![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted:
Virginia told Lincoln not to march his troops into our state, the heart of the Confederacy was born because the Feds were too big for their britches. History repeats itself. View Quote This. Lincoln screwed the pooch by pissing off the Old Dominion. I imagine the war would have been a lot shorter had Virginia remained in the Union. People forget that each state considered themselves sovereign and each had different reason for secession. Initially Virginia delegates voted to remain in the Union. A delegation of both pro-Union and pro-secession representatives went to D.C. with the intent of opening a dialogue with Lincoln. Lincoln issued his famous call for 75,000 troops to invade the south on the same day the delegation arrived in D.C. The delegation pretty much realized that this order effectively forced them to either leave the Union, or submit to what they recognized as a foreign invasion. When the delegation returned to Virginia, they voted for secession. Alexander Stuart, the delegate from Staunton was a representative to D.C. who was very pro-Union. Even he admitted that the call for an invading force was a "provocative" measure. |
|
Quoted:
States rights. Nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln was the traitor. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice. The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves. Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation. The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization. For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it. The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations. A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren. The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations. These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates. These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved. Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity. It was such a non-issue that Georgia didn't mention it 36 times in their secession papers. 36 TIMES! |
|
|
Quoted:
So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I'm a displaced Michigander. VA isn't really my state. I'm only here for school. So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() Have you ruled out the possibility he learned it at one of Virginia's Historically Black Colleges? |
|
Quoted:
So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I'm a displaced Michigander. VA isn't really my state. I'm only here for school. So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() I guarantee you I didn't learn about the 1860 Democratic National Convention and the articles of secession in grade school. It's not my fault that many in the South would really just rather forget about their "peculiar institution" and therefore gloss over the key role the preservation of slavery held in their motivation for secession. The historical record clearly indicates why the Southern states began seceding. They spell it out for us in their own documents. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore history, be my guest. Again, might some states (i.e. Virginia) have had other reasons? Yes. But ultimately, when you trace it all back to its foundations VA wouldn't have seceded had Lincoln not threatened to invade to preserve the Union which was imperiled by the secession of other states over the issue of... Slavery. |
|
Quoted:
Have you ruled out the possibility he learned it at one of Virginia's Historically Black Colleges? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a displaced Michigander. VA isn't really my state. I'm only here for school. So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() Have you ruled out the possibility he learned it at one of Virginia's Historically Black Colleges? Try Hillsdale College, in Hillsdale, MI. |
|
Quoted:
Try Hillsdale College, in Hillsdale, MI. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a displaced Michigander. VA isn't really my state. I'm only here for school. So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() Have you ruled out the possibility he learned it at one of Virginia's Historically Black Colleges? Try Hillsdale College, in Hillsdale, MI. I thought you said you were in VA for school. Post-grad or part of the exchange-a-Yankee program? |
|
Quoted:
I thought you said you were in VA for school. Post-grad or part of the exchange-a-Yankee program? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a displaced Michigander. VA isn't really my state. I'm only here for school. So in actuality, you have no idea what you're talking about, except for what you learned in grade school. Please tell us more. ![]() Have you ruled out the possibility he learned it at one of Virginia's Historically Black Colleges? Try Hillsdale College, in Hillsdale, MI. I thought you said you were in VA for school. Post-grad or part of the exchange-a-Yankee program? Law school. Don't get me wrong. I love the South (though this cesspool of Arlington is something of an exception. I generally get along with Southerners better than other Yankees. I just cannot fathom how so many Southerners are so willing to completely ignore the documents which demonstrate why they seceded. "It wasn't about slavery! It was about states' rights!" Well, which states' rights, exactly? "Uhhhhh..." Yeah, that's what I thought. The right to keep slaves. |
|
Quoted:
This CNN comedian/political hack claims that the confederate flag was a flag of traitors and racist and makes a small connection to the Tea Party. I really can't stand the government sponsored media. link View Quote If the Confederate flag represents treason to the United States, then the American flag represents treason to the United Kingdom. |
|
Yea it was all about slavery.
