Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/20/01 | Reviewed by Joseph R. Stromberg

Posted on 12/20/2001 4:01:19 AM PST by shuckmaster

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 301-315 next last
To: mafree
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Confederacy had it right on the issue of States' rights. They had the right to secede.

But that was not my point of contention. I think I laid that out specifically.

But, again, I'm in agreement with you.

81 posted on 12/20/2001 8:46:41 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
And I do agree with your point of contention. Believe me, I don't wish it was 1801 instead of 2001.
82 posted on 12/20/2001 8:53:09 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
Except for those folks who didn't have any personal freedoms because they were owned by the people to whom you are referring?

And what have you missed lil jimmy? For one, the slaves were auctioned off on Wall Street to be sent south. Slave trade is at the root of today's so called Wall Street. So what say ye now?

83 posted on 12/20/2001 9:00:03 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
How interesting it is that walt must resort to appealing to the authority of academics from notoriously left wing institutions of higher learning to "show" that blacks didn't fight for the south. All the while, historical evidence be damned in any case that it conflicts with his attempted annointment of lincoln as the secular saint of equal rights for blacks.
84 posted on 12/20/2001 10:25:44 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Walt's little more than a south-hating one trick poney. I've encountered these types before. They rant and rave to no end about all the supposed "facts" on their side, but more often than not, these "facts" rest entirely on their own self ascribed authority. Logic dictates that that which is asserted without proof may be rejected without proof, thereby rendering the bulk of what Walt says as argument that has been rebuked.

Often times, people like this engage in behavior that is downright absurd. They render themselves impervious to documented facts that do not exist consistently with their agendas and even contradict themselves between sentences as to their positions. When called on it, they run the other way and try to change the subject.

Keep up the good work in frustrating these types. They have only themselves to blame for their own ignorance.

85 posted on 12/20/2001 10:33:05 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
A handful of regiments on the frontier, and still with white officers, no?

Those 4 regiments made up 20% of the cavalry regiments and 8% of the infantry regiments. I hardly think that is a handful. And yes, with rare exceptions the officers were white. I fail to see your point in that. Are you suggesting that the confederate army had black officers?

Would a black man wishing to enlist in the army have been accepted?

Well, yes. The regiments were made entirely of black enlisted and NCOs. They weren't drafted, you know.

86 posted on 12/21/2001 1:13:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
No, they weren't paid for in confederate money and the overwhelming majority of them weren't bought by anyone above the Mason-Dixon line. Without the enthusiastic demand for slaves from southern planters there wouldn't have been any need for the supply, would there?

But go ahead and enlighten me. If my figure is wrong then you tell me how many slaves there were in Massachusetts in 1800, and what is your source for that figure?

87 posted on 12/21/2001 1:17:28 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: billbears
<>LOL!!! You didn't even come up with a new quote.

The old quotes work just fine.

"To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

Walt

88 posted on 12/21/2001 2:51:29 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
In fact, it was the incredible stupidity of the Dems which allowed Lincoln to be elected in the first place.

No, they wanted Lincoln elected because they wanted to split. Look at Lincoln's resume. Not very impressive.

And yet look what he did. Awesome.

Walt

89 posted on 12/21/2001 2:53:47 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
Lets see some documented facts, from the period just before the war or at its immediate start that bolsters any contention that the war was caused solely, or even mostly, to end slavery.

(I cut this out of your post for speed, I know you didn't say it.)

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by theaction of the non-slaveholding States... They have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

--from South Carolina Decl. of Secession

"...[the Northern States] have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purpose are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of thecommon Government, because he has declared that the `Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

--Texas declaration of secession

And here is what Texans thought of the Republican party: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as anegro slave remains in these States."

--Texas Declaration of Secession.

The Mississippi secession convention began their declaration of causes with thestatement, "Our cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of Africanslavery."

Soon to be CSA congressman Lawrence Keitt, speaking in the South Carolina secession convention, said, "Our people have come to this on the question ofslavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am notwilling to divert the public attention from it."

And the slave holders went on and on and on....

The record is clear. The cause was slavery.

The Texas and South Caroliina documents are also riven with factual errors. And yet the neo-confederate hold these bums up as heroes.

Walt

90 posted on 12/21/2001 2:59:56 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Like it or not, that's hypocritical, and I will pull your coat and call you on it each and every time.

hey, hey, HEY!

That's MY line. ;-)

Walt

91 posted on 12/21/2001 3:02:57 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
That is a well written article, articulating the truth.
92 posted on 12/21/2001 3:16:29 AM PST by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Confederacy had it right on the issue of States' rights. They had the right to secede.

That depends on your definition of 'secession'. These neo-confederates want to say that secession was legal and proper under US law, and the record simply doesn't support that. And even if it did, the rebels gloried in being -revolutionary-, of following in the footsteps of the heroes of 1776, which is an argument that would gag a maggot, to use a good old Marine Corps phrase.

If you define 'secession' as departing extralegally for overbearing oppression, then the so-called sceded states had every right to go, as that is revoliution for cause and everyone has a right to revolt, whether it is justified or not.

I don't expect African-Americans to care much about what a bunch of white guys in powered wigs were doing, that is, early US history might not be very compelling. But the Supreme Court made clear that the sovereignty of the whole country rested on the people of the whole country--as early as 1793. There is simply no way it is honorable or legal to wait 70 years and then say you can duck out. Legal secession under our system is a fraud now, it was a fraud in 1793, and it was a fraud in 1860.

And yes, Lincoln and Davis and the rest are all dead, but how we perceive our past will dictate how we move ahead. That is why these lame neo-confederate arguments need to be refuted.

Walt

93 posted on 12/21/2001 5:10:36 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Black combatants shot, killed, and captured Union troops. Loyal slaves were said to have fought with outstanding bravery alongside their masters.

Numbers.

Name the CSA black regiments that were mustered in. Give some contemporary accounts as to numbers. Despite anecdotal evidence of some blacks fighting, it had to have escaped the notice of Lee, Davis and the CSA congress. Their writings during the war make that plain.

But as President Lincoln observed, anyone who will fight to be a slave should be given every opportunity to be one.

Walt

94 posted on 12/21/2001 5:16:13 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
True - you can argue Lincoln's intentions all you want, but judge the man by his ACTIONS:
95 posted on 12/21/2001 5:35:12 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Why? Soon, there will be an entire country ready to become a free republic, Argentina
96 posted on 12/21/2001 5:43:39 AM PST by Alas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
You don't suppose that the five-fold increase in federal workers and the rise in federal spending was due to the war, do you? So what was confederate federal employment and confederate spending as a percentage of GNP like in 1863 or 1864?
97 posted on 12/21/2001 6:02:49 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Why is the "slavery card" always pulled out instead of some cold hard facts?

Because when it comes to war the winners ALWAYS write the histories.

To find out anything but what the winners want you to know, you must dig further than a normal search will take you.

98 posted on 12/21/2001 6:05:43 AM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
But when the words of the confederate leaders make it clear that slavery was the most important reason for rebellion by an overwhelming margin then how can you say that the victors are rewriting history? Isn't it more a case of southern revisionism than Northern?
99 posted on 12/21/2001 6:12:02 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Deo vindice, my fellow Southrons! Keep on fighting the good fight. Whiskypappy and all other lincoln apologists, I have but one question for you: Are y'all willing to lose your lives to force any state to remain in the "union"? Hell, it might be Idaho that bolts this time....or maybe California....who knows? All I know is I will defend my state with my life if need be......do the unionists feel as adamant about forcing others to stay with them?
100 posted on 12/21/2001 6:14:32 AM PST by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 301-315 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson