U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2011, 07:49 AM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,253,880 times
Reputation: 12580

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
The Confederacy lost because they never won the ideological battle for their concept of government. The fact of the matter was they could never persuade the majority of Americans to believe in their concept of states’ rights having supremacy over the Federal Government.

It's an argument that states rights advocates have pushed time and time again in American history and each time they have failed. In fact there is no modern developed country where an indvidual province, state or terriotry in a country has supremacy over the national government.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson's election was considered a victory for the states' rights movement, so "each time they have" not failed. And Jefferson's victory, which largely hinged on the anti-federalist issue, would demonstrate that, in fact, a majority of Americans did at one time believe in the concept of states' rights. And your characterization of the states' rights movement being an effort to have an individual province, state or territory in a county have supremacy over the national government is incorrect. That's not what the states' rights movement is about. It's a Constitutional issue, where there is a balance of power between the states and the federal government, and the states have certain powers which are not shared with the federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2011, 05:01 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 665,645 times
Reputation: 249
Default whatever

[quote=TexasReb;18280543]Yes, they were/did.

“One of the strangest things about the career of Jim Crow was that the system was born in the North and reached an advanced age before moving South in force.” -- C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow

Origins of "Jim Crow" Laws



Funny that you keep saying something like this, but keep responding.


No question that the North had its racist laws but the term "Jim Crow" was reserved for the black codes that began appearing as early as late 1865 and were still in effect in the South a century or more later. Every source you've cited is extremely biased toward your southern revisionist viewpoint and could be refuted or countered a hundred times over but what's the point? I will say that you're very good at spinning your tales.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 05:04 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 665,645 times
Reputation: 249
Default whatever

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
There is no appeal to it. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Better stated, sorry if you can't grasp that reasonable people can take the same historical facts and percieve and interpret them in different ways.

But that is your problem with objectivity, not mine.
Except it's not the truth...and your appeal to reasonableness is...quaint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 06:49 PM
 
10,963 posts, read 8,032,567 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Actually, Thomas Jefferson's election was considered a victory for the states' rights movement, so "each time they have" not failed. And Jefferson's victory, which largely hinged on the anti-federalist issue, would demonstrate that, in fact, a majority of Americans did at one time believe in the concept of states' rights. And your characterization of the states' rights movement being an effort to have an individual province, state or territory in a county have supremacy over the national government is incorrect. That's not what the states' rights movement is about. It's a Constitutional issue, where there is a balance of power between the states and the federal government, and the states have certain powers which are not shared with the federal government.
The fact you had to go back over 200 years to site s significant victory for states’ rights points to the fact the issue has always had difficulty maintaining enough traction to appeal to the MAJORITY of American people for a sustained period of time.

If you look at the Confederate Constitution and their efforts to raise money during the Civil War the Confederate Congress had trouble raising money BECAUSE STATES WHERE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTRIBIUTE FUNDS TO THE GOVERNMENT the Confederacy could ask states for money but they did not have the Constitutional power to MAKE THEM send money.

Money for Nothing

Quote:
Memminger’s findings, presented in July, gave a grim picture. Taxing the South wouldn’t be easy. Revenue systems varied widely by state. Available estimates were very rough: South Carolina hadn’t collected information on land values since 1830. Undeterred, Memminger urged Congress to levy a tax on certain classes of property — mostly real estate and slaves, the South’s principal assets.

Memminger wanted slave-owners to bear the brunt of the taxes. “The origin and character of the war in which we are engaged,” he declared, “would seem to make this species of property more particularly bound for its support.” After much foot-dragging, the legislators finally complied in August. They didn’t tax one kind of property more than another, however. Instead, they adopted a uniform rate — of one-half of one percent.

The tax turned out to be a fiasco. Sentiment against it ran high, contributing to delays in collection and resistance among the states. Relatively little revenue came into Memminger’s coffers as a result. The Confederacy had been founded on the principle of the sovereignty of the states; any attempt by the central government to assert itself, even to support a war fought for its survival, would be met with mistrust.
If you look at the Confederate Constitution and their efforts to raise money during the Civil War the Confederate Congress had trouble raising money BECAUSE STATES WHERE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTRIBIUTE FUNDS TO THE GOVERNMENT the Confederacy could ask states for money but they did not have the Constitutional power to MAKE THEM send money.

So we have an historical example of the states deeming themselves having supremacy over the Confederate Congress in terms of collecting taxes and delivering them to the coffers of the Confederate treasury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 07:20 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,885 posts, read 12,994,700 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tightwad View Post
The truth of a horror is often forgotten to glamorize the lie......

"It was bad enough when Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell proclaimed Confederate History Month without mentioning slavery, but at least he came to his senses and apologized."

How well the Gov. forgot the truth until he was reminded of it........

"The Atlantic slave trade was one of the last millennium’s greatest horrors. An estimated 17 million Africans, most of them teenagers, were snatched from their families, stuffed into the holds of ships and brought to the New World. As many as 7 million of them died en route, either on the high seas or at “seasoning” camps in the Caribbean where they were “broken” to the will of their masters."


