It’s the revisionist history Bob. They have been taught that the US Civil War was about slavery. Let’s face it, since the 30s that is what the public school kids were taught. As I said before, the hippies of the 60s are running this country and their kids and grandkids are voting for their socialist agenda…

The Civil War was about slavery. The south seceded because they felt their way of life was under threat. What was their way of life- slave owning. Slavery was the back bone of the southern economy and they were convinced Lincoln the “black republican” as they often called him was going to free the slaves and set them loose on their former masters. This was put in no unclear terms when in listing their causes of secession the state of South Carolina painted the conflict to come not as one of north versus south or state versus federal but as slave state versus free state. It was not states rights that were under threat it was slave states rights. In the declaration of causes of secession the south Carolina representatives stated

“The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these
laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.”-http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

In it they also state ”
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”-http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

So government became destructive when it began to threaten slavery. Secession is what resulted in the Civil War. The secession of the south helped bring about war. Secession was an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. As such I see a great deal of logic in the statement “The Civil War was about slavery”.

Dear Jeremy Leochner,

You write: “The Civil War was about slavery.” This opening statement makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Best wishes,
Bob

I disagree Mr. Livingston. As far as I am concerned slavery is as much responsible for starting the Civil War as Pearl Harbor was responsible for America going to war with Japan. My comments are not irrelevant.

You’re mistaken, sir; it was states’ rights in the south and “preserving the union” in the north!

jeremy…no matter how you try and explain the economic basis for the Southern rebellion and the issues always falling back to being one centered around slavery, this site seems to have an aversion to the reasons for the rebellion. Refer anyone who denies slavery as being the underlying main cause for the rebellion to the tales of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

“Valdez Runner,”

YOU SAY, “They have been taught …”; IF “They” REFERS TO NEGROES, YOU ARE WRONG. NEGROES HAVE N-E-V-E-R HEARD ABOUT SLAVERY IN SCHOOL. NEGROES KNOW ABOUT SLAVERY BECAUSE OF THE ORAL-HISTORY TRADITION – WHICH DATES BACK TO PRE-COLONIAL TRIBAL AFRICA – PASSED-ON TO THEM BY THEIR ELDERS.

Jeremy Leochner says “The Civil War was about slavery. “

If no one actually invaded to free slaves, then what does this statement really mean… “about” slavery?

Jeremy Leochner says “The south seceded because they felt their way of life was under threat. What was their way of life- slave owning.”

Thus, they seceded over their southern economic livelihood… or, “slavery”. But I disagree the war itself was about slavery.

Jeremy Leochner says “…and they were convinced Lincoln the “black republican” as they often called him was going to free the slaves and set them loose on their former masters.”

That would be incorrect. The only discourse was about slavery spreading into the west. An amendment was proposed which would have protected slavery in the states in which it currently existed… basically saying that the Constitution cannot be amended to give Congress the authority to interfere which slavery in those states. Lincoln said to this that he had no objection to making this irrevocable.

As many today play the race card, so Lincoln, once the conflict had erupted, played the slavery card. And that is the only true extent to which the war was “about” slavery.

TML I suppose it is some what ambiguous to say the Civil War was about slavery. Perhaps I could best say that but for slavery the war would not have happened. Slavery was what fueled the fire. The desire to protect slavery was what lead the south to secede and secession is what lead to the war. As Lincoln said in his second inaugural address “one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” One of my primary sources on the Civil War is James M. McPhersons Battle Cry of Freedom. It goes in depth into the Pre Civil War years and examines the numerous political and economic issues. Numerous southern politicians and newspapers painted Lincoln and The Republicans as “Black Republicans” and spread horror stories about how they would make the slaves the equal of the white man and end slavery forever. These were the attack ads during the 1860 election and were what got people into a frenzy in the elections immediate aftermath.

As for Lincoln playing the slavery card. Lincoln always believed slavery was wrong. But he felt there was a time and place to start abolishing it. When it became clear slavery was helping to fuel the confederacy and that contradiction between liberty and slavery would keep the country divided he chose to act against it. I would not consider that to be “playing the slavery card”.

If all else fails, play the “race card”.

Mr Livingston says: Irrelevant? Something makes you and a host of other progressive/statist/communist shills come here and refute every idea and notion on a daily basis. There are hundreds of thousands of subscribers who find us “relevant.”

ROFLMAO!!! Like shooting fish in a barrel…

A lot sooner than you think.

