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 ...
Let’s assume you are tight... The solution: War. War? And then worse, the federal supremacy paradigm. I assume you are happy with history the way it is then, and I have to further assume that you are happy with an all-powerful federal government to rule into perpetuity. 500k died, and because of federal supremacy most blacks are STILL slaves. Tell me, please, that you aren’t happy with that circumstance, which is a direct result of the Civil War’s outcome.
I simply say that no war would have been better for everyone, ultimately.
The message for the entire world was that America is now like us again, back in the might makes right box. Other countries perceive the War better than we do, because they are disinterested third-parties. The South got its ass kicked because it wanted to... I’ll let you finish the sentence.
East Tennessee was not a solid block of Union supporters. Jonesborough was heavily Confederate and sentiment often varied from hollow to hollow.
Your posts are not helping your cause, trust me.
I'm not aware that anybody here has maintained that the Civil War "perfected" or "was perfecting" America. The war happened. It can't be undone. It brought many bad things, but also some good things. In some ways we're a better country, in other ways not. The opposing view seems to be that we had a perfect system before 1860 and Lincoln destroyed it. Maybe that's a strawman (or Funkhouser, as I guess we're calling them now), but so is your view that those who disagree with you are saying that war was perfecting America.
Check my tagline.
Your arguments would be loved by Putin. I’m sure he hates the loss of Russian satelite countries, and he would argue that its too “unstable” read: Out of our control.
No one here argues that the Civil War perfected America, tis the libs that do that. But not acknowledging the bad precedent set by post-Civil War laws (their perfection statutes), is allowing the federal supremacy to continue.
Adolf, looks like our side has a new FRiend.
I’m well-aware, well-armed (intellectually), and willing. I love Jim, love Free Republic, and love my country (North and South). I love freedom more.
Federal supremacy? See the Constitution and its "supremacy clause." It doesn't mean that the federal government has all the power or can do whatever it likes, but within its sphere its laws can't be repealed or ignored by state governments. If you disagree, you're arguing against the founders.
I acknowledge the bad precedent set by post-Civil War laws. And I acknowledge the bad precedent set by pre-Civil War laws. Nothing is perfect or without problems or beyond corruption or the possibility of corruption.
Rebellion? Did the Southerners try to take over the federal government? I did not know that.
Sumter was fired upon because it garrisoned federal troops in South Carolina, after South Carolina had seceded and after South Carolina had repeatedly called for those troops to evacuate, and after Lincoln had ordered its supply and reinforcement (talk about provocation!).
Other federal troops had left and abandoned other sites located in the seceded states, but only Sumter had defied the demand to vacate. Why? Because Lincoln wanted Sumter to serve as a cause de guerre. Lincoln had declare his martial intentions towards the South before Sumter was fired upon. Indeed, he had sent warships (the USS Pawnee and USS Powhatan) and armed revenue cutter USS Harriet Lane and troops to enter Charleston Harbor and reinforce Sumter (talk about provocation!). USS Harriet Lane arrived on April 11, 1861, ahead of the other ships. When the Commander of Ft. Sumter still refused to evacuate, South Carolina fired on Sumter (the idea being that if Sumter capitulated the federal warships and troops sent by Lincoln would have nothing to reinforce).
South Carolina was faced with a hard choice: Accept the re-supply and reinforcing of an installation with declared hostile forces within its borders — a definite threat to South Carolina — or neutralize that installation and eliminate that threat. No sovereign state or nation would allow the buildup of hostile forces within its own borders, and South Carolina did what it felt obligated to do, and what Lincoln KNEW South Carolina would do (indeed, were the circumstances reversed Lincoln most assuredly would have done exactly what South Carolina did).
Then, Lincoln set the world ablaze by ordering the invasion of the Southern states.
Lincoln did not give a rat’s ass about blacks or slavery. But what he did give a rat’s ass about was the revenue collected from Southern trade and commerce, and that revenue would be lost if the Southern states seceded; and that Lincoln was not about to tolerate (indeed, his first comments upon being made aware of the Southern states seceding were focused entirely on the loss of revenue: “But what is to become of my revenues?” he said).
And where were those revenues spent? Almost exclusively in the Northern states. And what industry benefitted tremendously by the collection of those revenues? The railroads. And who, prior to his presidency, represented railroad interests? Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln waged war on the South to keep the Union intact, as that would ensure continued revenues. The only way he could keep those revenues was to keep the Southern states in the Union.
