Posted on 06/19/2007 8:12:22 AM PDT by BGHater
They excercised their rights to the letter as set forth by the Constitution (and there is yet to be an Amendment that would make such actions illegal)
Excercising freedom does not mean a traitor’s actions.
And folks say that abuse of drugs is a victimless crime.
“Noun
S: (n) civil war (a war between factions in the same country)”
That came from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=civil%20war
Interesting that Princeton is a Northern University. If their definition of the term civil war is correct, and I would hope that such a prestigious school would most likely know what they are talking about; then the remains of three Americans were identified.
There was a composition and reconciliation of great dimensions and august authorship in the 1890's, when the actual veterans of that great war composed their former differences, led by men like Joshua Chamberlain, Joe Johnston, and James Longstreet.
That neo-Marxists are beavering away at overthrowing that reconciliation is a monument to their own smallness and nastiness. You and others who follow them do yourselves no credit, and the country some harm.
That the Southerners of that era were willing to reconcile, after what was done to them in the name of wealth and empire, was a considerable badge of honor. Very few exceptions were made -- Grant and Sheridan were forgiven, but Billy Sherman was not in a lot of places, notwithstanding that old Joe Johnston, who had led the Confederate army that had opposed him, stood out in extending his hand graciously to his conqueror who had laid waste Georgia and the Carolinas as an expedient.
The Clintonista and Marxist politics of dividing conservatives -- or trying to -- by constantly harping on cultural and historical themes to denigrate and vilify the South and its people is understandable as a rational, if scabrous, application of practical politics. It is self-destructive of Midwestern conservatives to fall for it.
All the foregoing aside, 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.
In any case, I think folks have demonstrated that using the word "traitor" loosely can be hazardous.
New York twice debated seceding prior to the CW.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo in “The Real Lincoln” gives a pretty good overview of the motivation behind the reasons stated for launching the CW.
Walter Williams agrees with DiLorenzo’s thesis:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
Sounds like you’re no better than the person you’re flaming.
Knock it off, you two!!! Don’t make me come in there!!!
John Quincy Adams, the last Federalist president, thought so, too. I have a quote by him around here somewhere, commenting that it would be a very bad thing to attempt to compel a State against her will, and that disunion would be better than union in fetters.
It was called The Confederate States of AMERICA. Same America, it is not hard to understand why “Damnyankee” is one word.
From the New York Tribune, of November 9, 1860, "If the cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets."From the New York Herald of November 26, "Coercion, in any event, is out of the question. A union held together by the bayonet would be nothing better than a military despotism."
From the Herald of November 24, "We have no desire to prevent secession by coercion."
persons who post STUPID, hate-FILLED, ignorant,fact-FREE, nonsense (like your post #2 for example) are simply are too DUMB & clue-LESS to be a FReeper.
to ALL: and you wonder why so many southerners (more every day!) simply want to be separated from HATERS/fools/south-HATERS/bigots/nitwits like this particular DAMNyankee???
free dixie,sw
Let’s not go there, dude! It was different times in the 1860s with different politics and different ideas about what constituted both country and liberty....
You have just labled several of MY ancestors traitors with your post. There was more to the Civil War than slavery, but it sure sounds good and politically correct today to hang the whole conflict on that nail, don’t it.
But unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.
if anyone was a traitor to America & LIBERTY, it was "DIShonest abe lincoln, the TYRANT & GREAT spiller of innocent blood", who CHOSE war with the new dixie republic.
a MILLION Americans died NEEDLESSLY for his EGO and his lust for $$$$$ & POWER.
free dixie,sw
The South just didn't agree that the rest of the union had those rights. They demanded all the other states respect the "peculiar institution" of slavery, and support their efforts by funding law enforcement to track down runaway slaves and return them.
The South was also in the habit of enslaving any unfortunate non-white who stumbled into any of her ports.
It's too bad the Southern states didn't recognize any individual rights of human beings, we could've skipped the whole Civil War experience.
Thanks for the ping SB
What would we do without folks like you?
Keep the hate alive brother.
same old you;same old SELF-serving,DAMNyankee PROPAGANDA calculated to deceive the naive & terminally ignorant.
free dixie,sw
“I’m not hating anything. I’m just pointing out the fact that they were not American soldiers - at least not the United States of America. They were soldiers for an enemy of the United States of America.”
Yawn. Here we go again.
They were soldiers repelling invaders in their home states.
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.