Posted on 02/12/2011 6:06:39 AM PST by Notary Sojac
Go look at a copy of the confederate constitution...better yet, let me save you the trouble:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]
The only thing the confederacy sought to escape was responsibility. They created a virtual carbon copy of the US Constitution - with one singular exception - they inserted language memorializing the perpetual ownership of other human beings. At a time when the civilized world was rejecting slavery the south sought to perpetuate and expand the activity.
As for defending itself, it should have thought of that before it initiated the hostilities.
Fine, then it shouldn't have been too much trouble to cite in the first place.
Remember, we've seen Wlat and capitan_refugio's "quoting" style before.
[You, dissembling] Says Foghorn Leghorn, who always gets lost in his own ranting rhetoric.
I notice that you forgot to deny the charge, that you use "slavery" as a bludgeon just like the Abolitionists did, i.e. dishonestly, and patently so since there is no slavery in the United States, and yet you continually try to attach it to people who disagree with you and object to your sectionalist diatribes.
As for my posts, please show me an example of a "ranting rhetoric" that your fevered imagination tells you I posted.
[Me] You throw the word "slaver" around as if you thought it had a Velcro backing.
[You, dissembling some more] I don't recall every having used the word "slaver." Not my style.
Oh, you don't? "I ..... forgot!!" </Steve Martin>
And yet you continue to use slavery as a moral club, as if simply writing "slavery" transmutes dross into gold, and falsifies everything other people tell you about American history. Used in that way, it becomes an ad hominem argument, and you use it to blackguard people living and dead who never owned a slave.
[Thee] Perhaps not initially, but we do know that the south's war was to perpetuate and expand the institution of slavery.
Actually, no. The South attempted to do that from 1850 until the election of Lincoln. Then the Southern States left the Union, abandoning (as far as I can tell) the Territories whose slavery status had been in dispute. As far as I can tell, only Missouri and New Mexico were fought-over by the Confederacy. They made a weak attempt to organize a Confederate territorial government in Arizona but failed. Missouri had been a slave State, but its government was removed by Abraham Lincoln through surrogates mounting a coup d'etat in the name of "loyalty to the Union" (as if Missouri owed that, when Missouri was being maltreated along with the rest of the Southern States) and turned into a battlefield.
Southerners wanted the same rights everyone else had, to migrate west and take their property, their slaves, with them. Whereas Lincoln wanted the Territories for his constituents, exclusively. Not only did Lincoln and the other Free Soil enthusiasts not want slaves in the Territories, but they didn't want Southerners either -- because Southerners didn't have their mahnds raaht on the subject of slavery, and might vote wrong if the matter were put to a vote under "popular sovereignty" doctrines.
That's what the Jayhawkers and Potawatomie Creek were about. The Free Soilers and John Brown didn't kill slaves, they killed Southerners.
As the saying goes, "There it is."
Actually yes. Any attempt to imply that the south abandoned the territories is blatantly dishonest. Their efforts or desires for expansion didn't fail for lack of trying.
Arizona: There wasn't a "weak attempt" at seizing Arizona. Once Texas turned Arizona was left to its own devices and soon sided with the rebels. Significant portions of (populated) Arizona considered itself part of the confederacy until the end of the war.
New Mexico: In July 23, 1861 the rebs invaded New Mexico and seized control. They lasted a year.
Kansas: We all know of the conflicts in Kansas. Those conflicts ran the course of the war.
California: The confederacy had aspirations of conquest of California and for a short while saw the gateway states of Arizona and New Mexico as stepping stones towards that goal. The fact is that there were skirmishes between loyalists and secessionists in every part of the country and the territories throughout the war.
Shall I go on?
Southerners wanted the same rights everyone else had, to migrate west and take their property, their slaves, with them. Whereas Lincoln wanted the Territories for his constituents, exclusively. Not only did Lincoln and the other Free Soil enthusiasts not want slaves in the Territories, but they didn't want Southerners either -- because Southerners didn't have their mahnds raaht on the subject of slavery, and might vote wrong if the matter were put to a vote under "popular sovereignty" doctrines.
As the saying goes, "What a crock."
This is what people get for being halfway polite to you. Let you in the house, you promptly take a dump on the rug.
Your statement is false on its face. And even if you were, by some miracle of forensics, to show that the South did not abandon Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, the Dakotas, and everything north and west of them, you would still be light-years from showing dishonesty in the argument of an interlocutor who disagreed with you. What swinishness.
There wasn't a "weak attempt" at seizing Arizona.
Oh, really? How many brigades did Jeff Davis devote to that enterprise? On the other hand, federal troops from California were soon in evidence, and the Texans disappeared back east.
New Mexico: .....
If you had read my post for comprehension, you would have noticed that I excepted New Mexico from my generalization.
Kansas: We all know of the conflicts in Kansas.