Lincoln placed the collection of revenues ahead of the lives of 600,000 people, many of whom were “in his camp.” Beyond the deaths of those 600,000, though, a far greater death resulted: The death of the constitutional republic created by and envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Lincoln began the destruction of the United States as a constitutional republic; Woodrow Wilson added to that destruction; FDR put that destruction on steroids; and Barack Obama is hell-bent on completing the destruction.
I want you to really pay attention this time...
If the feds have any extra-Constitutional jurisdiction over the States, or the people within the States, you DO NOT have a Republic. Therefore supremacy clauses notwithstanding, the Constitution is MEANINGLESS.
Misunderstanding the basics is worse than knowing anything with regard to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the lynchpin of republicanism, ignoring it to make a point about a 100 year old war is exactly what the libs want you to do. Thanks.
As Sam Houston felt, I want NO PART of Secession. Although Texas is unique in that it did and can survive on it's own. What I desire is for all of US to throw the Commie Bastards out and those who support them. Traitors ALL. (RINOs included)
That said, It is TIME for "We the People" to step forward and stop this nonsense that is destroying the nation. I intend to do my part in the next few months.
No matter how many articles like this that have appeared on FR, the argument goes on. No matter haow many hundred comments appaer, the argument rages. No matter what is said, not one single opinion is changed.
Those who argue for the North are convinced that ANY action to preserve the Union is justified. Those who argue for the South claim it is the States that have the ultimate power. The sad truth is that BOTH sides were wrong!
Does preservation of the Union include warrentless searches, imposition of laws that have never been voted on, forcing citizens to engage in commerce, usurpation of powers not granted by the Constitution or bureaucrats stealing children’s lunches? This is the Union today.
Does the State have the right to enslave people based on their color or take up arms against fellow states? That is history.
Whatever side you may be on, many brave men fought and died for what they believed. Whatever the merit of their cause, their bravery is beyond reproach. Let them rest in peace.
But for us, do not repeat the past. Our Union today is in dire peril; more so, I venture to say, than it was in 1861. Today, we are faced with a President who openly defies the Constitution and WANTS a CW2, the better to impose his will on us. He would return us to a slavery worse than pre-1861. He must not succeed.
Huh, didn’t know that, but in any case, is that all that different from the Confederacy as a whole? There were many in the south who opposed secession or were outright unionists. In some areas, such as northern Alabama, or in border regions, they were comparable in numbers to the pro-secessionists.
Absolutely right.
THe war wasn't about slavery, Lincoln said so himself.
“Ohio never attacked Kentucky. No State from the North considered the South to be a threat, and no State from the North ever attacked the South. The Civil War could never have happened under the Articles of Confederation, because the nexus for war came from Washington.”
But the War Between the States was fought mostly by volunteers from the states. (Yes, I know about the draft, but that was later.) The Regular Army of the United States was a comparatively minor player. To my recollection, the Union side at First Manassas was roughly the same size as the entire Regular Army and the entire Regular Army wasn’t there. Those were volunteers from the states. Did the nexus for war come from Washington DC, or was Washington DC trying to accomplish the will of the Northern States? The Presidency was much weaker then, does anyone really think Lincoln, as a new President, could have begun (or even finished) what he did without the backing of the Northern States?
“The Declaration of Independence was not a demand for perpetual political bands.”
But the States eventually agreed to perpetual Union. Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.
“It has been rightly argued that there were no more free people in the world than the Colonists living in America before the American Revolution...”
That’s a suspiciously broad statement considering the size of the world and the number of different peoples in it. I’m not acquainted with all the peoples living in the world at the time so I can’t argue against it and I guess I just have to assume that the author’s acquaintance is sufficient to support the contention. But what about the American Indian tribes living further west of the Colonies? Were they less free than the Colonists?
“The federal government of King George...”
Federal government? Federation of what?
“Conservatives need to realize that arguing for Union, or federal supremacy in all cases past and present, gives big-government proponents ammunition.”
What Conservative argues “...for Union, or federal supremacy in all cases past and present...”?
“One, the difficulty in getting traction arguing for Tenth Amendment solutions...”
I think a major difficulty in getting traction arguing for Tenth Amendment solutions is that modern folks have forgotten the role of the States. The States established two general governments, one under the Articles of Confederation and one under the Constitution. Then they allowed more States to enter their Union. The States could establish a third general government if they were able to reach agreement to do so.
“It’s impossible to dislike Lincoln.”
A number of folks seem to dislike and seem to have disliked Lincoln.
And:
Lately, I wonder if the War Between The States was instigated because the Democrats didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 Presidential election, and had a hissy fit. As I recall, the South was pretty much run by the Democrats, and the Democrats in the North were against the war.
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.