AMEN x 3

Timothy, don’t you get tired of cutting an pasting all that stuff. I get tired of skipping over it.

I post it Gordan because so many want to ignore all the facts – my post shows that all these arguments over secession are non-sense. We’lle talk more when you answer a simple question..Then we will discuss what is really going on in our great country.

Would the south have freed the slaves if they have won the Civil War?

Why will you not answer this simpe question?

NO ONE can guess “what might have happened” because that isn’t the path history took! So stop asking an impossible to answer question and leave the international policies out of questions that DON’T concern it, if you want sensible responses!

Yes we can navy and gordon – - The constitution of the confederacy was basically copied word for word from the US constitution – except for some very dramatic differences.

From the Confederate Constitution, Aritcle 1, Section 9, line 4 “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

The Civil War was sold to the broader population, without real ellaboration, as a conflict over states rights. We hear those same arguments today. However, since the leaders of the condeferacy felt it necessary to include a provision in their constitution prohibiting any attempt to free the slaves, and labelling all such attempts as unconstitutional, then this, among many other such statements prior to and during the war, shows that the war was in fact over the issue of slavery.

For them to put it explicitely in their constitution dispells of claims to the contrary about the root cause of the war. Yes! It was over states rights – the right of the southern states to keep slaves inperpetuity.

So, to answer the question of whether the south would have freed the slaves, the answer is an unequivocal and very strongly stated – - – NO, not ever. It would have been unconstitutional.

So with an abosulte YES, the Civil War was over slavery – the right of the south to keep it forever.

I suspect the economics of maintaining slavery would have driven it out of practice by the end of that century as the industrial age took over and the gin and other machinery became cheaper than maintaining the slaves in any case, but we can’t say for sure because history took a different path. OUR Constitution once said that members of the BAR couldn’t hold public office too; yet what FILLS our public offices now???

My point navy was not so much to discuss what may have happened, – as you say, no one can definitively know what may have been, though I agree it would not have ended at the end of the war if the south had won, but rather to point out that the issue of slavery, as defined as a constitutional right in the south, was very much a significant and even economically vital reason for the war. It was presented as a conflict over states rights, but the southern constitution proves that the most significant right they valued above the others was the right to own slaves.

It was the cause di jour since it was a topic of heated discussions all the way back into the discussions about the form of the US Constitution. Buchanan discussed it, Jackson violently defended slavery as a god given right. Jefferson hated it as being immoral, but could not free his slaves in his life time over economic and political reasons. And, the framers of the constitution decided to compromise and not include a prohibition against slavery because of the economic power of the south at the time. The founders also knew that the issue of slavery would come back to bite the entire country at some point in the future.

So slavery was the underlying reason for the Civil War, and the slaves could not have been freed in the south with out a constitutional amendment which would have taken many many years.

Oh! And the first Texas Constitution said that the clergy could not serve in any public office.

And originally, only white male landowners could vote in the early US.

Things do change. Some change is good. Some is not. But, overall, and over time, it works out for the best.

Go Navy! Beat Army!

Some changes are good, some are not, and it doesn’t always work out for the best. I’ve seen far too many times when that is NOT the case, both in history and in my own personal experience.

Either we are all Individuals or a Collective and if we are a Collective we can be further subdivided by race, economics, education, religions, etc., and that is what has happened to us by the likes of O and his ideologues.

Well said, Sir! I am not as eloquent as many who are on this comment list, but I heartily concur with your statement(s).

Funny thing: The Red states are overwhelmingly the takers and the Blue states shelling out for their free ride. It’s hypocritical. Either get off the national tit, or start voting liberal.

I believe you have that backwards on which states are the takers and which the makers.

Not if you deal in facts. Red states are the moochers.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/chart-red-state-socialism.jpg

Either get off the tit, or bend knee to your liberal benefactors.

I dealin facts; just NOT “Obamanomics”. I learned REAL math, before they started diddling with it.

Jimmy, this may come as a suprise, but there is only one race….the human race. It’s scientific fact that every human on earth originated from the plains of east Africa.

Hitler was an idiot with a charismatic mouth who used fear, death and racial purity as a tool to get him into power. To praise such a wrongheaded megalomaniac is beyond crass.

Speak for your self ! Greeks are not of the apes .

Jimmy, do you not accept science? We are all from the very same source – the plains of east africa. That makes all of us orginially, africans, and we are many thousands of generations away from our hominid ancesters – apes would be a very distant cousin.

