Happy Lee-Jackson Day!

[SicEmBaylor]

Happy Lee-Jackson Day! For those of you attending a Lee-Jackson Day Dinner, enjoy yourselves -- I always do! For those of you who are not, take time this evening to think of and honor those heroes who fought for the most sacred American liberty...the right of a people to form a government of their own choosing.

Keep in mind that nearly every political issue that has conservatives, and even in some cases liberals, so perturbed is a result of the destruction of the foundation of our constitution as a result of that war and the massive consolidation of Federal power as a result.

Our southern heroes fought to not only prevent that from happening but to ensure that government would remain closest to the people and further safeguard the citizenry from an over-reaching central power. Almost 300,000 southern men gave their lives fighting for the same thing their Revolutionary forefathers fought for -- the right to abolish existing political ties and establish a new government of their choosing. The war only proved that, "might makes right." For everyone who continues to fight for their constitutional rights and limited-government, the cause will never ever be lost.

Let me further point out that this day was chosen as it is also the birthday of that greatest of southern heroes, Robert E. Lee. Lee in both leadership and honor was one of the finest Americans this nation has been blessed to produce and should be honored as one of our nation's greatest heroes by northerner and southerner alike. Though not successful, I can't help but think he may have continued on with the cause if he had known the ruin that would befall southern society at the hands of radical Republicans.

I have spent the greater portion of my life fascinated by the political maneuvering, argument, and intrigue surrounding the war. I grew up as a committed member of the Children of the Confederacy rising to the level of Oklahoma Division President and later the national Editor-in-Chief. Since aging out at 18, I have been a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans seeking to memorialize the memory of our southern heroes and educate others on the cause for which they sacrificed. I'm immensely proud of my four great-uncles who proudly fought for the Confederacy along with my great-great grandfather who proudly served as a Lt. with the 15th Alabama from Stonewall Jackson's Valley campaign all the way to Appomattox Courthouse (with a capture, exchange, and illness all included). He used to tell stories of the war to my grandfather about having to walk from Virginia to Alabama completely barefoot at the end of the war. He died in Antlers, OK in the 1920s.

Deo vindice.

[XingTheRubicon]

"Scoreboard"



-North

[SoonerInFortSmith]

The civil war destroyed the foundation of our constitution? I was completely unaware of that fact. Thank you so much for educating me.

[okie52]

Happy Lee-Jackson Day! For those of you attending a Lee-Jackson Day Dinner, enjoy yourselves -- I always do! For those of you who are not, take time this evening to think of and honor those heroes who fought for the most sacred American liberty...the right of a people to form a government of their own choosing.

Keep in mind that nearly every political issue that has conservatives, and even in some cases liberals, so perturbed is a result of the destruction of the foundation of our constitution as a result of that war and the massive consolidation of Federal power as a result.

Our southern heroes fought to not only prevent that from happening but to ensure that government would remain closest to the people and further safeguard the citizenry from an over-reaching central power. Almost 300,000 southern men gave their lives fighting for the same thing their Revolutionary forefathers fought for -- the right to abolish existing political ties and establish a new government of their choosing. The war only proved that, "might makes right." For everyone who continues to fight for their constitutional rights and limited-government, the cause will never ever be lost.

Let me further point out that this day was chosen as it is also the birthday of that greatest of southern heroes, Robert E. Lee. Lee in both leadership and honor was one of the finest Americans this nation has been blessed to produce and should be honored as one of our nation's greatest heroes by northerner and southerner alike. Though not successful, I can't help but think he may have continued on with the cause if he had known the ruin that would befall southern society at the hands of radical Republicans.

I have spent the greater portion of my life fascinated by the political maneuvering, argument, and intrigue surrounding the war. I grew up as a committed member of the Children of the Confederacy rising to the level of Oklahoma Division President and later the national Editor-in-Chief. Since aging out at 18, I have been a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans seeking to memorialize the memory of our southern heroes and educate others on the cause for which they sacrificed. I'm immensely proud of my four great-uncles who proudly fought for the Confederacy along with my great-great grandfather who proudly served as a Lt. with the 15th Alabama from Stonewall Jackson's Valley campaign all the way to Appomattox Courthouse (with a capture, exchange, and illness all included). He used to tell stories of the war to my grandfather about having to walk from Virginia to Alabama completely barefoot at the end of the war. He died in Antlers, OK in the 1920s.

