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.
You are aware that neither Missouri nor Kentucky voted to accept the above quoted resolutions and that both states remained in the Union throughout the war?
There is nothing wrong with the flag. I'm more concerned about the person waving it (not that it is a bad or good thing...I'm just saying, things don't offend me, people do)
You are aware that neither Missouri nor Kentucky voted to accept the above quoted resolutions and that both states remained in the Union throughout the war?
I am aware of their neutrality, but the declarations express the real issues of the time very well: usurpation of power by the Federal Government in violation of the Constitution. The Civil War did not settle this issue, far from it.
I am aware of their neutrality, but the declarations express the real issues of the time very well: usurpation of power by the Federal Government in violation of the Constitution.
How does a declaration that failed 98-1 represent "the real issue"?!?!
And why did you select Missouri and Kansas to begin with when you have the ordinances and underlying supporting documents from those states that actually did secede to choose from.
Don't bother answering my last question because we both know the answer.
And why did you select Missouri and Kansas to begin with when you have the ordinances and underlying supporting documents from those states that actually did secede to choose from.
Because they address the constitutional issues most eloquently. You can read the others and see the same issues cited. I can post the others easily but it would be reader overkill. I'm not trying to pull anything underhanded or deceptive, history is history, like it or not. The Civil War was over the rights of sovereign states, not slavery, though slavery was the most contentious issue.
Because they address the constitutional issues most eloquently. You can read the others and see the same issues cited. I can post the others easily but it would be reader overkill. I'm not trying to pull anything underhanded or deceptive, history is history, like it or not. The Civil War was over the rights of sovereign states, not slavery, though slavery was the most contentious issue.
Let me repeat, the ordinance so "eloquently" written was defeated 98-1. If it was as eloquent a capsulation of the "central issue" one would think that it would have turned the heart of the most recalcitrant unionist, BUT IT DIDN'T. Why, because it is a misstatement of fact and constitutional theory and history.
As for overkill, I think we can stand it. In point of fact I think that we can not overkill enough posting the eloquent statements of the seceding states whose flowery prose weaved a fantastical tap dance around THE central issue, the slave's state love of slavery!
So post away, and then we will decide upon the issue of deception and underhandedness and what is actually history and what is nothing but revisionism.
So post away, and then we will decide upon the issue of deception and underhandedness and what is actually history and what is nothing but revisionism.
This seems to be a passionate issue for you, so I'll leave you in peace. I never gave the old stars and bars much thought until this recent campaign to revile it. Some things are best left alone. The scars of the Civil War have not healed to this day.
This is the point where somebody might quote the Cornerstone Speech, or the statements of secession from states which state explicitly that slavery was at the heart of their actions, that:
and so what? Slavery was the immediate issue. But it wouldn't be an issue at all if there wasn't a question about federal power versus states power. If the issue of slavery was to be left to the states, as it had been, then there wouldn't be an issue at all. Slavery was an issue because the balance of power between the federal government and states had never been resolved.
Slavery was an issue because the Northern states, the Republican states, who had been allowed to resolve the slavery issue on their own, weren't prepared to let the Southern states resolve the issue on their own. And part of that had NOTHING to do with morality. If you want to know about the origins of war, follow the money. Northern bankers, financiers were eager to abolish slavery, because they were eager to wreck the Southern economy. If they simply wanted to abolish slavery, why not come up with a plan to recompense slave owners for the slaves that were freed? Most of the money in the federal treasury was raised from the South anyway. If it was so important to end slavery, why not do it without destroying the South's economy? And such plans had been discussed in great detail over the decades, there had been proposals. When England abolished slavery, they reimbursed some of the slave owners. If you live somewhere, and someone from elsewhere is proposing to destroy your economy, do you defend yourself, or do you just let it happen?
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.
