Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
The reasons behind it are less important than the question of whether or not they had the right to do so. I see nothing in the Constitution forbidding it, regardless of the reason. Texas should be able to secede because it's Tuesday if they want to.
 

·
Not Tacticool
Joined
·
648 Posts
Poorly cited, for his conclusions. Lacked full data about the situation, IE wrote nothing that ending slavery quickly (Not supporting it people just giving facts) would economically destroy much of the southern industry, a fact he later uses in his 5th "myth" to say slavery wasn't dying. During the time period it was much better understood that we were a union of States meaning each State was sovereign.
Oversimplified and condescending, overall I think its just him trying to sell his book with a controversial bit in the paper....
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
I think when it comes to Myth number one, without slavery in 1850-1860, the states rights issue doesn't come up at all.

States' rights to do what?

As for being poorly cited, how many footnotes have you seen in a newspaper article. If you want a better idea of where he's coming from I would assume his hook is better sourced, and walks to through his conclusions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
bdee said:
I think when it comes to Myth number one, without slavery in 1850-1860, the states rights issue doesn't come up at all.
Yes, it did. On top of that, it was NORTHERN states that got away with it.

Here's the thread where I laid it all out... many of you might not have been around for it, so here it is because I don't have the time to retype all of that again. I spent a full day researching and typing it up for clarity .... http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=52893&p=729253&hilit=Lincoln#p729253
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,914 Posts
JiG said:
bdee said:
I think when it comes to Myth number one, without slavery in 1850-1860, the states rights issue doesn't come up at all.
Yes, it did. On top of that, it was NORTHERN states that got away with it.

Here's the thread where I laid it all out... many of you might not have been around for it, so here it is because I don't have the time to retype all of that again. I spent a full day researching and typing it up for clarity .... http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=52893&p=729253&hilit=Lincoln#p729253
Couldn't have said it better myself. The South lost the war, but it really wasn't until the Radical Republicans decided to destroy that "pestilent heresy" known as State's Rights by the addition of the 14th amendment.

The South certainly had the RIGHT to succeed from the Union because America was a Federation at the time. Now, even Texas' Right to succeed again from the Union has actually run out. I believe they had a certain time frame.

Now, with the addition of the 14th amendment, no state can legally succeed from the Union.

Basically, we are all now National citizens. Citizens of a country of one.

Pre-Civil War, we were all State citizens. We did certain things back then as a Nation, such as wage war, but did many things as individual states.

States lost that power, that is why you see Arizona or another state passing a law, and then the Supreme Court strike it down as unconstitutional. The State has no right anymore to do certain things anymore. Things it could have done before without the addition of the 14th amendment.

Don't believe you are a National citizen? Go look at voter registration card for Georgia. A state citizen cannot vote in our current elections. Only a National citizen can.

The 14th amendment was the largest federal power grab in the history of this country, and it destroyed State's rights.

I actually think the government that was set up in 1789, was a better government, a federation, than the National, A Nation of One, that we have now.

And your answer is no, a state cannot legally succeed from the Union now. It was legal before the civil war, when we were still a federation.

The truth is, legally, Lincoln should have let the South go in the quest for independence, but the ole' tyrant just couldn't let that happen. So he showed those ole' Southern boys just how powerful the almighty federal government was. Sherman sure did show us too. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died so he could prove just how powerful he was.

The truth is, a government that is put into place with force, must maintain its existence by force. You just remember that.

While Slavery is the most disgusting, awful, most vile thing this country could have ever taken place in, and I'm ashamed it ever did, no other country in the world had to get rid of slavery with a civil war, such as we did. There were even bills in the Congress that would have paid Southerners for their slaves, and future profits, (Like they did in England), but nope, the Republicans wouldn't have it.

Another truth is, for this country, it would have been better if the civil war would have never happened, and the 14th amendment had never been put into place. Slavery could have been ended like they did in England or in some other way. I truly believe the civil war and the 14th amendment its certainly one of the reasons that we are in this dire situation today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
The day the Constitution was written it was flawed already. Too many compromises had been done.