Deo vindice.

Roll Tide Roll SEC!!! SEC!!! SEC!!!

[SicEmBaylor]

Roll Tide Roll SEC!!! SEC!!! SEC!!!

There's is actually an analogy to be made between states:fed and university:conference.

You're a Sooner first and foremost, no? Or do you consider yourself first and foremost a Big XII fan? I know the answer.

[okie52]

There's is actually an analogy to be made between states:fed and university:conference.

You're a Sooner first and foremost, no? Or do you consider yourself first and foremost a Big XII fan? I know the answer.

The old big 12 south was very confederate.

[SicEmBaylor]

The old big 12 south was very confederate.

Indeed.

[Soonerjeepman]

ummm....okay, whatever floats your boat.

[FaninAma]

My Great-Great Grandfather on my mother's side fought for Texas in the Civil War then joined the Texas Rangers. There is a letter from him that is on display in the Texas Ranger Museum in Waco.

My dad's side of the family didn't get to this country until well after the Civil War but if you go to West Point and read the names of those who were killed in the Battle of Antietam there are 3 soldiers who have my surname (a not so common Irish surname) who fought for the North and who were probably pressed into the Union Army.

So ultimately Lincoln has insured that there will be no peaceful dissolution of the Union.....no matter how corrupt or tyranical it becomes.

[SicEmBaylor]

My Great-Great Grandfather on my mother's side fought for the Texas in the Civil War then joined the Texas Rangers.

My dad's side of the family didn't to this country until well after the Civil War but if you go to West Point and read the names of those who were killed in the Battle of Antietam there are 3 soldiers who have my surname (a not so common Irish surname) who fought for the North and who were probably pressed into the Union Army.

So ultimately Lincoln has insured that there will be no peaceful dissolution of the Union.....no matter how corrupt or tyranical it becomes.
I had one great-great uncle who fought for the 1st Alabama Cavalry, a Union loyalist outfit, while his 4 other brothers all fought for the south. He was pretty much cut out of the family and nobody wanted anything to do with him again.

Now, after the war my great-great grandfather moved his family from Alabama to Texas (Ft. Worth area) and then to southern Oklahoma to escape reconstruction. From what I understand he had no contact with his Billy Yank brother, but by happenstance his brother also ended up moving to Oklahoma to the Idabell area where our families have been ever since.

To this day, at family reunions, the yankee wing of the family is never ever invited to anything even though there are a lot of them in the same area. It has caused no small amount of confusion.

[FaninAma]

I had one great-great uncle who fought for the 1st Alabama Cavalry, a Union loyalist outfit, while his 4 other brothers all fought for the south. He was pretty much cut out of the family and nobody wanted anything to do with him again.

Now, after the war my great-great grandfather moved his family from Alabama to Texas (Ft. Worth area) and then to southern Oklahoma to escape reconstruction. From what I understand he had no contact with his Billy Yank brother, but by happenstance his brother also ended up moving to Oklahoma to the Idabell area where our families have been ever since.

To this day, at family reunions, the yankee wing of the family is never ever invited to anything even though there are a lot of them in the same area. It has caused no small amount of confusion.

Great story. My Great Grandmother (again on my mom's side) lived to be 97. She hated Lincoln and didn't hide the fact in the least. BTW my family never owned any slaves. They moved to Indian Territory in early 1890's.

[diverdog]

I had one great-great uncle who fought for the 1st Alabama Cavalry, a Union loyalist outfit, while his 4 other brothers all fought for the south. He was pretty much cut out of the family and nobody wanted anything to do with him again.

Now, after the war my great-great grandfather moved his family from Alabama to Texas (Ft. Worth area) and then to southern Oklahoma to escape reconstruction. From what I understand he had no contact with his Billy Yank brother, but by happenstance his brother also ended up moving to Oklahoma to the Idabell area where our families have been ever since.