You post as if you didn't. Guerrilla warfare is not an attempt to exert military and civil control. The South was never in a position to exert control, and did not attempt it. Vendetta and low-intensity conflict was all that Kansas saw. Pennsylvania saw three full-sized corps on its territory, and yet nobody asserts that Lee ever tried to wrest Pennsylvania from the Union. Post like you know the difference between fact and polemic.
Shall I go on?
Not like that. You're embarrassing me, and here I thought I didn't care. Just quit while you're behind. This is .... sad.
Pardon us for not being familiar with Guelzo; I had to look him up in Wiki and the W.E.B. DuBois Institute at Harvard, where Guelzo has a vita posted (why, I'm not sure, I couldn't see him listed as a Fellow, although he'd studied at Harvard). So granted that Guelzo, as the holder of an endowed chair (named for Henry Luce) at Gettysburg College, has chops and awards as a writer, it's still true that he writes down one side of the page, as a Unionist memorializer of Lincoln and his athloi on behalf of the proprietors of the Gilded Age.
It would have been nice, though, if Guelzo, knowing that National Review doesn't footnote, had provided a little context for some of his quotes -- although that might have been difficult, given his extensive use of them.
That all said, Guelzo's claims that Lincoln was an antisocialist and that the National Democracy was the forerunner, the spiritual cradle, of today's neo-Stalinists, are novel to say the least. One senses a stretch in pursuit of a cribbed point here, and so it'll have to be argued out.
One notices, too, that Guelzo confines his discussion of Lincoln's economic ideas to the sphere of books and public legislation, and does not show how it's of a piece with Lincoln's toleration and even fostering of access-capitalists and war profiteers like Ben Butler who were involved in the clandestine cotton trade through the front lines and the business of buying up confiscated Confederate properties that Lincoln taxed precisely so they could be confiscated -- demanding in his legislation that the taxes be paid in person, even by serving Confederate officers. Which doesn't exactly strike me as the kind of classical economic liberalism Ayn Rand would endorse.
YAWN. So says the boss hog.
Actually weather Lincoln intended to free the slaves or not was mute once the south seceded, they choose the path for freeing the slaves, they decided Mr. Lincoln would have to do it by force of arms rather than in Congress.
“...the south seceded, they choose the path for freeing the slaves...”
-
Oh, so it was the south that freed the slaves?
That’s some pretty twisted thinking right there.
(Yes, that was sarcasm.)
The results were the same, one way or another Lincoln was going to end slavery, it was the south that decided the path would be through bloodshed and rebellion.
It was the south that decided the course they would take,
they decided to secede,
they decided to capture all the federal guns and ammo they could laid their hands on
they decided to attack Fort Sumpter,
the south decided the cost of slavery was worth a war instead of a political defeat in the halls of congress.
Lincoln had them by the political short hairs and they knew it.
Hey Foghorn:
When it comes to making up sh!t about the conflict between North and South, you are the reigning lightweight champion.
Quotes and links available on request.
Please cite just one example on FR of the acceptability or tolerance of slavery. Just one.
Now, do you agree with me that this is acceptance of slavery? I personally think this is not only acceptance, but borders on endorsement, particularly taking into account that the slave system was becoming increasingly more, not less, repressive in the 1850's.
If you don't agree, then we can have that discussion right here in this thread.
If you do agree, then I can find those threads, but knowing the FR search system, don't expect it to happen within the next few hours.
A great essay.
This country was partially built on slave economics, both north and South. What you yankees have tried to do is hide your willing and profitable participation in slavery through historical revisionism. Slavery in the North
The Confederates not only wanted to repeal the 10th Amendment but they wanted to repeal the entire Constitution.
The South responded to Constitutional violations and intended violations by the north and Lincoln's regime. If you want to flap your jaws about repealing the Constitution, look towards Lincoln.
They also continually waged a poitical war against the Constitution that wanted to secede from so long ago.
Would you care to be specific on this point or, like most of you northern hotheads, do you just throw crap against the wall and see what sticks?
From the Confederate democrats to today’s Progressive democrats the legacy of your party has always been the same.
My party? What party would that be?
Rebellion, ‘Slavery economics’, and a complete lack of morality. This is the legacy of the Confederate democrats.
Illegal war, subjugation, slavery economics and a complete lack of morality is an accurate description of you damnyankees.
The Confederate democrats tried to secede fro the Constitution and then Wilson, the Progressive democrat who had the support of Confederates, was the first President to denounce the ideology of the Framers.
Wilson was a product of one of your revered northeast Ivy League schools, the same schools that pump out the rest of your yankee heros such as obama, clinton, kerry, et al.
What you yankee mythologists refuse to acknowledge is that the Lincoln regime was the tip of the socialistic sword. The northeast, along with their wescoast liberal comrades, have been trying to socialize the US for 150 years and the South is the only reason that the northeast isn't a communist dictatorship.
Now there's a reality that'll make a few folks choke.
As my last post demonstrates, it was the Confederacy that set up a socialist state, not the North.
And, as the essayist further explains, the federal budget contracted after the war greatly.
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.