Eugene Robinson: The Confederacy Isn’t Something to Be Proud Of - Truthdig


too bad our children are not being really taght in schools these days that the civil war was not really about slavery, but in fact about state rights, and that the Constitution did not in fact ban secession.

lincoln could have made it alot better to just buy all the slaves from bondage and set them free. yes it would have been expensive, but it would have been cheaper than what the civil war costed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,275 posts, read 10,240,238 times
Reputation: 5361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And yet he said:

"If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one."
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
So can you explain something. Chase ruled in Texas vs. White that Texas secession was null and void because secession was unconstitutional, yet the act by Texas was not rebellion. Something is awry here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,275 posts, read 10,240,238 times
Reputation: 5361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Yes, the North didn't have slaves in 1850, they had "apprentices for life". Slavery was never as widespread in the North because, hmmm, where were those big old agricultural plantation in the North? How many times can you fit the entire state of Massachusetts into Georgia? How many times could you fit the state of Rhode Island into the King Ranch of Texas?

It wasn't that the North and the British had "done it, too", it was that the North and the British had profited tremendously from doing it, and then were able to eliminate it in their own backyards quite easily and cheaply. They'd only been the slave dealers, not the consumers.

And the South wasn't the moral wasteland that history depicts.
There were Southerners that wanted to abolish slaverly. But they didn't want to do it at the cost of the entire economy. It's funny how the North felt that slavery was morally repugnant, but Northern bankers had not qualms about loaning money based on slaves as collateral. It's funny how the North felt that slavery was so offensive, but the Northern insurance companies were okay with holding their noses as they wrote insurance policies for slaves. It's funny how none of those descendants of ship merchants from the North, who inherited large fortunes that they invested in paper mills and textile factories, and none of those descendants would admit that any part of those fortunes came from the slave trade. And yet it wasn't Southern ships that were laden with slaves from Africa. Those ships were owned and operated by Northerners. NOT Southerners. The fortunes made off of slavery were made by Northerners. As anyone can tell you, in an agrarian economy, like the South, the wealth is in the land, not in banks. The South was land rich, capital poor. The North was just the opposite.

If the North could have proposed a way to end slavery that wouldn't have cast the South into an economic depression that would have made the Great Depression look like a walk in the park, then maybe war would have been avoided. But such propositions had been introduced to Congress, a systematic, gradual abolition with financial compensation to slave owners who freed their slaves, and the Northern legislators said no. The North had made fortunes from the slave trade, and they'd been able to gradually abolish it in their own states, but when they had the power, they weren't prepared to follow a similar path in the South. And they had the power to force the South, which is why the South tried to remove itself from the Union. I don't think that was the smart thing to do, or a good thing to do, but I can understand what the South was trying to do. They were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't. And either way resulted in economic ruin.
I remember hearing on a documentary (Shelby Foote) that upwards of 100,000 white men from the South volunteered to fight for the Union. People need to know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:18 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,885 posts, read 12,994,700 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
So can you explain something. Chase ruled in Texas vs. White that Texas secession was null and void because secession was unconstitutional, yet the act by Texas was not rebellion. Something is awry here.


show me where in the Constitution it says that a state cannot secede from the union?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,518 posts, read 16,420,293 times
Reputation: 8061
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
too bad our children are not being really taght in schools these days that the civil war was not really about slavery, but in fact about state rights, and that the Constitution did not in fact ban secession.

lincoln could have made it alot better to just buy all the slaves from bondage and set them free. yes it would have been expensive, but it would have been cheaper than what the civil war costed.

Yes, Lincoln was a total failure as a leader. He is responsible for almost one million American deaths. Diplomacy was not given time to solve the issue like was done in other countries.

Lincoln is probably the #1 worst president we have had. Followed closely by FDR and Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,275 posts, read 10,240,238 times
Reputation: 5361
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Where in the Constitution does it say that? Where was that "pledge" adopted by any state which was originally part of the Union, or those which came subsequent?

The phrase "perpetual" appears in the Articles of Confederation which was later replaced by the Constitution. To say there was no "right" of secession, repudiates the very foundation of the Declaration of Independence. Which is based on that government derives their powers solely from "the consent of the governed."

If you believe different, then just say so.
So Texas Reb, what of Texas vs White? Does Texas have the right to secede currently? Am curious. I still cannot wrap my head around the so called deep patriotism of southerners and then read posts declaring that a state can up a leave any ol time no matter what. As if the USA was some kind of treaty alliance and not a nation. Lincoln didn't want a bunch of bitterly divided little republics all over the continent fighting wars ala the Balkans for years on end. It amazes me too how many Americans despise Lincoln. I mean for gods sake there is giant memorial to the guy in DC. He is specifically mentioned on the WWII memorial. We grew up with an abiding admiration of the man like Washington. The fact that so many in the country hate him seems like we live in a very dis-unified and contradictory country. Why even bother sticking together now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:20 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top