To this day, at family reunions, the yankee wing of the family is never ever invited to anything even though there are a lot of them in the same area. It has caused no small amount of confusion.


Like I said the South has never quit fighting the civil war.

[FaninAma]

Like I said the South has never quit fighting the civil war.
That's a two way street.

[diverdog]

That's a two way street.

Clearly you have never lived in the North for any length of time. No one even thinks about it up here except for the re-enactors.

And this entire revisionist history that the South fought the war to save the Constitution, states rights and all is BS. At the end of the day it was about slavery. In the 60's when I lived in the South you never heard this narrative.

[SicEmBaylor]

Clearly you have never lived in the North for any length of time. No one even thinks about it up here except for the re-enactors.

And this entire revisionist history that the South fought the war to save the Constitution, states rights and all is BS. At the end of the day it was about slavery. In the 60's when I lived in the South you never heard this narrative.I will not make the claim that slavery was not an issue; however, slavery was undeniably a state issue. Remember, this was pre-14th Amendment; therefore, Federal constitutional protections were not yet applied to state law. The US Constitution did not prohibit slavery; therefore, slavery was a state issue. I find the practice to be abhorrent, but neither the United States government nor the Lincoln administration had a right to regulate it in any way except when it came to the importation of slaves or interstate-trafficking.

Now, having said that slavery was the "straw that broke the camel's back" for the south, neither the Union nor the Lincoln Administration went to war with the south in order to "free the slaves." This is an absolute and total myth that is abundantly clear for anyone who takes even a rudimentary glance at history. They went to war to preserve the Union -- an unconstitutional war to prevent sovereign states from exercising their right of self-determination. Nobody should act as if the yankees were righteous do-gooders with firm claim to the moral high ground. Northerners were as "racist" (if not more so) than their southern counterparts. The overriding motivation for them was a preservation of the Union but when it came to giving blacks free equality and having large numbers of them move into the north taking their jobs and living in their neighborhoods....well they sang quite a different tune than history would have you believe.

Ending slavery did not become an important war aim until the war had been going badly for the Union long enough that union newspapers and citizens were starting to revolt against the war and demand peace. Fighting to keep people in a political system they want no part of is quite a bit less inspiring than fighting to keep other people their proper freedom as human beings.

As for the south fighting for the Constitution, this is absolutely the undeniable truth. The south did more to preserve and fight for the spirit and letter of the Constitution than the union even bothered to pay lip service to. Slavery was a component of states' rights. There was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting slavery making it a state issue. Furthermore, there was nothing in the Constitution denying the individual states the right to secede. Just as our Revolutionary forefathers fought to separate from their mother country when the mother country no longer served their interests -- so to did the south separate from the country they themselves established in order to form a new union to their mutual benefit.

Truth be told, I think secession was a hotheaded move. The south should have waited to see how things played out with Lincoln and newly admitted free states. That's not to say that I would not have gone along with them once the decision was made, but I certainly think some properly applied prudence may have saved everyone a great deal of trouble.

Truly, I find the idea of a people being denied equal protection of the law for an innate trait like skin color to be disgusting and abhorrent. Having said that, I truly believe that suddenly freeing the black race and flinging them into a highly resentful southern society was the most unjust, unkind, and even immoral act that the Union could have perpetuated upon former slaves. The south had always given lip service to slowly ending the institution -- men like Lee even belonged to organizations dedicated to that purpose. However, no real effort was made to follow through. I really believe that it would have been in the long term interest of blacks to slowly be introduced to freedom via a system of generational attrition. I don't think their treatment in southern society would have been as harsh if the Union had taken that approach.

[SicEmBaylor]

In any case, as a liberal, I would fully expect you to support Lincoln's destruction of states' rights as the basis for the entire spirit of the Constitution. Furthermore, I am not the least bit surprised that you support the consolidation of power within a single nationalist/unified government. Lincoln gave birth to the empire and destroyed the Republic making the grand schemes of the progressives in this country a real possibility.

