Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who cares what justice Scalia thinks. If a state secedes it no longer answers to these tyrants in robes. In fact legislation from the bench is the most likely event that will lead to new secession drives. If our government does not begin to respect the right of the states to govern themselves as the 10th amendment prescribes, then some dark days may be ahead in this nation. The feds do NOT have the right to decide things like abortion and gay marriage. The Feds do not have the power to take over the banking and auto industry, they do not have the right to force a national healthcare system upon the states.
States are semi sovereign entities which can make most laws for themselves. Our federal government exists only to defend the nation, conduct foreign policy, print money and regulate interstate commerce. These duties prescribed in the constitution are the realm of the federal government, while everything else is the domain of the states. Our federal government lost sight of this a long time ago. In my opinion the era of big government began in April 1865. It took a hundred and fifty years to grow into the tyranny it is today but the fact is that it has become a monster.
Our government spies on our internet activity, listens to phone calls, they run up trillions in debt in our names in order to take over more and more of American life everyday. I am tired of it, I want the government my founding fathers intended us to have. Our confederate ancestors knew the limits of federal government and they attempted to stand up for them. It is unfortunate that slavery taints the confederate cause, but the cause of states rights was a good one. Don't kid yourself the north promoted slavery for a long time as well, and they provided no better living for freed slaves after the war either. Slavery and the treatment of blacks is a national sin, not just one of the confederacy or the south.
The reason for threats of secession today is obvious, massive government overreach from Washington. What right do northeastern liberals have to impose gay marriage on Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Kentucky or Tennessee??? The most recent violation was the ruling on gay marriage in Michigan. What right do they have?? They have no right to do it, and we have the right to stand up for ourselves and refuse to obey these edics. If people in the "more enlightened" part of America want to force red state America to obide by their PC values then they can prepare for the day they watch us leave the union. What will blue state America get??? All the gay marriages they want, socialism, and of course the twenty trillion dollars of debt they ran up. Respect our rights or watch the history unfold. All it will take is one southern governor who refuses to allow the gay marriages, or who refuses to obey a federal gun law. Cliven Bundys standoff with the feds showed us all cowboys with riffles driving off federal law enforcement and winning. Those are Americans, and our founding fathers would be proud of them. Bundy has proven to be a racist idiot, but the federal government controls too much land out west and they run it like tyrants. I support those who did what they did out there. We should have a small federal government and states should hold the majority of the power just as our founding fathers intended.
I agree that I don't want America to become a police state. Spying on Americans is not right. That is why I don't really trust new technologies. I also understand your anger that you feel your beliefs are not respected and they are forcing you to accept something you feel is wrong, but sometimes legal battles are lost and all you can do is accept it or fight on. I found the Bundy situation to be quite interesting. I really don't see why cows and tortoises can't co exist Lol.
Still if I could abolish one law it would be property taxes but that is another issue. I think people should be allowed to own their piece of land free and clear and pass it down from one generation to another. I think cities and towns should charge for social services some other way.
LOL Then why did Lincoln tell Horace Greely -- in summary -- that the reason he couldn't let the South "go in peace" was to keep its tax money?
A citation would be nice.
Now I don't do summaries, and to my knowledge this was the critical letter of Lincoln's position in 1862 in toto.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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 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 this 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,
A. LINCOLN.
Quote:
Why else did Lincoln use force to maintain a Union that is not a Union at all if it has to be held together by force?
A rather silly question to ask 150 years after the fact because one would think that the answer would be self-evident simply based upon the totality of U.S. history (and world history for that matter).
Quote:
Here is a pretty good article on Greely's feelings.
I not sure what your point is? To me it's like trying to introduce the thoughts and perspectives of Arthur Sulzberger as some sort of marker for the decisions of the Bush administration in 2001. I fail to see the relevance.
The South didn't invest as much for internal improvements as the north. The south was geared around a few cash crops:cotton, Tobacco, indigo, and rice with cotton being the king of them all. The south didn't invest as much as the north into improving harbors, building rail roads, and even roads. This made south unable to ship it's goods as directly as the north or to be able to manufacture as much. The south's rail roads were focused on getting cotton north for shipment and to turn into finished good like cloth. Where as the north's were built around getting goods in general between cities and other places of industry.
The problem with slavery is that capital that could have gone to expand industry instead goes into purchasing more and more slaves and land.
"You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end.
The North can make a steam engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth-right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with."--General Sherman
If you can't make a yard of cloth, how the heck are you going to have much of an shipping industry or clothe your troops? The inability to manufacture and transport stuff around is one of the many reasons why confederacy was unable to win the war.This is also way succession is stupid. Almost no state in the union has all the industry or resources as the whole .
Here is an link that compares north to south: Digital History
Sherman was right of course. The thing was the whole war was about cultural differences. The North was moving forward with industry, and modern labor practices. Immigrants cost them little to employ and if they couldn't work someone was next in line. There was no overhead for children and sick or old people. They used the system they did because it was cheaper. The south was culturally tied to its slaves, because they were the defination of wealth. Within themselves both functioned. In a war, the south was already behind with its limited rescourses to move men and supplies.