Facts: The USA had slavery for 90 years. Including after the Civil War was over. The Confederate states had slavery for 4 years. Spin that. ![]() |
|
|
|
Quoted:
How does it feel being from the north knowing that blacks were segregated from white troops and led by a white officer, yet in the south, black fought along side of whites? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
CNN is trolling. Bring back "racism" to the national debate when Zero's signature accomplishment is imploding on rollout? Obvious to the extent that it's laughable. Different point: Since this will inevitably devolve into a fuck Lincoln confederate circle jerk before page 3...., I'll just get this in now: Those Southerners who sanctify the Confederates to the extent where they will not allow for the fact that there were "some" (at least) honorable and courageous men fighting in the United States Army from 1861-65 are beneath contempt. There were honorable, and dare I say it, brave men fighting for the Union. I understand that you honor your heritage, but I also honor mine. How does it feel being from the north knowing that blacks were segregated from white troops and led by a white officer, yet in the south, black fought along side of whites? How does it feel knowing that the US Army took a relentless beating in the East for the first couple years but kept coming, but when it got tough for the CSA, they bitched up and quit because they couldn't take the medicine they were dishing out? (See how that works?) |
|
Quoted:
Yea it was all about slavery. Facts: The USA had slavery for 90 years. Including after the Civil War was over. The Confederate states had slavery for 4 years. Spin that. ![]() View Quote So... you're saying that the United States has had slavery for 38% of its existence and the Confederacy for 100% of its existence? |
|
Abe Lincoln is a hero to many and is known as the "great emancipator" of slaves.
Lincoln's own family were slave owners (Mordecai Lincoln). Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds). |
|
Quoted:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MLcd3Xxz_h0/T9ZEwfTvHUI/AAAAAAAAHnc/KN-HGHw5tVM/s1600/confederat+flag+t+shirt.jpg i do enjoy grits though.... ![]() We are ALL AMERICANS! http://www.4thfest.org/images/donations/flagraising.jpg i have no hate towards anyone, north, south, east, west View Quote I kinda don't like anyone. |
|
Not a single slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship.
They all came on USA flagged ships and European countries. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
How does it feel knowing that the US Army took a relentless beating in the East for the first couple years but kept coming, but when it got tough for the CSA, they bitched up and quit because they couldn't take the medicine they were dishing out? (See how that works?) View Quote I doubt the New England bankers even broke a sweat ordering another wave of conscripts to the front. |
|
I was actually thinking about this the other day. Say "this" revolution everyone speaks of happens sometime soon I would still fly the American flag because that's the flag of my country that I would be fighting to take back. Now if there is a total other country formed then I can see changing flags but as far so I am concerned America has one flag and it represents our fore fathers and their principals.
|
|
|
|
My yankee ass is flying a traitor's flag in my avatar. CNN can suck it.
|
|
Slavery was practiced in the Northern states for 200 years dating back to the colonial period, until after the war was over.
Slavery was legal according to the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution at the time of the Civil War. |
|
Pretty funny how a news article from CNN can rile up some people here
![]() who gives a flying fuck |
|
If the south would have freed it's slaves then fired on Ft Sumter would we still be having this debate?
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
So... you're saying that the United States has had slavery for 38% of its existence and the Confederacy for 100% of its existence? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea it was all about slavery. Facts: The USA had slavery for 90 years. Including after the Civil War was over. The Confederate states had slavery for 4 years. Spin that. ![]() So... you're saying that the United States has had slavery for 38% of its existence and the Confederacy for 100% of its existence? ![]() ![]() |
|
View Quote LOL, this pretty much sums up the south ![]() You lost, get over it, you look foolish flying that rag ![]() |
|
Why would the South give up a Billion dollar enterprise that was legal?
The North simply could not grow the big money crops like cotton and tobacco because of climate. But the North had no problem shipping slave crops to Europe. Money was much more important than morals. |
|
CNN sponsors government controlled slavery in the form of people working there asses off to support the lazy lardasses of the liberal agenda.
|
|
Quoted:
Probably not. But that begs the question, why would states like GA and SC free their slaves when they seceded to preserve them? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If the south would have freed it's slaves then fired on Ft Sumter would we still be having this debate? Probably not. But that begs the question, why would states like GA and SC free their slaves when they seceded to preserve them? Call them serfs instead of slaves, give them a few rights, presto you have instant cannon fodder, support from England and a lower class labor force when you have won independence. Afterwards you can deport excess populations of undesireables or conduct progroms of the subserviant classes. |
|
Quoted:
I bet those folks went to Yankee government schools. From Lincoln: "If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
We have many here who say the same thing, and believe the War of Northern Aggression was fought for the sole purpose freeing the slaves. I bet those folks went to Yankee government schools. From Lincoln: "If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." But slavery WAS one if the integral issues of the Civil War. The issue over morality of slavery and political side effects of states being slave or free was the spark that led to debates over states rights and keeping the Union together. |
|
Civil wars are inevitable when you have a group of individual states that become part of a single union.