[diverdog]

In any case, as a liberal, I would fully expect you to support Lincoln's destruction of states' rights as the basis for the entire spirit of the Constitution. Furthermore, I am not the least bit surprised that you support the consolidation of power within a single nationalist/unified government. Lincoln gave birth to the empire and destroyed the Republic making the grand schemes of the progressives in this country a real possibility.

For the most part you are correct. States rights as written in the constitution including the 2 nd amendment was there to protect the right of Southerners to own property....ie..slaves. In my mind slavery was such a horrid practice that the end justified the means. So yes I supported Lincoln.

BTW all of my family that lived in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma territory and Kansas fought for the North as near as we can tell. We have pictures of most of them in uniform. Unfortunately they went from killing Southerners to killing injuns in the West.

[olevetonahill]

For the most part you are correct. States rights as written in the constitution including the 2 nd amendment was there to protect the right of Southerners to own property....ie..slaves. In my mind slavery was such a horrid practice that the end justified the means. So yes I supported Lincoln.

BTW all of my family that lived in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma territory and Kansas fought for the North as near as we can tell. We have pictures of most of them in uniform. Unfortunately they went from killing Southerners to killing injuns in the West.

This is whats scary about YOU Libs

[Midtowner]

Standing behind principle to protect an institution like slavery is unprincipled to begin with.

Lee was a moral disappointment. The South had paid lip service to ending slavery, but was no closer in 1860 than it was in 1789.

[SicEmBaylor]

For the most part you are correct. States rights as written in the constitution including the 2 nd amendment was there to protect the right of Southerners to own property....ie..slaves. In my mind slavery was such a horrid practice that the end justified the means. So yes I supported Lincoln.

BTW all of my family that lived in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma territory and Kansas fought for the North as near as we can tell. We have pictures of most of them in uniform. Unfortunately they went from killing Southerners to killing injuns in the West.

A big problem with your argument is that Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves -- he went to war to preserve the Union. The overwhelming majority of Union troops fought to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves was an ancillary cause.

After hearing your "means justify the ends" argument, I really don't want to hear another word from you about the rule of law, constitutional rights and protections, or an over-reaching Congress/Executive for as long as you remain on this board. If the "ends justify the means" as determined by the Executive then there is no need for a Constitution, the rule of law, or even a Republic. Might makes right and the disregarding of the rule of law is evidently perfectly acceptable to you if the means justify the ends.

Your true colors are showing -- you're nothing more than left-wing despot apologist/enabler.

[Midtowner]

A big problem with your argument is that Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves -- he went to war to preserve the Union. The overwhelming majority of Union troops fought to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves was an ancillary cause.

Whatever helps you sleep at night....


After hearing your "means justify the ends" argument, I really don't want to hear another word from you about the rule of law, constitutional rights and protections, or an over-reaching Congress/Executive for as long as you remain on this board. If the "ends justify the means" as determined by the Executive then there is no need for a Constitution, the rule of law, or even a Republic. Might makes right and the disregarding of the rule of law is evidently perfectly acceptable to you if the means justify the ends.

Your true colors are showing -- you're nothing more than left-wing despot apologist/enabler.

I'm against slavery. That makes me a despot?

The South had resisted ending that horrible practice for too long and went to war to protect it. I don't care what the Union's motive was. It was the South who fired those first shots.

[okie52]

Whatever helps you sleep at night....



I'm against slavery. That makes me a despot?

The South had resisted ending that horrible practice for too long and went to war to protect it. I don't care what the Union's motive was. It was the South who fired those first shots.

The Yanks hadn't left their property...had they?

[SoonerInFortSmith]

I truly believe that suddenly freeing the black race and flinging them into a highly resentful southern society was the most unjust, unkind, and even immoral act that the Union could have perpetuated upon former slaves.

This is quite possibly one of the most bigotted statements I have ever heard.

[hawaii 5-0]

The American Civil War is over.

The South lost.

Move along.

5-0

[MR2-Sooner86]

Whatever helps you sleep at night....

I always thought the most basic history students knew this. No? Alright, time for some education.