People start wars not based on a good analysis of the outcome but the moment, and because they see things through the filter of their world. To southerners all that Sherman mentioned didn't matter. To the north it was assumed it would be fast and easy. Both were wrong.
If the combatents in a war could take a time trip forward and see what the ultimate outcome would be, I wonder how many wars would be called off.
Why does the South want to secede?
How about a Federal Gov out of whack with the common hard working American. How about the Feds forcing their will and laws on states that don't want or don't need their help or advice. Mass. had a good health care system that had 85% of people happy and insured then Obama care came along and blew it up.
I think there are many states that have had it with the Feds and would like to secede not just the South.
Why does the South want to secede?
How about a Federal Gov out of whack with the common hard working American. How about the Feds forcing their will and laws on states that don't want or don't need their help or advice. Mass. had a good health care system that had 85% of people happy and insured then Obama care came along and blew it up.
I think there are many states that have had it with the Feds and would like to secede not just the South.
States are more than free to return federal money for highways, education, housing, healthcare, welfare, unemployment, supplemental social security, environmental protection, research funding to state universities and colleges. But you're right, there's some stuff that state's cannot escape, like the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, which states, particularly those in the south have an uncanny history of abusing.
You shouldn't discuss the Civil War if you are so ignorant of history. The IRS was created in 1862 to pay for the Civil War. The proposition that the Civil War was fought to protect tax revenues is just revisionist nonsense.
LOL You are just digging a ditch for yourself. Amusing as hell...
Uhhh? The point of contention is what percentage -- relative to population -- were the Southern states paying to federal coffers prior to the War Between the States? And how it figured in to the whole issue of secession? Which was quite a bit (no pun intended! )
Do you not grasp that what was passed by Congress in terms of an income tax in 1862 applied only to the northern states which remained in the Union. Thus, had nothing to do with the Southern states which were no longer part of the above Union and not relevant in the least to what had preceded it all? Wow!
States are more than free to return federal money for highways, education, housing, healthcare, welfare, unemployment, supplemental social security, environmental protection, research funding to state universities and colleges. But you're right, there's some stuff that state's cannot escape, like the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, which states, particularly those in the south have an uncanny history of abusing.
Have a nice day.
What gives the right to the central government to take tax money to begin with...and then redistribute it? Oh yeah, I know...so certain politicians can amass power and wealth of their own...
Also? Abuse? I am sure there were...but the point is of comparison. Why were so many "Civil Rights" leaders extremely shaken by their experiences up North? Such as when MLK said something as "If you want to teach a white Southerner how to hate, send them to Chicago". And Andrew Young said he was never so scared for his safety in the South as he was when the "movement" went north...?
They must have known what they were talking about, wouldn't you say?
But really? How long is this past thingy going to go on, as in what any longer matters in terms of race-relations? This guilt stuff of something that is -- at the very least -- 40 years old -- is just wearing out and doing no one any good.
Now I don't do summaries, and to my knowledge this was the critical letter of Lincoln's position in 1862 in toto.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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 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 this 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,
A. LINCOLN.
Yes. And where does this contradict my own position at all? In fact, it backs up mine that the old mantra of the war being fought over slavery was just a latter day cover. Which in turn asks the question of why did Lincoln choose to use military force to coerce the Southern states back into a union they no longer wanted to be part of? (yes, I know I ended a sentence with a preposition! )
"Preserving the Union" sounds -- by arguing from result -- a very noble undertaking -- far as that goes --Southerners have always been the most traditionally patriotic of all -- but it still begs the question of why the Lincoln administration invaded the South to begin with?
Or, better put, from your point of view/vision, give an historical justification -- as you see it -- for any other reason to expend the lives of at least a couple of hundred thousand northern men for something that was never necessary. Further, to provoke an incident that -- as Lincoln pretty much said himself, was just a total fabrication for public opinion purposes...
Quote:
A rather silly question to ask 150 years after the fact because one would think that the answer would be self-evident simply based upon the totality of U.S. history (and world history for that matter).
LOL What in the world are you talking about? Once again, you are arguing from result and an alternate history aspect based upon the opnionated result, and such goes into a hundred million different scenarios that slips into the old "if" thing...as in "If pigs had wings, they'd be eagles".
I am not trying to be a "smartass" here, but only to make the concrete point that an argument that history as we know it justifies the original means used, is not a very good one. As Jefferson Davis wrote in his memoirs:
"The principle for which we content is bound to reassert itself, although it may be in another time and another form."
Or VP Alexander Stephens:
"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity. "
I realize that your own political philosophy -- which you have said before is socialism -- would not see this as anything to be concerned about...so this is where we would obviously talk past each other...
Quote:
I not sure what your point is? To me it's like trying to introduce the thoughts and perspectives of Arthur Sulzberger as some sort of marker for the decisions of the Bush administration in 2001. I fail to see the relevance.
LOL Well, I am not sure what the Bush point is. See above on all that. Anyway, time to call it a night! Enjoyed it and have a good one!
Because the issue of seceding started with the civil war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
)