“timothywilliamson,”

I WAS WITH YOU IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH “Bob Livingston” ON THE CONFEDERACY AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

YET, YOU DEMONSTRATED YOUR DETACHMENT FROM REALITY WITH YOUR [sic], ” … there is only one race … the human race … ” LINE.

WANTING PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES – AND, DIFFERENT PHYSICAL APPEARANCES – TO “GET ALONG” DOES NOT DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY THOSE PHYSICAL APPEARANCES CREATE MISUNDERSTANDING AND CHAOS. IF AMERICANS OF DIFFERENT RACES WANT TO “GET ALONG,” OUR DIFFERENCES, AS INDIVIDUAL GROUPS, MUST BE “PLACED ON THE TABLE, FIRST” – THEN, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

AMEN BOB.

Hasn’t this revisionist history really warped the understanding of what our Nation is?

Good work BOB.

Since when is it revisionist to quote directly from the mouths of our founding fathers?

So Bob, what your very well written response proves is that even among the founding fathers, there was disagreement. However, the preponderance of statements from those men show that it was to be indivisible and perpetual – whether they wnated it or not.

Patrick Henry acknowledged that this new constitution went beyond the confederation in that it created a nation, and that this was not a compact between sovereingn states, but the creation of a new central government to whom the states had given some of their sovereignty. The understanding at the time was that such an acceptance of the constitution was not reversible by secession.

George Washington said essentially that we and the states have agreed to give to the federal government the repsonsibility to manage the enitre country, and that this was a government. Thus it is not a compact or treaty or confederation of states, but a sovereign nation.

And, as the constitution clearly states, and as Patrick Henry worried, this is a government of ‘We, the People’, not we the states.

Of course, the people hold the power through the election process, at least as the amendments to the constitution now specify. They can petition to government, but can not legally seek secession without revolution.

So, if you’re suggesting revolution, that then becomes treasonous. Why? Because just as has been stated since our founding – the USA is a sovereign nation – and because even supreme court rulings have re-enforced the supremacy of the USA over the states.

Dear timothywilliamson,

You write: “They can petition to government, but can not legally seek secession without revolution.” They can legally seek secession. It’s doubtful the Federal Government would comply. Lincoln saw to that.

You write: “So, if you’re suggesting revolution, that then becomes treasonous.” Where in this article have I suggested secession? Where have I suggested revolution? I’m merely arguing that the Constitution as ratified by the States and understood by the Founders (even by the nationalistic Hamilton) allowed for secession. Lincoln was the tyrant who unConstitutionally invaded the sovereign Confederacy and caused the death of 750,000-800,000 people with his war of aggression. This article was written to point out the irony in a people who have their whole life recited a pledge that contains the phrase “one nation… indivisible” now seeking to dissolve the Union and ask the question whether they will continue to recite the phrase.

Best wishes,
Bob

Washington, Hamilton, Henry, Jackson, Buchanan, et al, said otherwise. Secession was not nor is it a ‘right’ inherent in the constitution, but it’s discussion is an ongoing thing ever present in American history – just as you and I are proving again.

It’s been a good conversation Bob. Thanks!

You have a great day sir. Friend me on FB at williamsoncontracting, My friends and I enjoy the debate though we do not often agree.

Mr. Livingston…please read Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869). the issue has been decided. Your opinion is erroneous …

Dear Flashy,

You write: “please read Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869). the issue has been decided. Your opinion is erroneous.” That case is irrelevant to the discussion of the Founder’s understanding of the compact. I am never surprised by nationalistic statist judges ruling in favor of centralizing power in the Federal government. It is true now and it was true then. Plus, five of the Justices were Lincoln appointees.

Best wishes,
Bob

@timothywilliamson – If your interpretations are correct, and each state has no right to secede from the union as one nation. Then why does States maintain its boundaries or State lines and furthermore maintain their own individual state constitutions and State laws separate and apart from Federal Laws and other State laws. If the Constitution intended to dissolve any rights of an individual State to secede from the Union if it came a time where the Union was no longer in the best interest of the State. Thereby as the States joined the union the boundaries would be dissolved and conjoin to one nation with no boundaries separating one State from the other.

Dear Flashy,

You write: “please read Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869). the issue has been decided. Your opinion is erroneous.” That case is irrelevant to the discussion of the Founder’s understanding of the compact. ” <— Mr. Livingston

Depends upon which of the "Founders' is referred to. There were quite literally hundreds…each having their own views on any given subject.