The rallying call in the North at the beginning of the war was "preserve the Union," not "free the slaves." Although certainly a contentious political issue and detested by abolitionists, in 1861 slavery nevertheless was not a major public issue. Protestant Americans in the North were more concerned about the growing number of Catholic immigrants than they were about slavery. In his First Inaugural Address, given five weeks before the war began, Lincoln reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

After 17 months of war things were not going well for the North, especially in its closely watched Eastern Theater. In the five great battles fought there from July 1861 through September 17, 1862, the changing cast of Union generals failed to win a single victory. The Confederate army won three: First Bull Run (or First Manassas) on July 21,1861; Seven Days – six major battles fought from June 25-July 1, 1862 during the Union army’s Peninsular Campaign that, in sum, amounted to a strategic Confederate victory when McClellan withdrew his army from the peninsula; and Second Bull Run (or Second Manassas) on August 29-30, 1862. Two battles were indecisive: Seven Pines (or Fair Oaks) on May 31-June 1, 1862, and Antietam (or Sharpsburg) on September 17, 1862. In the West, Grant took Fort Donelson on February 14, 1862 and captured 14,000 Confederate soldiers. But then he was caught by surprise in the battle of Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing) on April 6-7, 1862 and lost 13,000 out of a total of 51,000 men that fought in this two-day battle. Sickened by the carnage, people in the North did not appreciate at the time that this battle was a strategic victory for the North. Then came Antietam on September 17, the bloodiest day in the entire war; the Union army lost more than 12,000 of its 60,000 troops engaged in the battle.

Did saving the Union justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? The Confederates posed no military threat to the North. Perhaps it would be better to let the southern states go, along with their 4 million slaves. If it was going to win, the North needed a more compelling reason to continue the war than to preserve the Union. The North needed a cause for continuing the war, as Lincoln put the matter in his Second Inaugural Address, that was willed by God, where "the judgments of the Lord" determined the losses sustained and its outcome.

Five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.
...
Lincoln coerced the South to fire the first shots when, against the initial advice of most of his cabinet, he dispatched ships carrying troops and munitions to resupply Fort Sumter, site of the customs house at Charleston. Charleston militia took the bait and bombarded the fort on April 12, 1861. After those first shots were fired the pro-Union press branded Southern secession an "armed rebellion" and called for Lincoln to suppress it.

Congress was adjourned at the time and for the next three months, ignoring his constitutional duty to call this legislative branch of government back in session during a time of emergency, Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and did things, like raise an army, that only Congress is supposed to do. He shut down newspapers that disagreed with his war policy, more than 300 of them. He ordered his military officers to lock up political opponents, thousands of them. Although the exact number is not known, Lincoln may well have arrested and imprisoned more than 20,000 political opponents, southern sympathizers, and people suspected of being disloyal to the Union, creating what one researcher has termed a 19th century "American gulag," a forerunner of the 20th century’s political prison and labor camps in the former Soviet Union. Lincoln denied these nonviolent dissenters their right of free speech and suspended the privilege of Habeas Corpus, something only Congress in a time of war has the power to do. Lincoln’s soldiers arrested civilians, often arbitrarily, without any charges being filed; and, if held at all, military commissions conducted trials. He permitted Union troops to arrest the Mayor of Baltimore (then the third largest city in the Union), its Chief of Police and a Maryland congressman, along with 31 state legislators. When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote an opinion that said these actions were unlawful and violated the Constitution, Lincoln ignored the ruling.

Lincoln called up an army of 75,000 men to invade the seven southern states that had seceded and force them back into the Union. By unilaterally recruiting troops to invade these states, without first calling Congress into session to consider the matter and give its consent, Lincoln made an error in judgment that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. At the time, only seven states had seceded. But when Lincoln announced his intention to bring these states back into the Union by force, four additional states – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas – seceded and joined the Confederacy. Slavery was not the issue. The issue was the very nature of the American union. If the President of the United States intended to hold the Union together by force, they wanted out. When these four states seceded and joined the Confederacy rather than send troops to support Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions, the Confederacy became much more viable and the war much more horrible.

