Patriotism and States' Rights?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by GFLinTX, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. GFLinTX

    GFLinTX New Member

    181
    0
    0
    Let me preface this post by saying I am not a Southerner. I grew up in a military family and only moved to Virginia nine years ago for high school, then went to college up north, and am now beginning my own military career in Georgia and Texas. So that's where I'm coming from.

    Now, it's obvious to me that this is a very conservative/libertarian and patriotic community. Yet I've seen constant references to the War of Northern Aggression and how Lincoln, usually ranked among the greatest presidents, was actually a tyrant. I've heard the arguments for states' rights, and while I understand that, wasn't this beyond states' rights? I mean, if Lincoln didn't do what he did, the United States of America as we know it does not exist today. The CSA didn't want the feds to bugger off and mind their own business, they wanted their own country! Didn't Lincoln simply do everything that was needed to save this great nation? Am I wrong?

    I don't mean to insult anyone's beliefs or question anyone's patriotism as I know this is definitely a place that believes in the greatness of America, but as an admitted outsider, I will say that I don't entirely understand how the idea that the North was a tyrannical aggressor in the Civil War is reconciled with the idea that the America (that, as I've been told, was saved by the North) is a great place.

    I also wrote a longer and more eloquent post before, but my internet crashed and it was lost. So this is the shorter and probably more blunt version.
     
  2. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,374
    555
    113
    Prologue: Slavery is wrong, and America should not have practiced it. It could and would have ended had there not been a Civil War, as anti-slavery activists even in the south were getting more and more vocal, due to the conviction that slavery was wrong in the eyes of God.

    Main Point:

    It came to the point of the south wanting its own country, precisely because it felt its voice and concerns weren't being heard by the federal government. Had the federal government been more respective of states rights, it wouldn't have reached the point of the south wanting to secede and form their own nation. Sound a little familiar? Like what was happening around a hundred years before the Civil War? The federal government was not honoring the tenth amendment then, and it isn't today either. I'm not suggesting that any state secede, but the voice of the people must be heard.
     

  3. fflintlock

    fflintlock Active Member

    1,918
    1
    36
    Those slave holders were left over loyalest from king george, democrats. The same party that now holds the majority of the black vote. Figure that one out. It started in the 1830's with taxation of all property, slaves included. I believe it was pretty much a given that no new slave states would be established at that time. But with the north having to pay wages in the factory's and the south having free labor on the plantations, well, that just didn't set right with some folks. On the other hand, you can't just walk into a state and demand they stop doing what they have been doing for over a hundred years. I don't care for slavery myself, but it has been a way of life since time began. How many of you believe you aren't a slave today ?
    If you read the Virgina Gazette, (some mentions are online) you will see that a lot of folks were indentured servants, a polite way of saying slave. Both white and black. Some slaves received pay, they also had gardens, livestock and such, had the run of the place. A lot of slaves in the south were treated better then the workers in the northern factory's. Some were not.
    British plantations here in the new world, imported Africans, bought from their own people mind you, (waring tribes) to raise tobacco, indigo, rice, cotton and exported it back to England and the world. The British also imported slaves, mainly American Indians from this country, to India, to raise about the same crops in that country for England's use.
    What I'm getting at, I think, was the British were getting the biggest bang for their buck. Still making money from a country they lost in battle. Had Lee done what he wanted to do in Pennsylvania, there was about 400,000 British troops poised in Canada to come to their aid. What would the outcome have been then ?
    The world is still fighting over this country.
    Or, I could just be wrong about all of the above,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
     
  4. seajay

    seajay NRA Certified Instructor

    4,996
    0
    36
    And if you read Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation it only freed the slaves in the southern held states and did nothing for the slaves in the northern held states. While reading it try to keep in mind the south was a seperate and soverign nation at the time. You might also want to think about out of all the wars the US has faught this is the only country the US still holds as an occuping force.

    Yes if the outcome had been different the USA of today would look very different. Trying to make a guess as to what the geography would look like would be hard. Savery had to come to an end only because it was and still is wrong. However the abuse of the slaves was not a wide spread thing. Most slave owners took very good care of their investments. If the slave was sick or injured then they couldn't work. No work equals no or less crops or what ever products the owner produced.

    Most people think of the slaves as being black from Africa. However there were more slaves of other races than there were of the Africans. The Chinese were the most imported slaves followed by Irish then Africans and Scotts. Only blacks were called slaves. The others were called servants and/or indentured servants. The difference mostly is in the method by which they came to be here. Indentured servants were people who wanted to come but didn't have the funds for passage and sought out investors to pay their way. This "inslaved" to the investor for a number of years to pay back the money spent on the passage. Many cases worked out to many more years than they lived. Servants (mostly Chinese) were brought here the same way those from africa were. Purchased from a trader the men were put to working on plantations, railroads, as cooks and in factories. The females were used for prostitutes and house keepers. Even though they were not called slaves they were in fact the same level. Only considered property. Out of all the slaves in America the Chinese were probably the most abused.
     
  5. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    7,204
    7
    38
    The first states to threaten secession were Northern states.

    The war wasn't over slavery. While slavery was a hot-button issue of the time, Lincoln didn't say anything about doing away with it until 3 years into the war.

    "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races...." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Comment on the Dred Scott Decision", June 26, 1857

    Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer, noted of America that "The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states which have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known."

    Lincoln loved no black folks. He used them. The North as a whole, didn't love black folks. They were, as de Tocqueville said, pretty racist. If you look further into the yankee attitudes at the time, the anti-slavery movement was really a get-rid-of-blacks movement. Lincoln and his cohorts tried to ship all the black folks back to Africa, to Liberia, and he even brought in prominent black leaders into the White House to persuade them to convince black folks they should go back home.

    As to what I think makes a tyrant: Being responsible for the deaths of over 1/2 million Americans. Were all those deaths worth it to "save a union". Do the ends justify the means? Don't look backwards and think we wouldn't be the country we are today if not for the war. They didn't know that back then, that the USA was heading towards a superpower status. And there's nothing to say that the CSA and the USA would not have merged back together by the time WWII rolled around. It's as if most folks think the country would have been broken if not for the North winning, but they ignore the possibilities of other positive outcomes.

    Another reason Lincoln is a tyrant: Sherman concocted his plan to ravage the South and presented it to Lincoln. Lincoln MADE HIM WAIT, until AFTER he got re-elected knowing the North would not be pleased at such barbarity. As soon as Lincoln got his precious re-election, he turned Sherman loose. If your constituency for which backs your war wouldn't like what you are doing, you're a tyrant.
     
  6. yrualeg

    yrualeg Member

    635
    0
    16
    Here's an interesting book you might want to look at concerning the South and the Civil War....

    The South was Right
     
  7. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,607
    39
    48



    the Emancipation Proclamation didnt do anything it was an Executive Order without any force of law...the 13th amendment abolished slavery...
     
  8. seajay

    seajay NRA Certified Instructor

    4,996
    0
    36
    I didn't say it abolished slavery. I said it freed the slaves in Confederate held states. States that were at the time a seperate and soverign nation.
     
  9. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,607
    39
    48

    it didnt do that either...Obama could say that you must wear green today doesnt mean its a law...the 13th amendment freed the slaves the proclamation was just a speech
     
  10. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Rmodel, you are incorrect. Executive orders have the force of law if they are due to some delegated authority congress has given them or if they are based on the inherent power of the executive and are necessary to carry out that office's constitutional authority. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had force of law under either view of executive orders.
     
  11. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,607
    39
    48
    so congress had given lincoln power to make laws for sovereign countries?? can obama make a law for mexico?
     
  12. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,607
    39
    48
    Article 1 Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    so the president doesnt have the power to make law(he is the executive he executes the laws passed by the legislative branch) what law did congress pass that gave lincoln the power to free slaves?? or maybe it was just a speech....
     
  13. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Rmodel, I am not going to argue the same thing in two different threads. If you want to argue the legitimacy of the confederacy you can do so in the thread I started and in which I have already addressed that issue.

    As to executive orders, they have always carried the force of law as long as the executive was operating either from his own constitutional authority or that delegated to him. Congress delegated to Lincoln the authority to keep the union intact, so any executive order he made on that basis is both lawful and had the force of law.

    I am sorry so many of you folks want the executive branch and the centralized government to be weak, but the Articles of Confederation failed and the arguments of the federalists carried the day. If you want a government like what some of you seem to support, then you will have to go back to before the founders drew up our current constitution. Good luck in that!
     
  14. fflintlock

    fflintlock Active Member

    1,918
    1
    36
    Actually, the whole point being, the people run the states, the states run the federal goverment. The feds work for all of us, not the other way around.
     
  15. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    The People run the states ... true.

    The states run the federal government ... since when?

    The feds were for all us ... true.
     
  16. fflintlock

    fflintlock Active Member

    1,918
    1
    36
    Since the beginning of our time !!
     
  17. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    The states (as in the institutions themselves) have never ran the federal government. It is true that prior to the 17th amendment the states, as institutions, had more power in our federal system, but they have never ran the federal government.
     
  18. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    That is a great post, and I think you are correct all your points. I know that slavery has gone on since the beginning of time, and we are all basically becoming slaves again in this country to the government, but I still believe that slavery is one of the sickest, most vile things a country or a person can do to another person. Its the antithesis of liberty.
     
  19. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Reading it now.