Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:23 AM PST by HMS Surprise
There is nothing more irritating to a warrior-poet than an unwillingness to debate. If speech is troubling, or blatantly false, or amateurish, then it will fall of its own weight. I don’t need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers don’t want, an administrator hovering above the public forum deciding which issues are too controversial for polite company.
The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.
The arguments for the necessity of the War between the States are considered unassailable, and I have noticed lately that the political-correctness has reached such a high level that even purportedly conservative blogs are beginning to remove threads that stray into pro-rebellion territory.
I understand the temptation to ignore this issue for political expediency, but the goal of individual liberty (personal freedom), as well as State sovereignty (political freedom), can never be accomplished unless we acknowledge and understand that the Civil War planted the seeds of the eventual unconstitutional federal takeover of every aspect of American life.
Some basics that are undeniable, albiet censorable, follows.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
I thought the standard narrative was:
1. The South didn’t like the elected President.
2. The South pretended unilateral secession, a power not belonging to the states to mask their insurrection.
3. The Southern rebels began a war on the United States.
4. The South lost.
Not true. Our politicians and media spout lies, nonsense and propaganda all the time and get away with it because a large percentage of the people have been brainwashed and dumbed down. The only thing that will change perception on a wide scale is a high level of economic pain.
Obozo: "I Won"
At the link:
“You do not have permission to preview drafts”
The key to understanding your post is #4: The South Lost. (I know you didn’t read the article by the way.) Might makes right? Are you therefore against all rebellion? Are you anti-Washington (George)? You speak of power, but what you really argue against is self-determination. To hate Southern rebels sways into hypocrisy if you support the original rebellion my friend.
What, no mention of the Whiskey Rebellion?
True, and rebellion should be avoided for light and transient causes.
They are sending people to examine your childs’s school lunch now... Get it?
George Washington was a southern slave-owner who rebelled against his country... Why don’t you ever acknowledge that? Comparing the Whiskey Rebellion and the secession of the South by way of political agreements is so ridiculous it is not worthy of retort.
I don’t have a problem linking to it. But I won’t be surprised if it is yanked before long. (Jeopardy music)
(I know you didn’t read the article by the way.)
Is that because you know the link doesn’t work?
No. My support for the original rebellion is not hypocracy. Taxation by England of the colonists enacted by a legislature where the colonists were not and could not be represented was wrong. England made war against the Colonists in support of that wrong. Because England was wrong, England lost. England’s loss was codified by treaty with the United States.
The rebellion of the southern states was not justified. No state has a right to unilaterally leave the union. Legitimate disputes between the states and the federal government were required by the constitution to be settled by application to the supreme court. The southern rebels recognized they had no legitimate dispute. When the southern rebels resorted to war, they chose a ‘might makes right’ approach. They lost that too.
I like mentioning the Whiskey rebellion. It was put down by by state forces raised by General Lee, at the request of President Washington.
We can also mention the John Brown insurrection. It was put down by Colonel Lee, at the request of President Buchanan, with forces provided by the Washington detachment of Marines.
The trial of John Brown for treason against Virgina, a state of which he was not a citizen, for acts he took while on federal property, was a travesty.
Funkhouser, Funkhouser, what planet are you living on?
Your statements are all distortions of one side of the debate, but the other side has been quite well represented online.
There are plenty of neo-Confederate (and I suppose paleo-confederate sites around).
I propose that from now on we call such an obviously false opening gambit a "funkhouser" from now on.
Your arguments fail. The question isn’t: Does a State have the right to rebel? The question is: Was the theory of the Declaration of Independence a universal truth, or was it a one-time specious proclamation that only applied at one moment in history? The English could argue, and did, that the Colonists were the freest most prosperous people on earth, and therefore had no right to disable their eternal connection to the motherland.
The Supreme Court settles nothing forever by the way, for if it did Dred Scott would still be the law of the land.
Rather, Washington was called by his country to protect it from a foreign invader. England had no right to invade the colonies, no right to collect taxes from the colonies. During the French and Indian war, the local colonial legislatures raised troops and taxes in support of the war. After the war was over, England sought to pay off debt by collecting taxes from anywhere but England.
No taxation without representation.
Does the Tenth Amendment scare you? War changes sentiments, and the Civil War, and the passions it ignited, still exist today, as your intemperant post makes clear.
Stop for one moment and consider the facts, which are not distorted. The North could have allowed for a Confederacy. It COULD HAVE done that. No great schism in the cosmic fabric would have taken place. Do you disagree with that statement? Do you consider it to be an impossibility? One man could have made that happen... A. Lincoln. Just an unassailable fact my friend.
So your argument is, except for the Constitution, except for the Articles of Confederation, and except for the Declaration of Independence, the Rebels were correct.
The English came to America to put down a rebellion that was brewing. I won’t try and point out how ignorant it would be to presume that armies are formed and transported across vast oceans when there is no cause.
Don’t misunderstand, I support the notion of fighting for freedom, political and individual. And the heros of the American Revolution are saluted by me.
Winners make history, Lincoln won, I recognize that. So be it. My mind is unaffected by it though. I will choose based on truth, always.
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.