From the time Lincoln entered politics as a candidate for state legislature in 1832, he championed a political agenda known as the "American System." First advocated by his idol and mentor, Henry Clay, it was a three-part program of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and centralized banking. This program "tied economic development to strong centralized national authority," as Robert Johannsen puts it in Lincoln, the South, And Slavery. Lincoln believed that import tariffs were necessary, at the expense of consumers. He believed that American industries needed to be shielded from foreign competition and cheap imported goods. The "internal improvements" he advocated were simply subsidies for industry, i.e., corporate welfare. Abraham Lincoln was the first president to give us centralized banking, with paper money not backed by gold.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America forbid protectionist tariffs, outlawed government subsidies to private businesses, and made congressional appropriations subject to approval by a two-thirds majority vote. It enjoined Congress from initiating constitutional amendments, leaving that power to the constituent states; and limited its president to a single six-year term. When the South lost, instead of a Jeffersonian republic of free trade and limited constitutional government, the stage was set for the United States to become an American Empire ruled by a central authority. In starting his war against the Confederate States, Lincoln was not seeking the "preservation of the Union" in its traditional sense. He sought the preservation of the Northern economy by means of transforming the federal government into a centralized welfare-warfare-police state.
...
After the war Robert E. Lee also wrote, "The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution [of slavery], and were quite willing to see it abolished. But with them in relation to this subject is a serious question today. Unless some humane course, based on wisdom and Christian principles, is adopted, you do them great injustice in setting them free." Lee did not own slaves (he freed his in the 1850s), nor did a number of his most trusted lieutenants, including generals A. P. Hill, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, J. E. Johnston, and J. E. B. Stuart. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html)

Was slavery a reason for for the Civil War? Of course. Was it the only reason? No.

Also, you're welcome for the free education. I won't charge you.

Anyway, what's wrong with neo-confederates, like SicEm? Nothing, it's simple people who promote state's rights. That's all a confederacy is is a group of people, states, or nations joined by a cause or idea. Remember the document called the Articles of Confederation?

Do I side with the rednecks waving a Confederate flag who see it as a racial issue? No.
Do I side with the men who saw Lincoln and the Federal Government making massive grabs of power that helped lead to the death of the 10th amendment in this country and the foundation of an overly powerful central authority? Yes.

People seem to have the idea that state's rights or any arguments provided by the Confederacy are automatically bad because of slavery or it's a race issue. This is the same as the people who throw out Martin Heidegger's philosophical works because he was a card carrying Nazi.

I can sympathize with the South, not for slavery, but for the position of an overreaching, power grabbing, central government. To throw out any of their arguments due to slavery would mean the Declaration of Independents as well as the Constitution itself would have to be throw out because Jefferson and Madison were slave owners.

[Turd_Ferguson]

This is quite possibly one of the most bigotted statements I have ever heard.

Take some Midol...it might help.

[diverdog]

A big problem with your argument is that Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves -- he went to war to preserve the Union. The overwhelming majority of Union troops fought to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves was an ancillary cause.

After hearing your "means justify the ends" argument, I really don't want to hear another word from you about the rule of law, constitutional rights and protections, or an over-reaching Congress/Executive for as long as you remain on this board. If the "ends justify the means" as determined by the Executive then there is no need for a Constitution, the rule of law, or even a Republic. Might makes right and the disregarding of the rule of law is evidently perfectly acceptable to you if the means justify the ends.

Your true colors are showing -- you're nothing more than left-wing despot apologist/enabler.

Whatever. My family whupped yours so that makes me right. :).

[soonercoop1]

Standing behind principle to protect an institution like slavery is unprincipled to begin with.

Lee was a moral disappointment. The South had paid lip service to ending slavery, but was no closer in 1860 than it was in 1789.

Kind of like how the Dems paid lip service to civil rights?

[diverdog]

Kind of like how the Dems paid lip service to civil rights?

And now all those same Dems are Republicans.

[FaninAma]

Diver, you're asserting an opinion that holds no validity. My great-great Grandfather fought for the Confederacy and didn't own slaves. His daughter, my Great Geandmother, stated almost nobody who served with him owned slaves. They fought against the Union because they believed in state's rights. Unless you have the same personal experience that Sic'em and I do you need to not act so arrogant when expressing your opinion.

