has covered up the reality of what happened. The war was about money. Millions taken away from the South, and used to enrich the power blocks of the North.
The Union went to war to keep that money flowing into the Robber Baron pockets of it's masters, and when they realized they couldn't get that money back, they decided to destroy the finances of the South to prevent them from ever being an economic threat to the North.
It was an economic war, with the wealthy New York Industrialists being the beneficiaries of it. We are still being controlled out of New York, but I bet you haven't figured that out yet.
The business of using government to force others to conform began well before the Civil War - government was used by one group of slaveholders to reinforce their power over the slaves, even over other slaveholders, to prevent them from teaching slaves to read.
See : http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/education/docs1.html
This wasn’t merely denying slaves education, just as Democrats do today to keep blacks on the plantation...it of course also had the effect of denying some slaves religious liberty by barring them from reading the full Bible for themselves, unfiltered.
What is more, they also brought on the Civil War by imposing their immorality on non slave holders in states to the north, forcing them and their officials to catch and return escaped slaves to their masters.
And all this before Lincoln.
You aren't going to like what I am about to tell you, but those northern states agreed to that morality when they ratified the US Constitution.
Article IV, Section 2 makes it a requirement to return slaves to their owners.
Now a lot of people don't realize that clause is in there, but it is, and if the Northern states didn't want to abide by that requirement, they shouldn't have agreed to it.
If the Northern states insisted on reneging on the contract, they should have just separated from the Southern States, and let things go back to the way they were before 1789.
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.