Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
The "Wlat Brigade" is a small group of freepers associated with a liberal democrat and admitted Clinton-Gore voter named Walt who posts as "WhiskeyPapa." They show up on any thread that has even the slightest connection to the southern region of the country, where they post heavily cut n' pasted PC tirades attacking the south and deifying the likes of William Sherman for burning his way across it.
What is up with this constant Civil War rant?
Who cares? Give it a rest.
Walt
Slavery was the issue according to the statements of secession. Treason was the southern strategy as they attacked and seized federal fortifications. Secessionsts violated the US Constitution by forming a confederacy which is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution.
The highlight of southern gentlemanly tactics was to shoot Abe Lincoln in the back.
Why not ask yourself that one. Not a thread goes by with even the slightest relevance to the south that you do not show up on to trash it and sing of your deification of the likes of Lincoln and Sherman.
As for this thread, it lists in full one of those many, many speeches on the tariff issue as a cause of the war that you purport not to exist
Ha ha ha. There are a million speeches on every issue. The cause of the war, however, was the unconstitutional rebellion and confederation of slave holding states, who then made war upon federal fortifications -- in the attempt to maintain the institution of slavery.
Not really. There were 11 secession ordinances, and not one of them listed slavery as a cause. There were also four legislative declarations from four states, each of which listed slavery as a cause at length and one of which listed the tariff at length. As for there being an official statement of secession for the confederacy itself, there simply isn't one. Instead what you have are those documents I listed, dozens of newspaper editorials, and hundreds of speeches by prominent southerners in the government at the time such as the one found above.
Yawn.
"The Constitution says: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name. To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.
Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other. The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.
Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power. For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power. It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.
Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations. [*9] It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him --- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.
For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution." - Lysander Spooner, 1870
Also, I'm not sure I agree that secession is un-Constitutional.
As with today's Income Tax, equitable application of tariffs was widely abused by congressional special interests. Excessively high tariffs were levied on some items, while tariff exemptions were issued for others. This micromanagement of tax and trade policies through "targeted tariffs" severely distorted the use of the "revenue tariff" which was preferred by our Founders as the least intrusive mode of taxation.
A true "revenue tariff" is a relatively low, flat-rate tax placed on ALL imported goods, regardless of industry or nation of origin. It has the advantage of raising federal revenue while also encouraging domestic commerce and industry. IMHO, it is the mode of taxation that merits serious consideration today. The revenues generated could be used to offset reductions in other forms of domestic taxation without increasing the National Debt. This would produce a real, domestic economic stimulus.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
-- Mississippi secession document.
Well, you tipped my BS-O-meter.
Walt
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.