It led to the 1832 SC nullification crisis started under a Andrew Jackson who signed the bill into law. SC bailed in 1833 and repealed the law, but the seeds have been planted for the 1862 war of Northern aggression on the South at Fort Sumter by another SOB named Lincoln. The real hero of that war in my book is General Lee. I read his letters and he begged Lincoln to take a step back, just let some time pass and when the emotions would be less fiery, the states could negotiate with the feds....Of course, he did not want to and it ended with 600, 000 Americans dead and his POS statue in Washington.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
kestak said:
The day the Constitution was written it was flawed already. Too many compromises had been done.

It led to the 1832 SC nullification crisis started under a Andrew Jackson who signed the bill into law. SC bailed in 1833 and repealed the law, but the seeds have been planted for the 1862 war of Northern aggression on the South at Fort Sumter by another SOB named Lincoln. The real hero of that war in my book is General Lee. I read his letters and he begged Lincoln to take a step back, just let some time pass and when the emotions would be less fiery, the states could negotiate with the feds....Of course, he did not want to and it ended with 600, 000 Americans dead and his POS statue in Washington.....
Yet when the war was over, they blamed Lee and decided to take over his estate at Arlington and bury all the dead there. Arlington cemetery is a place to go and remember those who fought for this country now, but the original intent of it is sickening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
The final nail in the States sovereignty was the addition of the 17th amendment. That is when the State lost it's last check the the federal tyranny over the State.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,992 Posts
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Hit the nail on the head here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
madamimadam said:
preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States
ive always preferred " The War of Northern Aggression"
I heard Col. North refer to it as "the war of northern aggression" on Fox news one night. Both my wife and I do also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,984 Posts
pml said:
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Hit the nail on the head here.
Good or bad thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
pml said:
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Hit the nail on the head here.
Shrug. My ancestors (the side I know the most about at least) freed their slaves and sent 'em to Liberia before the war, so I doubt they cared too much at this point. If I had a time machine, my first stop would be to see what prompted the change of heart, haven't seen it in any personal effects we still have. They still fought, and my great-great-great grandfather was almost lynched for trying to keep Sherman's troops from stealing from his farm. Couple of y'all that know me have heard the story before, we still have his fowling rifle that they bent around a tree after they were interrupted by one of their officers mid-stringing him up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,984 Posts
commodore_dude said:
pml said:
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Hit the nail on the head here.
Shrug. My ancestors (the side I know the most about at least) freed their slaves and sent 'em to Liberia before the war, so I doubt they cared too much at this point. If I had a time machine, my first stop would be to see what prompted the change of heart, haven't seen it in any personal effects we still have. They still fought, and my great-great-great grandfather was almost lynched for trying to keep Sherman's troops from stealing from his farm. Couple of y'all that know me have heard the story before, we still have his fowling rifle that they bent around a tree after they were interrupted by one of their officers mid-stringing him up.
Was this event before or after your great-great-grandparent was born? I'm trying to find out if they would have killed him would you have still been able to be born eventually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
GAGunOwner said:
commodore_dude said:
pml said:
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Hit the nail on the head here.
Shrug. My ancestors (the side I know the most about at least) freed their slaves and sent 'em to Liberia before the war, so I doubt they cared too much at this point. If I had a time machine, my first stop would be to see what prompted the change of heart, haven't seen it in any personal effects we still have. They still fought, and my great-great-great grandfather was almost lynched for trying to keep Sherman's troops from stealing from his farm. Couple of y'all that know me have heard the story before, we still have his fowling rifle that they bent around a tree after they were interrupted by one of their officers mid-stringing him up.
Was this event before or after your great-great-grandparent was born? I'm trying to find out if they would have killed him would you have still been able to be born eventually.
Born in 1866 :shattered:

Course the more immediate danger would be my granddad being on the troop ship right behind this one on his way to France - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Leopoldville_(1929)
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,914 Posts
cdtracing said:
madamimadam said:
preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States
ive always preferred " The War of Northern Aggression"
I heard Col. North refer to it as "the war of northern aggression" on Fox news one night. Both my wife and I do also.
I've also heard it called The War for Southern Independence before as well. I tend to like The War of Northern Aggression.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I kinda like, "The War to End Southern Slavery".
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
Mrs_Esterhouse said:
I kinda like, "The War to End Southern Slavery".
Really? Slavery wasn't brought into the war until near the end. Oh, it was a hot-button topic at the time though... but the war wasn't over slavery. Slavery was only used when it seemed taking that stance would help the north win.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top