[Blue]

'War of the States' or 'War of Northern Aggression', please. There was nothing mutual or civil about it.

[FaninAma]

MR2, I am in awe of your post. I don't think anything more needs to be said. It is just irritating that revisionist history taught in this country portrays Lincoln as an altruistic statesman when in fact he was an agenda-driven, idealogue elitist. His goal was always to take power away from the states so the Federal government could pursue the policies he and his fellow elitists felt were the right direction for the country to go.

Those who support Lincoln are right.....he won. Now here we are 150 years later with the country on the verge of bankruptcy, our children saddled with debt, the descendents of the slaves his supporters claim he cared about in the throes of social chaos all due to Federally mandated programs and policies. Lets see how much longer the Lincoln's legacy of an all powerful central government exists before it collapses under its own weight.

[hawaii 5-0]

State's Rights (to own slaves).


5-0

[diverdog]

Diver, you're asserting an opinion that holds no validity. My great-great Grandfather fought for the Confederacy and didn't own slaves. His daughter, my Great Geandmother, stated almost nobody who served with him owned slaves. They fought against the Union because they believed in state's rights. Unless you have the same personal experience that Sic'em and I do you need to not act so arrogant when expressing your opinion.

How do you know? Do you have any letters or did you actually talk to him? The fact that he did not own slaves does not mean he did not fight to preserve slavery. Now that is not to say a lot of folks were induced to fight for the South by the slave owning aristocracy.

Here is the transcript of the document called the Declaration of Immediate Causes Which May Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union:

http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf


The irony here is the the South was more upset with the north allowing freedom and equal rights to fugitive slaves.

I will stop being "arrogant" in my post when you guys do the same. It is a two way street.

I have to bow out of this fight for now. Got to go to a fundraiser for the local hospital and schmooze with all the doctors that are my clients. :)

[olevetonahill]

Holy ****ing ****, You people are weird as hell. Fighting over whos ancestors did what and why they did it. Yall dont know anything about the Whys and wherefores . But carry on , I find Yall amusing as hell.
Kinda like the Monkey cage at the Zoo. Yall keep flingin that Poo at each other.

[SicEmBaylor]

Whatever helps you sleep at night....



I'm against slavery. That makes me a despot?
The fact that you accept the premise that not only is the Constitution not the highest law in the land but that the rule of law in general should be subject to the whims of an imperial President who believes suspending the rule of law is acceptable if the ends justify the means -- yes that makes you a despot.


The South had resisted ending that horrible practice for too long and went to war to protect it. I don't care what the Union's motive was. It was the South who fired those first shots.
The first shot was certainly fired by the south, but Ft. Sumter was sovereign South Carolinian soil. Once South Carolina left the union and reclaimed sovereignty for herself, Union forces became foreign troops on South Carolinian soil. They were asked and given every opportunity to leave -- the reinforcement of those union forces was clearly an act of war that no sovereign entity could allow to be tolerated. I consider that and the calling up of troops by Lincoln to be enough to consider them the belligerent side in the war. After all, the Confederacy had no design on any union state or in overthrowing the American government; the Union absolutely had the intention of invading and bringing the Confederacy back into the Union via force. So, at least to me, which side fired the first shot is irrelevant to that larger point.

[Midtowner]

South Carolina wasn't a sovereign state after it joined the union following the revolutionary war. Firing those shots at Sumter was an act of treason. And you brush off who fired the first shot as irrelevant. How about inconvenient?

You can't call it a war against northern aggression when you fire the first shot.

And let's not pretend that for the South, slavery was some sort of ancillary issue and what they really cared about was their sovereignty and states' rights. It was about keeping their fellow human beings in bondage. The 13th Amendment had passed the Senate and it was only a matter of time in the House before it'd pass. No bit of revisionist history can change that.

[olevetonahill]

South Carolina wasn't a sovereign state after it joined the union following the revolutionary war. Firing those shots at Sumter was an act of treason. And you brush off who fired the first shot as irrelevant. How about inconvenient?

