Posted on 01/17/2006 9:16:08 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
You clearly have no understanding of the way law worked in the early years of this nation. The fact of the matter is that under English law, the Crown is the source of all authority, and if you look more carefully than you have, you can easily discover that all of the boundaries of the colonies of the day were decreed and established by Royal charter, sometimes more clearly than others. New York was first settled by the Dutch, but they made payments to the Crown of England in order to be allowed to live there. When they stopped making payments, England took the land back by force.
You are probably not aware of this, but the Potomac River belongs entirely to the state of Maryland due to a treaty signed with Royal involvement in the (if my memory is correct) mid-1500's. This treaty is still in effect today, as the authority under which it was enacted is still valid.
I highly recommend you look into some contemporary books on the subject of Royal legislation. I'll see if I can post some citations from the books I have, but I may be constrained by time in doing so.
Always a pleasure to continue our discussion, good Sir. The ability to have reasoned discourse, even amongst those who disagree, is definitely one of the greatest benefits of this board.
Law as we know it cannot come from an arbitrary imposition and the Founders never accepted such either. That was precisely why the Revolution occurred because we had no input over the taxation imposed on the colonies. Those used to accepting arbitrary imposition saw no problem but our forefathers did.
As I said I have seen nothing which states that the Dutch paid the English bupkuss. English claims were ignored by the Dutch until war (not begun over that issue) brought NY under English control.
Any treaty regarding the Potomac could not have come from the 1500s since the first English colonies were established in the 1600s. Nor would any such treaty be valid unless US authority validated it. Since D.C. is on the Potomac and Maryland ceded part of the District to the feds that portion would not be under Maryland possession in any case.
I posted one from Lincoln showing his long held belief that blacks were entitled to all the rights our founding fathers laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was saying this before Taney ruled in Dred Scott that the black man had no rights a white man was bound to respect and after that decision as well. I'm at a loss to name a single southern leader who believed the same, including Lee.
Lee's opposition to slavery has to be classified as tepid at best. In the very letter you quoted from he goes on to state that slavery is preparing the slave for better things, to come some time far in the future. Lee opposes the idea of any government action to end slavery, preferring to rely on prayer. He is analogous to the person today who says that they are against abortion but who oppose any overturning of Roe v Wade or any restrictions on a woman's right to choose. They may believe that they are opposed to abortion but would you?
South never wished to destroy the north....just to be free from it.
Difference tween me and you and your PC-Con ilk is that race is not an end all
i don't view slavery as the worst thing ever....not really....and everyone can claim to have ancestors that have been enslaved
i lived in west africa......it has proven to be a blessing for descendents here in the US....imperfect as that may be.
The Founders accepted established law as it was - Many of the laws passed by the royal governors and the legislature carried over into the Constitutional era (1775 and onward), where the states drafted and enacted their own constitutions. Part of the downside of the "democratic" education that's being instilled on us today in our schools, is the loss of the notion of "supremacy." We, as Americans, don't understand the concept of living under a King, but the fact of the matter was, in ancient England, the King's authority was absolute, and his subjects understood and accepted that. (The French had a revolution in which they overthrew royalty completely - needless to say, it did not work out as well as ours did.)
You're absolutely correct about the 1500's - My apologies for that mistake. The original charter which granted the waters of the Potomac to Maryland is the Charter of Maryland (1632). A dispute between the states led to another agreement to be drawn up (on Mount Vernon, if memory serves) in 1785, which is the final answer on the boundaries, to this day.
The entire Eastern seaboard from roughly South Carolina through the northen border of Maine was considered "Virginia" initially - The Plymouth settlers were intended to be placed on English land within the Virginia boundaries, for instance, though they landed farther north than they intended.
For a brief book on Colonial history, I highly recommend "Colonial Virginia," by William Broaddus Cridlin (1923). Here're some citations that explain what I'm talking about, with respect to the boundaries and duties paid in the colonies:
"With only 105 members in the Colony, its territory extended from the thirty-fourth to the forty-fifth parallel, corresponding to the southern border of North Carolina and the southern line of Nova Scotia." (pg 28)
"Any settlement made within the jurisdiction of the Colonies would be required to pay five in every hundred of value in such wares as they should 'traffick, buy or sell.' It was under this provision in 1613, that Henrick Corstraensen and his Dutch companions, in their trading camp on Manhattan Island, paid taxes to the Governor of Virginia in acknowledgement of Virginia's sovereignty." (pp 28-29)
"It was at this time that Edwin Sandys, of whom mention was made in the last chapter as being such a great friend to the Virginia Colony, conceived the idea of planting a colony within the northern part of the Virginia (London) company grant." (p 94)
Here is an excellent website which goes into more detail regarding the charters and treaties which drew the borders of the Commonwealth of Virginia: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/boundaryk.html Check it out - This stuff is much more fascinating that you'd ever think. You're robbing yourself of quite a bit of history by thinking that the states are arbitrary creations of a federal "Union" of some sort. Our history is much richer than that!
Alright, I'll give that to you. I do think that, if one were to look hard enough, it would be possible to find pro-equality sentiments expressed in the south, from the antebellum period through Reconstruction. Heck, the Commonwealth of Virginia even has documented cases of black landowners as early as the 1650's, if my memory is correct.
I do think that it's deceptive to lump all Southerners of the era into one position: humanity does not tend to be that simplistic, unless one does not intend to honestly look at history. (Besides, I could always retort by saying that all Yankees are busybodies that like to move into Conservative states and vote higher taxes on the rest of us, but that wouldn't be a fair characterization, now would it?)
Lee's opposition to slavery has to be classified as tepid at best. In the very letter you quoted from he goes on to state that slavery is preparing the slave for better things, to come some time far in the future. Lee opposes the idea of any government action to end slavery, preferring to rely on prayer. He is analogous to the person today who says that they are against abortion but who oppose any overturning of Roe v Wade or any restrictions on a woman's right to choose. They may believe that they are opposed to abortion but would you?
Yes, you are correct in that he did not argue for their equality, but for a man in his position, this was still a rather dramatic thing for him to say. (I haven't been able to dig up any quotes, but Thomas Jackson has a reputation as being more eglatarian towards slaves. I'll keep digging as I get a chance.)
I would dispute that it was all that dramatic. He was mildly condemning slavery, he wasn't turning abolitionist or anything.
(I haven't been able to dig up any quotes, but Thomas Jackson has a reputation as being more eglatarian towards slaves. I'll keep digging as I get a chance.)
Good luck. Thomas Jackson was so opposed to slavery that he owned half a dozen of them himself.
Recall your comments? "You know why I didn't comment on it? Because I don't lower myself to "feelings" and "emotions." It did not bring a tear to my eye. I did not feel sad in the least in seeing it. "
"I would be delighted to post pre-2000 pictures of the Klan with the battle flag..I found that there were no such pictures to be found."
Maybe some night classes on research would be of assistance? New glasses might do the trick or less of a 'lost cause' mentality.
I always get a chuckle when I see one of you Southern boys try to adopt Ronald Reagan as yer own kind. Ronald Reagan was never a Southerner. He lived in Illinois and California, but never the South. Furthermore he repsected President Lincoln, unlike most so-called southern regional bigots conservatives.
I also believe yer taking a cheap shot at Jerry Ford, and in the process revealing a certain level of political ignorance [or amnesia] regarding the voting history of the Southern people. Just take a look at the 1976 electoral map if you need a refresher in the role the old Confedracy played in the election of Jimmy Carter.
-btw Red=Democrat.
Look below, is this what Ronald Reagan envisioned for the future of America?
"Is this a beautiful sight? We can long for the day that our skies will be full of such birds when the Confederate States Air Force establishes air supremacy over our free Southern skies. Think big and bold. This is the militia we can have; the State National Guard units of ten or fifteen Southern States who re-affirm their Statehood in the Confederate States of America. This is obtainable politically in the State legislatures, but will require legal political action and patience. But, our States must be coordinated in a loose Confederation and not as independent anarchist States."
From the link:
Firstly, most Confederates barely survive and don't have much extra money and when they do have a little excess they fall into the old trap of "allowing their expenses will rise to exceed their income." They begin the endless lure of satisfying their wants rather than being satisfied by securing their basic needs.
Secondly, most Confederates dream of the past, but work and live in the present.
"Those few who hope to see their families live under Free Southern Skies are among the 300 we are trying to enlist and train. We call these the Gideon 300."
"These are the men who will take the time and boldness to be a County Chairman of the SIP of Texas or of the other 13-18 States we are currently organizing Southern Independence Parties (SIP's)."
"Really, that only amounts to 17- 23 key men or women per State. Yet, that produces the necessary grass roots nucleus around which party machinery can effectively be developed."
The problem a lot of you guys have is that you're like Jerry Ford. A nice guy who's too nice to understand the wickedness of liberals. So you'd just as soon compromise with them as fight them. You can't imagine that liberals would ever try to eliminate the American Flag, or eradicate the memory of Washington & Madison, or repeal the Bill of Rights. Since they aren't doing much of that stuff right now (at least not overtly) you assume that they'd never do it. In your world, liberals are just decent, patriotic folks who happen to honestly disagree with us on a few things. So why not compromise with them, especially on issues where the media will praise us for doing so? Such as the Confederate Flag issue, or the Equal Rights Amendment (feminist power grab Ford championed as president).
If in 1960 you had had a crystal ball and could have forseen what liberals would be supporting a relatively short time in the future, no one would have believed you. They'd have thought you were an "extremist", a Goldwater type Republican as opposed to the more "mainstream" Rockefeller. Imagine trying to tell people in 1960 that the left would soon be supporting abortion on demand, even peddling it to kids without parental knowledge or consent. That they'd be kicking voluntary prayer from the schools and ripping down Nativity Scenes. That they'd be pushing a homosexual agenda, which would develop over time into demands for gay "marriage", and for kids to be taught homosexual acts in school. That they would not only advocate leaving our border unguarded, but would insist that all illegal aliens have a right to welfare subsidies, in-state college tuition, and other benefits. That they be pushing for racial quotas. That they'd disqualify judicial nominees for belonging to a men's hunting lodge or failing to expose their kids to overt homosexuality. That they'd do everything in their power during war time to dishearten and smear our troops.
No one would have believed you. They'd have been like you. Blind and asleep.
But they'd have at least had some excuse, because the left hadn't yet gone completely off the deep end in 1960. Today, we have a long track record to look at, showing how the left works in increments. A little change in one thing is used as precedent for another, then another.....and pretty soon we have a revolutionary change, even though the left never said anything about such a change when the original, seemingly tame change was requested.
The left WILL eventually demand that the Bill of Rights be suspended, that our Founding Fathers be declared evil and reprehensible, and that Old Glory be retired. The precedents they're setting in their battle against Confederate symbols are an opening skirmish. The regard you as an enabler, a dupe, someone to roll over with a smirk.
As for your electoral map, nice try. I'm old enough to remember that campaign. Ford had spent his two years in the White House being a "moderate" Republican. That's why Reagan challenged him in the primaries. Carter came out of nowhere, calling himself a devout Christian and a new kind of Democrat. He fooled a lot of people, moved to the right of Ford, and carried the South. The final blow to Ford's campaign was a gaffe he made in a debate, where he said Poland wasn't under Soviet domination. It was an honest mistake, he was trying to say something else and it came out wrong, but Carter pounced on it, denounced Soviet control of Eastern Europe and won the round. He sounded more conservative than Ford and won the race.
In contrast, Reagan was always a favorite in Dixie. And he never bashed Dixie.
The 1976 election shows what happens to the Republicans when they don't see liberals as what they really are, and play into their hands, as Ford did by pushing the ERA, sending his feminist wife out to speak in favor of abortion, and so on.
I should also have mentioned that Jerry Ford to this day thinks John Paul Stevens is a great Supreme Court justice. Ford's a nice guy, but it would be a disaster for the GOP to follow his recommendations.
And you have yet to reply to my original query. Guess that makes you the one that's playing fast-and-loose with the facts.
(Oh, and "neo-confederate" doesn't even come close to describing my point of view - Not that your name-calling bothers me. You are more than welcome to call me whatever the heck you want - It's not like you have anything to back your name-calling up with.)
Of course not - I never suggested anything of the sort.
Good luck. Thomas Jackson was so opposed to slavery that he owned half a dozen of them himself.
As I said, I am merely aware that he had a reputation of being kind towards slaves. Unfortunately, he was killed before he was able to, from a civilian's vantage point, be able to write any memoirs, so a direct quote of his would obviously not be likely. I'll see if I can dig up any books written by his aides-de-camp; perhaps, if any such books exist, they will be informative of how he thought in his private time between battles.
You want a reply?
How's this? With all the important issues confronting America by hordes of Middle-Eastern psychopathic terrorists, do you believe anyone really gives a f@@@ about anything a pack of ignorant schmucks say about demanding to re-fight the American Civil War in 2006? Seriously, give the 'lost cause' a rest. :)
He didn't but his widow did, and she paints a picture of a man mildly troubled by slavery, but apparently not troubled enough to set his own slaves free. Perhaps more telling is a quote from Jackson himself in a letter concerning his half-brother, Wirt Woodson. Jackson was apparently very protective of the much younger man and in discussing his future Jackson wrote, "I do not want him [Wirt] to go to a free state if it can be avoided, for he would probably become an abolitionist; and then in the even of trouble between North and South he would stand on one side and we on the other." So not only did Jackson believe that trouble would come over the abolition of slavery he had no doubt where he would stand on the issue. Obviously to him slavery was worth fighting for.
We southerners are not the ones refighting the Civil War. We accepted our defeat and have been LOYAL AMERICANS. We've volunteered for service in great numbers, probably greater than the hardcore abolitionist states such as Massachusetts, in the century-and-a-half since. We've backed our troops in war when some other regions of the country were hosting flag burners. While ROTC buildings were being firebombed up north, they remained a place of honor on Dixie campuses.
We've voted conservative and are really now the only block to America becoming like France or Sweden. With two population centers (Urban Northeast and the Pacific Coast) now left-leaning, only Dixie and the heartland/Rocky Mountain states keep the country secure, and the latter group of states has comparatively little electoral clout.
All we wish is to be able to honor our ancestors and the symbols of their fight to preserve state sovereignty and the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Yes, we'll be fighting to keep Jefferson's name alive when the left has moved on to demand that the name of this "rich, white, heterosexist, slaveowning male" be stricken from memory.
We were just minding our own business and supporting America when one day about 12 years ago the left said, "Hey, let's remove the flag from those Confederate soldiers' graves", or "Hey, let's forbid Dixie logos on school kids' clothes, even though we allow Malcolm X and Che Guevarra."
And some of you guys here decided to join the left in their crusade.
I respectfully suggest that you let it rest and leave us alone to peacefully honor the symbols of our ancestors. A couple of years ago the voters of Mississippi voted by a wide margin to retain the CBF as part of their state flag. Governors in both South Carolina and Georgia got booted from office for messing with the flag. Obviously the Rebel Flag means something to many of us. And we're the same voters who keep the south Republican, and thus keep America conservative because the former abolitionist states prefer the likes of John Kerry and Howard Dean.
Exactly how does our wish to honor our Confederate ancestors hurt you, hurt America, or hurt the war on terror? All you're accomplishing with this crusade of yours is the disheartening of the very people the nation needs to fight the terrorists.
Ask the real traitors what they think of the Rebel Flag. Take a Rebel Flag over to MoveOn or Code Pink headquarters and watch them spit on it. That should clue you in as to why the left wants the flag banned, and why you guys are dupes for going along with them.
Here's an interesting example of the effects of left-wing incrementalism.
Before General Robert E. Lee died, he filed papers requesting that his U.S. citizenship be restored. Those papers were somehow lost and not discovered until the 1970's when a clerk stumbled upon them in the National Archives. The discovery of these papers triggered a wave of nostalgia about General Lee. You see, once the furor of the Civil War died down, most Americans saw the war for what it was: A war between two groups of patriots. One side believed so strongly in America's founding principles of state sovereignty that they were willing to fight for it. The other side believed so strongly in preserving the Union that they were willing to fight for it.
For a century southerners had waved the Rebel Flag and honored our Confederate ancestors with no one interpreting it as treason or hate. Everyone knew that southerners were among the most patriotic Americans, and among the least likely to support treasonous activity. When protests erupted against the U.S. military, southerners were the most likely to be angry about it.
This was the general attitude in 1975. Conservatives and moderates respected the Confederacy and its symbols, though certainly many were happy the Union had been preserved. Even most liberals saw no political mileage in opposing Dixie's heroes and trademarks.
So on 7/22/75, the United States House of Representatives voted 407-10 to restore General Lee's U.S. citizenship. You may be wondering who the ten were who voted "No".
Here they are:
George Miller. A far left Bay Area Democrat from California who is still in Congress today. Having gotten his start in politics as an anti-war activist, he continues his work today by opposing the War on Terror and denouncing President Bush.
Ronald Dellums. A Marxist pro-VietCong leftist from Berkeley. He spent his years in Congress trying to gut the U.S. military while supporting Castro and other enemies of America. His district is now represented by Barbara Lee, the anti-war radical.
Pete Stark. Another hysterical nutcase left-winger from the Bay Area. He's still in Congress. You may remember him from a couple of years ago when he threw a tantrum during a committee hearing over alleged dictatorial Republican behavior.
Gus Hawkins. Not well remembered today, but he was a leftist Democrat from Los Angeles. His district is now held by Maxine Waters.
John Conyers. Yep, the same Conyers from Michigan who wants to impeach President Bush and who has appeared in Michael Moore's films claiming all kinds of imaginary right-wing conspiracies.
Bob Carr. Long gone from Congress and not well remembered, but he was a hardcore leftist Michigan Democrat.
Bella Abzug. Yes, the same Bella Abzug who supported the VietCong, the Khmer Rouge, and who ran around with Jane Fonda. She's also noted for her feminist activities, particularly pimping for abortion.
Elizabeth Holtzman. Leftist anti-war, pro-Castro, anti-U.S. Military feminist congresswoman from New York.
James Scheuer. Leftist Democrat from New York City. After he retired, guess who won his House seat? Chuck Schumer!
James Jeffords. Yes, the ONLY Republican to vote against General Lee was congressman (future Senator) Jeffrods of Vermont. A leftist Republican whose biggest claim to fame is being the traitor who briefly handed the Senate to the Democrats in 2001.
Interesting list, huh? But here's what's really of concern to me. What if General Lee's papers hadn't been found in 1975. What if they were found today? In 1975, the Democrats controlled Congress by a wide margin, but they still voted to restore General Lee's citizenship. Political Correctness hadn't developed so far back then. Nor were the Democrats as routinely kooky.
Today the Republicans control Congress, but I guarantee it would take a huge fight to get a bill restoring General Lee's citizenship passed. The views of the ten raving loons who voted "no" in 1975 are today the unanimous view of the Democratic Party, and about a third of Republicans, including Freepers.
I would hope you are not since that nonsense is relegated to the crackpots in the backward neo-confederate movement, since the majority of Americans born & residing in the South live in the realities of the hear and now, not the numerous defeats of the past 150 years.
"...hardcore abolitionist states such as Massachusetts..."
Any problem with the abolition of slavery?
All states including southern states produced citizens apposed to slavery, unlike the breakaway Confederate insurrectionist leadership.
"We were just minding our own business..." as in the Jim Crow era, just minding your own business...
Members in the "League of the South" & other interlinked 'lost cause' groups seem to display another publicly stated agenda for the future of America (even though our country is currently engaged in fighting a war against sworn enemies).
Re: The South would be better off if it were an independent (Score: 1) by JohnSloan on Sep 21, 2005 - 12:28 AM "South Carolina would be better off if it were an independent country with perhaps some supportive aggreements with our sister southern states."
"By signing this petition and leaving your comments, you will be voicing your support for the South's right--then and now--to secede from the current regime and to form its own government or governments as free men and women. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this poll."
They say they are not free in America - how interesting. Maybe they would find more freedom in another nation?
"We cannot emphasize too often or too strongly that the League is a Southern nationalist organization and not a heritage defense group. Our goal is Southern independence, complete, full, and total. This is our chief principle of action."
What do you feel they mean by "our chief principle of action"
Here is another example of a serious self induced political illness.
"The South is now ruled by an alien class and ideology that are completely hostile to our historic way of life. Our values, mores, and ethics are mocked. Our people have become nothing more than voters in rigged and meaningless four-year election cycles; consumers of foreign-made trinkets and poisoned food products; cannon fodder for the empire’s aggressive foreign military campaigns." Deo Vindice. Resurgam. President Michael Hill Killen, Alabama
Which home did this guy escape from?
With those insane quoted comments I rest my case concerning today's unstable neo-confederates.
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.