It was critical to our development as a nation. |
|
|
The feds barred them from voting and holding government office under the Fourteenth Amendment until they passed the Amnesty Act of 1872.
It fits the legal Constitutional definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. But, it doesn't fit the real definition of treason, not to me, anyway. It was a rebellion. If the Confederate States opened their ports to the British and invited them to invade Washington, and gave them maps or soldiers or logistic support, that would be treason. They didn't do that. I can't call it treason. |
|
Quoted:
Yup...our ancestors were traitors to England....who cares. Confederates were traitors to the us government...it didn't work out...I don't think many people really hate them for it today. And EVERYONE was racist back then. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
They were. As were the soldiers who fought for independence from Great Britain 90 years earlier. One man's traitor is another man's patriot. Just depends on who wins the war. Had the South won, history would no doubt have a different take on their struggle to liberate themselves from the North's oppressive economic restrictions or something similar. Yup...our ancestors were traitors to England....who cares. Confederates were traitors to the us government...it didn't work out...I don't think many people really hate them for it today. And EVERYONE was racist back then. Well said. Impressive to hear from a guy in MA ![]() |
|
Quoted:
I was actually thinking about this the other day. Say "this" revolution everyone speaks of happens sometime soon I would still fly the American flag because that's the flag of my country that I would be fighting to take back. Now if there is a total other country formed then I can see changing flags but as far so I am concerned America has one flag and it represents our fore fathers and their principals. View Quote Agreed. Preserve the flag and preserve the Constitution. |
|
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world. As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." View Quote |
|
Quoted:
If the Confederate flag represents treason to the United States, then the American flag represents treason to the United Kingdom. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
This CNN comedian/political hack claims that the confederate flag was a flag of traitors and racist and makes a small connection to the Tea Party. I really can't stand the government sponsored media. link If the Confederate flag represents treason to the United States, then the American flag represents treason to the United Kingdom. Winning is everything. |
|
these civil war threads are a fine display of hyperventilated un-knowledge and un-logic.
jibber jabber from other threads full of jibber jabber repeated and repeated oh, if only there were these things full of paper pages that had all kinds of printed information in them I would call them a "book" and a big public building full of the things where you could borrow them for free that would be wonderful someone should invent that unfortunately those things don't exist and the only source of information is beer talk on the internet |
|
Quoted:
The feds barred them from voting and holding government office under the Fourteenth Amendment until they passed the Amnesty Act of 1872. It fits the legal Constitutional definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. But, it doesn't fit the real definition of treason, not to me, anyway. It was a rebellion. If the Confederate States opened their ports to the British and invited them to invade Washington, and gave them maps or soldiers or logistic support, that would be treason. They didn't do that. I can't call it treason. View Quote At the time there was nothing in our Constitution that prohibited secession. Therefore, wasn't Lincoln's waging of war treason? |
|
Quoted:
Well said. Impressive to hear from a guy in MA ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were. As were the soldiers who fought for independence from Great Britain 90 years earlier. One man's traitor is another man's patriot. Just depends on who wins the war. Had the South won, history would no doubt have a different take on their struggle to liberate themselves from the North's oppressive economic restrictions or something similar. Yup...our ancestors were traitors to England....who cares. Confederates were traitors to the us government...it didn't work out...I don't think many people really hate them for it today. And EVERYONE was racist back then. Well said. Impressive to hear from a guy in MA ![]() it is impressive to see that much bullshit in one place if there was a guy who had read every single book ever written on the civil war and the politics of the era and knew every single thing about the war and was also a law expert and an expert on the Constitution his eyes would burst into flames if he tried to read one of these threads |
|
Quoted:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world. As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." Oh, now you've done it. I wonder if anyone realizes that the philosophical underpinnings of that speech were largely pioneered by yet another Southern great: John C. Calhoun. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.