You can't call it a war against northern aggression when you fire the first shot.

And let's not pretend that for the South, slavery was some sort of ancillary issue and what they really cared about was their sovereignty and states' rights. It was about keeping their fellow human beings in bondage. The 13th Amendment had passed the Senate and it was only a matter of time in the House before it'd pass. No bit of revisionist history can change that.

Well after the war was started in fact it was almost over.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865

[SicEmBaylor]

South Carolina wasn't a sovereign state after it joined the union following the revolutionary war. Firing those shots at Sumter was an act of treason. And you brush off who fired the first shot as irrelevant. How about inconvenient?
Hypothetically, let's say you could go back in time to the Constitutional Convention and explain to all of those delegations that if they ratified the Constitution they would be relinquishing ALL of their sovereignty until the end of time and if the occasion ever arose where the Union was no longer in their state's interest then they would be held in bondage within that Union at the point of a bayonet. Let's see how many states would thereafter ratify the Constitution either north or south.

We live in a Federal Republic in which individual sovereign states created a Federal government to legislate on those issues that no one state could regulate. The states relinquished a portion of their sovereignty to create that Federal government but only as much sovereignty as required for the Federal government to prosecute its Constitutional duties. The states did NOT relinquish all of their sovereignty otherwise there would have been no need to continue to have individual states with individual state constitutions -- the Fed then could simply have carved up equal administrative districts and called it a day.



You can't call it a war against northern aggression when you fire the first shot.
Foreign troops on South Carolinian soil and reinforcing those troops was an act of war. No nation would stand for that.


And let's not pretend that for the South, slavery was some sort of ancillary issue and what they really cared about was their sovereignty and states' rights. It was about keeping their fellow human beings in bondage. The 13th Amendment had passed the Senate and it was only a matter of time in the House before it'd pass. No bit of revisionist history can change that.
Who is pretending? I've said slavery was the primary concern for the south; however, it certainly wasn't the only concern and you cannot divorce slavery from a states' rights argument when slavery itself is a states' rights issue.

Now whether their actions were 'treasonous' or not is simply a matter of perspective. Our Revolutionary forefathers were committing treason as well when they broke from the mother country. At that point in time in our country, the individual states were the closest and most important level of government to the people. People rightly considered their friends and neighbors and their state to be their "country" especially since that state came first and created the Federal government entirely as an artificial apparatus of convenience and necessity.

Betraying your family, your friends, your neighbors, and the state you call home would truly have been a treasonous act. But call it whatever you will -- the fact is that we fought a Revolution based on the principle that citizens have an inalienable right to abolish existing political alliances and form new governments to their mutual benefit. At no time was the caveat "...it has to be for good/just reasons" ever included when stating that principle.

[StoopTroup]

Who won?

[Midtowner]

The good guys.

[olevetonahill]

The good guys.

Nuh-uh. It aint over yet.

[MR2-Sooner86]

MR2, I am in awe of your post.

Most are. I kind of have that effect on people.

[FaninAma]

State's Rights (to own slaves).


5-0

I am so impressed with the way you raise the level of the conversation on this board. Really.

[FaninAma]

How do you know? Do you have any letters or did you actually talk to him? The fact that he did not own slaves does not mean he did not fight to preserve slavery. Now that is not to say a lot of folks were induced to fight for the South by the slave owning aristocracy.

Here is the transcript of the document called the Declaration of Immediate Causes Which May Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union:

http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf


The irony here is the the South was more upset with the north allowing freedom and equal rights to fugitive slaves.

I will stop being "arrogant" in my post when you guys do the same. It is a two way street.

I have to bow out of this fight for now. Got to go to a fundraiser for the local hospital and schmooze with all the doctors that are my clients. :)

Because my Great Grandmother probably had a clue about what her father believed. You know how you got pissed off when you thought I had been giving you crap about your family when I actually hadn't? Yet you still felt you had the right to do what you wrongly accused me of doing. Go figure.

BTW, my Great-Grandmother attended a mostly black church in Ada, Ok for the last 25 years of her life. A real racist that one.