strict constructionist- pro-life anti-UN pro gun, in fact I own 51 guns and still Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my guns.
| Your Political Profile: |
 Overall: 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal
Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” --Patrick Henry---
Stolen from JamesP81's Profile
"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The south is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendent's of the good Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic stock of Cavaliers. We believe in the doctrine of States Rights and they in the doctrine of centralization.
----We only fought for our State rights, they for Union and power.
"But when we pass away, the impartial historian will render a true verdict, and a history will then be written in justification and vindication of those brave and noble boys who gave their all in fighting the battles of thier homes, their country, and their God.".... we have no regrets for what we did, but we mourn the loss of so many brave and gallant men who perished on the field of battle and honor, I now bid you an affectioate adieu.
Sam Watkins, Pvt. CSA 1882
Company Aytch
Or, A Sideshow of the Big Show
by Sam Watkins
Plumb Books
Lincoln's election was the lighted match. Slavery was the fuse, and states rights was the powder in the keg. Many of the northern states had ended slavery because they saw it as unjust and immoral. The hypocrisy on their part was that they came to this conclusion the same time it {slavery) became unprofitable. Having read hundreds of writings of the most prominent men of the Confederacy, I have concluded (to my own satisfaction) that most knew slavery was wrong. But insisted on the same rights that other states had, to end slavery at their own choosing. That would have came about like the northern states. As it became unprofitable they would have seen it immoral and abolished it. Sad, but I believe true.
the real reason the south seceded no matter what was said or printed. The population of the north had risen to the point that south had lost it's power to control and even be equal with the northern states. This was proved by the election of Lincoln/ Hamblin, without even the pretense of campaigning in the south. Before there had been an unwritten power sharing arrangement in the executive branch: southern president, northern vice president or vice versa. The writing was now on the wall in clear bold, block type. YOU NO LONGER MATTER
The election of Lincoln was part of the reason for secession. He was elected without winning a single southern/northern slave state. It was quite evident that the population of the north was now large enough that compromise/consensus was no longer necessary between the two regions. The South had entered the union in the same state as the north; with slavery legal and in practice. By the time of Lincoln's election most of the north had made slavery illegal, many of these slaves being sold down south that their owners would not lose their investment. That was fairly simple as the number of slaves "up north" was small in comparison to that of the south which had a preponderance of it wealth tied up in chattel slavery. The South, if just wanting to preserve slavery, could have rejoined the union and helped pass the "Corwin Amendment"; but by that time the gulf between the two regions was to their satisfaction real and undeniable. And to do so would relegate them to be the redheaded step child forever in the shadow of their more numerous and industrializing masters "up north".
In an exhaustive reading of the Constitution. I can find nowhere in it, the right to secession. But, I also cannot find anything prohibiting secession. Everywhere on these threads we find quotes from founders and our early forefathers siding one way or the other and sometimes contradictory to their own. The rights of secession were argued for decades in and out of Congress. I believe this is undenied by anyone here at FR. I am loath to use a quote from AlGore but the reason for so much arguing for so many years, amongst so many, in our countries past up to the time of the War for Southern Independence; "There was no standing legal authority". Texas v White, is now that authority, but is itself as controversial as Roe v Wade albeit for different reasons. Even then the court held possibilities for the divisibility of the Union in the following statement: The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States. But still we argue today. We Southron's (although northern born I include myself as my blood flows with mostly southern gene's.) are proud of our heritage even in defeat by attrition. As is the whole country of our heritage of victory over the British. I am however, not proud of slavery, but just because the inhumanity of man lasted longer in the south than the north does not remove the guilt from the north. That would be like boasting, I quit beating my wife before you did.
I was born in Indiana, but I have not let that steal from me my southern heritage. When I got the chance I moved to South Carolina and would still be there today if it were not for Hurricane Hugo wiping me out financially.br />
A great post by lentulusgracchus
.....it is also historically inaccurate to refer to the Southerners of the Civil War era as traitors. That is because they openly and formally renounced their ties to the rest of the United States, legally and properly withdrew their States from the Union, and thereafter opposed Lincoln's efforts to conquer them openly and in the uniform of a foreign country and opposing military service. That is not treason.
Be careful you don't start slinging around despotic and "constructive" definitions (or pretensions, better) of "treason" out of casual spleen. The Constitution defines treason in its body, and it does so very carefully and precisely, and for damned good reason. The Founders had seen enough of the British use of "constructive treason" to pillory and attaint people for their views alone, and they were having none of that for us. You might take half as much care as the Founders did.
24 posted on 06/19/2007 12:06:27 PM EDT by lentulusgracchus("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
