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.
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.
The absolute answer is YES. Texas has the right to secede, period.
The easy way to find that answer is to simply use logic. All you have to do is ask, do you think the thirteen colonies(states) would have ceded so much power to the federal government if they had known that there was no way to get out of it? How many of those thirteen colonies at one point or another had threatened to secede(prior to the confederacy). Why is the United States even called the United States to begin with? What are "United States", and why did most of the founding fathers attempt to prevent as much power from being held in the federal government as was possible? What are the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? Why did Thomas Jefferson get elected?
The founding fathers basically believed that government should only exist with the consent of the governed. And that the states should be as near to autonomous as possible. And the existence of the federal government was merely to defend the borders of this country, and to prevent trade disputes between states. Thats all it was meant to do.
If you look at Europe during the Civil War, England and France were both pro-confederacy. Lord Acton who wrote "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", stated that he believed states rights were necessary to prevent absolutism and tyranny, and were the redemption of democracy and not its destruction.
In fact, if the south had won at Gettysburg, the British were ready to recognize the south as a free and independent nation, and were reading to send representatives to negotiate an end to the war.
As for the Balkans, you have to understand what the problem was in the Balkans. During most of its existence, it fell under a very powerful central government, and the countries composing it wanted independence from it. The Serbs were the power in Yugoslavia, and they wanted to keep the country united. When Slovenia attempted to secede, it marched "federal" troops in to prevent it. If the world powers had not intervened in Yugoslavia, it would still be a single nation today. Because Serbia wouldn't have let anyone leave.
In my opinion Yugoslavia failed because you had an overbearing central government, not because of a weak government. If a 1789 style of republican United States-like government had existed in Yugoslavia, I would practically guarantee that it would still be together now, and they would be far better off. Right now that place is in disarray, because some countries are completely landlocked, their economies are tiny and their currencies are weak. All they are doing now is basically begging to join the European Union, which is basically becoming sort of like the original United States. With a shared currency, open travel between countries, which encourages trade between each nation.
If you look at a combination of Nato and the EU, you basically have the essence of the original United States of America. Which was always intended to be a voluntary union of states. Which only existed with the consent of the governed. Germany could leave the EU any time it wants, and it might threaten to leave, and it might even leave. But they probably won't as long as the power of the EU remains weak, and it remains beneficial for them to stay.
The truth is, Lincoln was not a great man, but he wasn't as bad as the south makes him out to be either. If Lincoln had not been assassinated, theres a good chance that the blacks would have been "relocated" to Africa. He thought very poorly of blacks, and did not believe that whites and blacks could ever live peacefully in this country. He just felt that slavery was immoral. I think Lincoln was forced to play a certain amount of politics in the North, which sort of forced his hand on the secession issue. He was the president, and he could not give the impression that he was weak, he could not be the president that allowed the United States to fall apart. Which is why he made the statement, "If I can save the union by abolishing slavery I will, and if I can save the union by keeping slavery, I will." His job as the president was to hold the country together. If you actually read the emancipation proclamation, you will see it didn't even apply to the four northern slave-holding states(yes, there were four northern slave states). It only applied to the southern states, and was merely a threat stating "If you don't reenter the union on such and such a date, then the slaves will be freed". It does not actually read that he ever really intended to free them. And was only an attempt to bring an end to the war.
The Lincoln worship we have in our national monuments, in our schools, and even in Civil Rights movements is so delusional because it completely rewrites history. It completely recreates the views of Lincoln to push some political agenda. He wasn't nearly as noble as he was made out to be. But the man who really ran the Civil War and who absolutely hated the south, was a real ******** named Edwin M. Stanton.
Finally, if you look at the three main northern generals in the Civil War, you have Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant. All three were anti-semitic. Two of them wanted to commit a holocaust on the native-americans just to clear the way for the railroads(look up Shermans final solution). And none of them cared one bit for the black race just as they didn't care for the native-americans.
I am not saying the confederacy was full of angels. But, just as the northern states had one-by-one abolished slavery, the southern states were heading in the same direction. The problem to me is, under this form of government, a siimply majority was not significant enough to rule. You needed as much of a unaminous vote as possible. And since the northern states were basically operating with a sort of simple majority, that a precendent was set that basically said a majority vote is all that matters, constitution be damned. Adnr that kiind of viewpoint on democracy is very dangerous to freedom itself. Because a democracy is absolutely no guarantee of freedom.
The absolute answer is YES. Texas has the right to secede, period.
The easy way to find that answer is to simply use logic. All you have to do is ask, do you think the thirteen colonies(states) would have ceded so much power to the federal government if they had known that there was no way to get out of it? How many of those thirteen colonies at one point or another had threatened to secede(prior to the confederacy). Why is the United States even called the United States to begin with? What are "United States", and why did most of the founding fathers attempt to prevent as much power from being held in the federal government as was possible? What are the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? Why did Thomas Jefferson get elected?
The founding fathers basically believed that government should only exist with the consent of the governed. And that the states should be as near to autonomous as possible. And the existence of the federal government was merely to defend the borders of this country, and to prevent trade disputes between states. Thats all it was meant to do.
If you look at Europe during the Civil War, England and France were both pro-confederacy. Lord Acton who wrote "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", stated that he believed states rights were necessary to prevent absolutism and tyranny, and were the redemption of democracy and not its destruction.
In fact, if the south had won at Gettysburg, the British were ready to recognize the south as a free and independent nation, and were reading to send representatives to negotiate an end to the war.
As for the Balkans, you have to understand what the problem was in the Balkans. During most of its existence, it fell under a very powerful central government, and the countries composing it wanted independence from it. The Serbs were the power in Yugoslavia, and they wanted to keep the country united. When Slovenia attempted to secede, it marched "federal" troops in to prevent it. If the world powers had not intervened in Yugoslavia, it would still be a single nation today. Because Serbia wouldn't have let anyone leave.
In my opinion Yugoslavia failed because you had an overbearing central government, not because of a weak government. If a 1789 style of republican United States-like government had existed in Yugoslavia, I would practically guarantee that it would still be together now, and they would be far better off. Right now that place is in disarray, because some countries are completely landlocked, their economies are tiny and their currencies are weak. All they are doing now is basically begging to join the European Union, which is basically becoming sort of like the original United States. With a shared currency, open travel between countries, which encourages trade between each nation.
If you look at a combination of Nato and the EU, you basically have the essence of the original United States of America. Which was always intended to be a voluntary union of states. Which only existed with the consent of the governed. Germany could leave the EU any time it wants, and it might threaten to leave, and it might even leave. But they probably won't as long as the power of the EU remains weak, and it remains beneficial for them to stay.
The truth is, Lincoln was not a great man, but he wasn't as bad as the south makes him out to be either. If Lincoln had not been assassinated, theres a good chance that the blacks would have been "relocated" to Africa. He thought very poorly of blacks, and did not believe that whites and blacks could ever live peacefully in this country. He just felt that slavery was immoral. I think Lincoln was forced to play a certain amount of politics in the North, which sort of forced his hand on the secession issue. He was the president, and he could not give the impression that he was weak, he could not be the president that allowed the United States to fall apart. Which is why he made the statement, "If I can save the union by abolishing slavery I will, and if I can save the union by keeping slavery, I will." His job as the president was to hold the country together. If you actually read the emancipation proclamation, you will see it didn't even apply to the four northern slave-holding states(yes, there were four northern slave states). It only applied to the southern states, and was merely a threat stating "If you don't reenter the union on such and such a date, then the slaves will be freed". It does not actually read that he ever really intended to free them. And was only an attempt to bring an end to the war.
The Lincoln worship we have in our national monuments, in our schools, and even in Civil Rights movements is so delusional because it completely rewrites history. It completely recreates the views of Lincoln to push some political agenda. He wasn't nearly as noble as he was made out to be. But the man who really ran the Civil War and who absolutely hated the south, was a real ******** named Edwin M. Stanton.
Finally, if you look at the three main northern generals in the Civil War, you have Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant. All three were anti-semitic. Two of them wanted to commit a holocaust on the native-americans just to clear the way for the railroads(look up Shermans final solution). And none of them cared one bit for the black race just as they didn't care for the native-americans.
I am not saying the confederacy was full of angels. But, just as the northern states had one-by-one abolished slavery, the southern states were heading in the same direction. The problem to me is, under this form of government, a siimply majority was not significant enough to rule. You needed as much of a unaminous vote as possible. And since the northern states were basically operating with a sort of simple majority, that a precendent was set that basically said a majority vote is all that matters, constitution be damned. Adnr that kiind of viewpoint on democracy is very dangerous to freedom itself. Because a democracy is absolutely no guarantee of freedom.
Who created the states? You act as if these creations of the British Crown are so holy and wonderful. They were meaningless constructs of the King of England. Hamilton believed the states should have been eliminated during the writing of the US Constitution. You have no grasp of history, just your biased Libertarian revisionist claptrap. There is not a single legitimate historian that would buy you warped view.
Turns out after the war the 'South' was embraced and welcomed back into the union. The nation was made whole. The story of the civil war is the story of our nation. Heros on both side to be honored. The cause and reason for the war goes far beyond biased political summary.
The Confederacy demonstrated the capacity of our government to be tested by its own people and in the end be untied as one. If you consider the centuries long battles and unforgiving nature of other cultures such as the Middle East crowd and the protective, nationalistic nature of Europe, the US, Confederacy and all is a bright shiny star to be proud of.
If you seek something to not be proud of, perhaps your elected representatives would be a good place to start as their demonstarted behavior, then and especially now, is treasonous. Treasonous in regard to passing legislation, that legally binds all citizens, without having read or understood the legislation.
This further speaks to an electorate whose standards for choosing thier representatives is fatallly flawed. This is something not to be proud of and is current news.
Turns out after the war the 'South' was embraced and welcomed back into the union. The nation was made whole. The story of the civil war is the story of our nation. Heros on both side to be honored. The cause and reason for the war goes far beyond biased political summary.
Correct. Brave people who fight honorably for what they believe in should be honored as war heroes. 1861 was no different than 1776 in that regard.
Yes, heroes on both sides should be remembered, but the war is over and has been for a long time. Don't you think it is time to put all the arguments and bitterness to rest? We are the United States of America, and the South is part of this country. We should not be made to feel inferior or told that we have something to be ashamed of. Yes, slavery was wrong, but the whole nation shares the responsibility for the institution of slavery. Our forefathers did not include other races when they spoke of all men being created equal...they did not include women either. Was this right? No, of course not, but these oversights have been remedied. Now, it is time to move on.
Yes, heroes on both sides should be remembered, but the war is over and has been for a long time. Don't you think it is time to put all the arguments and bitterness to rest? We are the United States of America, and the South is part of this country. We should not be made to feel inferior or told that we have something to be ashamed of. Yes, slavery was wrong, but the whole nation shares the responsibility for the institution of slavery. Our forefathers did not include other races when they spoke of all men being created equal...they did not include women either. Was this right? No, of course not, but these oversights have been remedied. Now, it is time to move on.
If you go to a civil war re-enactment do you think you would see more northerners or southerners there? I think you know the answer to that question. It is not only the North that needs to move on from the Civil War, far from it, if anything it is the opposite.
As long as the civil war is a topic of conversation and kept in the public eye everyone is entitled to portray the reality of the matter and of the Confederacy.
What is wrong with remembering history? There are reenactments of more wars than just the Civil War. Remembering history is fine. Arguing about it forever is not. It is done; it can't be changed. Now, we have to let the old hurts go. I include both sides when I say this. I do not like the bumper stickers or ignorant people that try to keep the bitterness going in the South either. The South is not going to rise again...we lost the war, but won a nation. Let it go.
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."
Let us not forget that Wall Street was a Slave market either.
Yep, right there in good ole NYC.
And where did it all start ? Boston.
"The truth of the matter is that slavery existed in New England for more than 200 years (beginning in 1638) and it was every bit as degrading and dehumanizing as slavery anywhere. In mid eighteenth century Rhode Island slaves accounted for as much as one third of the population in many communities. Newport, Rhode Island, and Boston, Massachusetts, were the two biggest hubs of the transatlantic slave trade. Many slaves worked in the shipping industry in New England. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were the three biggest Northern slave-owning states.
Virtually all of the household and farm labor of New England's aristocracy was done by slaves, Professor Melish shows. "These servants performed the dirty, heavy, dangerous, menial jobs around the household, or they acted in inferior roles as valets and maids to masters and mistresses of the upper class" (p 17).
Professor Melish documents the pervasive sexual abuse of slaves by their New England slave masters. The famous New England cleric Cotton Mather advised his fellow Yankees to Christianize their slaves so that they will become even better slaves. "Your servants will be the Better Servants," Mather preached, "for being made Christian servants" (p. 32). Christianize your slaves, and they will be "afraid of speaking or doing any thing that may justly displeasure you." All of this history has been whitewashed and hidden by politically-correct, Northern historians for generations."
Last edited by Roadking2003; 03-26-2011 at 04:34 PM..
Reason: remove size
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.
what not to be proud of today
