Did Trav see it? Hello? He was the Master of Ceremonies for it.
I can understand the pain of the secessionists. And I understand their arguments. But it's one those deals where, you pay them lip service, and then you move on. We had a war the decided this issue quite some time ago.
Now, look, I detest how bloated the Federal government has gotten. And I do believe that the states should be given back more of the power that the Federal government took from them over the years.
But.......like, get serious......
They could all band together and form the United States of Confusion! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only thing the Civil War proved is that an industrialized country run by a criminal can beat an agricultural country when the agricultural country fights with honor and dignity.Originally posted by Lew:
We had a war the decided this issue quite some time ago.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only thing the Civil War proved is that an industrialized country run by a criminal can beat an agricultural country when the agricultural country fights with honor and dignity.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Abraham Lincoln a criminal?Originally posted by travelinman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Lew:
We had a war the decided this issue quite some time ago.
Slave holders "honorable"?
WTF????
I think the biggest mistake Lincoln made was in treating the "Confederacy" as a sovereign entity. He should have sent troops (just large enough in size to accomplish their goal but small enough in number to move quickly) into Richmond to capture and try old Jeff Davis et al as traitors. But his hands were tied by the amount of time elapsed between the outbreak of Southern aggression and his assumption of office. And he should have fired McClellan and put someone like Grant as head of the Army of the Potomac to wipe out the rebellion in its infancy. McClellan stalled and postured and wasted the time needed to end it.
It's like, Trav is still my man and everything, but I don't think I'm ever going to be able to help set him clear on this front [img]wink.gif[/img]
One thing I will say that always bothered me- a few years back, there was plan to build a memorial in Columbia, SC in honor of the South Carolians who fought for the Union (the number they claimed was about 5,000 or so, presumably most of them former slaves).
Well you can imagine how well this went over, it was shot down by the local politicians in no time.
And it bothered me because I was under the impression that South Carolina was part of the United States. It has two senators, it has seats in the House, its citizens can be drafted into the military, they can serve on Federal juries, they pay Federal taxes. And that its citizens were citizens of the U.S. And how could government officials block a memorial honoring men who fought (and died) in the U.S. Army?
Obviously the answer lies in the timing. I presume there are memorials in South Carolina honoring the U.S. military for its actions in the Spanish-American War and WWI. I know for a fact there's a memorial in Charleston honoring WWII, Korea and Vietnam. But none honoring the Civ- ERRRRRR The War of Nothern Aggrssion.
(and interestingly enough, at Gettysburg each southern state has its own memorial honring its soldiers who fought there).
Question: What Was the Real Reason for the Civil War?
Answer: States' Rights! - NOT Slavery
Walter Williams
THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ----big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.
Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."
History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.
Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.
Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests. Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.
That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the US. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.
The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.
States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.
Trav,
There was a very interesting article in the St Pete Times yesterday on this very issue. Look up Nelson Winbush in your search engine of choice. His grandfather served as a Confederate soldier (Louis Napoleon Nelson, I just can't escape that middle name...) and was African American. Winbush speaks out all the time voicing the same position you have taken. He also takes a lot of heat for not taking the traditional (and false) line that the war was about slavery.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 08, 2007 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Beachcomber ]</font>
Well, since the name John C. Calhoun was brought up, let's take a look at his most famous oration on the floor of the U.S. Senate:
"A large portion of the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would consider it as an obligation of conscience to abolish it if they should feel themselves in any degree responsible for its continuance, and that this doctrine would necessarily lead to the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence as it has with this fanatical portion of society, and that they would begin their operations on the ignorant, the weak, the young, and the thoughtless, - and gradually extend upwards till they would become strong enough to obtain political control, when he and others holding the highest stations in society, would, however reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be driven into obscurity."
He went on to state:
"I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good - a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other."
Okey-dokey. I'll grant you the causes of the war are complex and multiple in nature. But to suggest, as the pro-Confederate side has maintained for the past 100 years or so, that slavery had "nothing" to do with it.......I mean, did I get hit in the head with a wrecking ball? OK it wasn't slavery per se, it was the expansion of slavery as the country was growing......
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks