Posted on 11/19/2001 6:28:43 AM PST by tberry
Right,& I suppose you believe no smoking of marijuana occured after 193x when the marijuana trade became illegal in the US.
In the 1750's or '60's the Virgina legislature approached the King of England with a petition to stop bringing slaves into the colony. When did the Northerners start to address such ideas? And don't forget, many northern states had slavery. 10,000+ in the state of New York at the time George Washington died, according to the 1800 federal census.
Another lie! Less than 10% of the slaves sold by the New Engladers were sold to the Southern states. Over 90% of the bloody yankee trade went to Brazil, Cuba, & various Carribean contries...
The 'slave nation' you refer to was created by England to harvest tobbaco. Do you ever actually read history other than Walt's infamous cut & paste hack jobs?
Wanna see the spit fly from a dowager's lips (and who doesn't)?
THE CORN LAWS!
I feel sorry for you for your inability to read and comprehend the English language.
And you can't point to anything from the constitutional convention or the debates of ratification that any of the authors or any of the opponents of the constitution say what was intended was anything other than a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation were specifically intended and described in that document to be a perpetual union of states, and the Constitution was specifically noted in the preamble to be for the intention of forming a "more perfect union" that was possible under the Articles of Confederation. You would have us believe that while both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were remarkable in their insights and anticipation of future legal conflicts involving constitutional law, but somehow the idea of secession seemed to escape all of their attention? Not a word of a right to secession was mentioned in any of those debates. That is because they all knew and understood perfectly that it was a perpetual contract. The only conceivable way out was through amendment or a new convention, which the south never even attempted.
Your source for that please?
I reserve the Holy pedestal for my Lord. But the earthly individuals I admire most in American history are Washington, Adams and Lincoln. Each had earthly flaws, but each was absolutely magnificent in a supreme time of need.
Now if you want to talk about slimy, grubby political hacks, let's talk about Jeff Davis. He's down in the dregs with that other good 'ol by from Arkansas we just got rid of. I can see either of them running around dressed in women's cloths trying to get away from the law. Men of conviction ---- LOL.
As has been pointed out again, and again, and again, the proclmation was applied to precisely where the proclaimer's power did not extend. Thus, if you can read, you can see the proclamation for what it was, intended purely for propaganda effect in England and Europe, and devoid of any practical effect on slaves, either in the Confederacy or in the remnant United States.
What is your point? It was a great humanitarian achievement -- in advance of Britain's emancipation. It was something that was within Virginia's power to do at any time. Yes, it was a gradual emancipation. But neo-Confederates and Southern nationalists are always saying that the South could have put through a gradual compensated emancipation and should have been "allowed" to do so. Why condemn Northerners for doing precisely what your friends argue that the South was always on the verge of doing?
If New York had not abolished slavery it is condemned. If it had it is still condemned. If they made visiting Southerners give up their slaves or leave them at home, the New Yorkers are condemned for abolitionism. If they let you keep them, they are condemned for not being abolitionists, and therefore being hypocrites. One suspects the New Yorkers' guilt has more to do with you or with the South than with anything they did or did not do themselves.
America honors those Southerners who tried to do away with slavery. I'd go further and say that it still honors those who tried to ameliorate the damage that institution did, and even those who fought for a cause they thought was right. Why is it so hard for you to see virtue or positive qualities in those on the other side?
The present generation recognizes that slavery and "racism" are a common heritage in the US, and maybe in the world. No one is going to be shocked by the fact that some Westerner somewhere may have owned or traded slaves. Very few would argue some special guilt of the South in these matters. But demonstrating that the guilt is wider than that doesn't mean that somehow the South has a special innocence. No one puts you or me in the docket because of what our ancestors may have done. But by the same token, our "innocence" or "anti-racism" doesn't mean that others in previous generations shared our views entirely. What they did is no reflection on you personally, but what you do or believe can't be attributed to Lincoln or Davis, Jackson or Stephens, without a preponderance of textual evidence to back it up. I'm not interested in judging, condemning or vindicating past generations so much as I am in seeing them as they were and understanding what they did and why.
If you want to make life a permanent tribunal on the sins of the past, that's your problem. An impartial judge would be as severe on your heroes as on those you want to put in the docket. And the sins of those you accuse, don't make the sins of those you glorify any less. And vice versa of course.
These "debates" reach insane dimensions, as the article we are responding to indicates. Every Southerner who might have had a qualm about slavery is an indication of Southern virtue. Every Northerner who might not have been zealous in his opposition to slavery is seen as a black mark against the North -- but also as a vindication of the South. And every Northerner who was fully passionate in his attack on slavery is also seen as a villain, a threat to the South and a justification for rebellion, and sometimes of slavery. Until you recognize impartial standards and realize that history is not just regional or personal pride, the "debate" will go nowhere.
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.