That was relevant yet when has anyone praised Obama when he did anything right. The constant barrage of negativity only emboldens his supporters and makes the right a bunch of hypocritical fools. A prime example is that Conservatives praise Reagan whether he did good or made major mistakes. Yet Obama is tarred and feathered under all circumstances. These quotes Old Seabee are meaningless unless they are practiced by each side.

Session may be within the Constitution…but secession certainly is. A state joins, it is in perpetuity or until the state AND the nation decides to kick it out.

Go ahead, find in the Constitution where a state has any right to secede. (i suggest you read the SCOTUS decision first)

WAKE UP There’s another one……. Placing the SCOTUS above the Constitution itself.

They are suppose to enforce it, not define it or interpret it.

Enforce the Constitution? the SCOTUS? Errrr…and what Constitution and SCOTUS are you referring to? Please…read Marbury v Madison..

FLASHY There ya go. Trying to put case law above the actual Constitution. You just don’t get it, do ya? “You’re never gonna get it. The cows could tape something by now.”

No, Obama (phtooie!) did not place the wrong hand on his chest. That was a photoshopped image, a reversal of the image betrayed by the reversal of the soldiers’ uniforms in the background. It bothers me that people try so hard to defame Obama with lies, when the truth of Obama is sufficient to defame him. Use the truth only and do not add any false allegations, because when the false parts are identified, all the truth is assumed to be false right along with the rest of the garbage. Please, just stick to the facts, nothing but the facts.

uh! well televised accounts were wrong! there were no deaths in benghazi! we have across the board a president who has no knowledge of anything? wow, i feel safe and secure that our elected leaders are sooo in control! but, i appreciate your ultimate wisdom! thank you for setting me straight!

Well, I was wrong to assume you were talking about the photo that went around showing Obama (pftooie!) standing there with his left hand over the right side of his chest. You refer to a televised incident. I have not seen or heard of such. Can you please provide details, so I can search for that video. I have thus far been unable to locate it. Thanks. P.S. The rest of my statement stands.

It did happen; I saw that video too; it was a YouTube, I think. However, you probably won’t find it now; virtually everything that shows O in a negative light, and/or proves he’s NOT what he claims in any way, has been expunged.

AMEN BOB

Bob that is a cheap shot……Socialism didn’t really come about until after the 1860s when Karl Marx (backed by a British capitalist) wrote his communist manifesto. Free Market was created by the British..in 1758 when eventually the colonies fought against the Brits for undermining the colonies manufacturing. In other words we fought a revolution against free market (I guess that makes our founding fathers commies) Today the right wants to privatized roads, bridges, going to mars,…….they can do it now that free market has sent jobs to foreign countries causing the financials to send stocks through the roof…the bankers invest in paper…….free market causes the economy to become totally out of whack……..now the top twenty percent make the money (in derivatives) while the rest of us are losing our jobs. It all started with free market economics brought back by Greenspan and his ilk…..jobs went all over the world…….it is no wonder that we don’t have social security with jobs disappearing. Govt should be in infrastructure….O was right … companies can’t develop without water, and power………we need even better power resources that Kennedy planned to generate before he was killed………instead money went to war……..and to aid the great industrial military complex…..Fortunately under Kennedy’s bill to go to the moon we kept our economy going. Now…..we need even more powerful technology….and we’ll get it for our future if we go and try to colonize Mars….but sadly the AMerican people don’t have an imagination about the future….when we are arguing about the past….which by the way….Lincoln got the transcontinental railsystem going and the American economy took off………and that was with a war going…..he did it with greenbacks because the NY bankers were going to charge him 24 percent interest……Lincoln had it rough……a nation divided cannot stand…..and he fought for that. I find the conservatives disgusting human beings for degrading the greatest president of the 19th Century. FDR was the greatest of the the 20th…..it was the democrats who came after him that were soooo horrible……we are an over regulated country………..Now banking should be regulated……everything went downhill when Glass STeagall was gotten rid of…….no separation of investment vs commercial banking….One of the first bills that FDR signed…………the movie It is a Wonderful Life explains what Glass Steagal did……….

Socialism has been around a LONG time; it helped bring down Rome among others! It wasn’t CALLED that, ’til Marx, but the substance of it has been around a LONG time, and it has ALWAYS failed!

Bob, i don’t think we have to worry about that…..there will be a new slavery starting….the right, corporate fat-cats everything that is good for America. Obama is saying,what goes around, comes around” ! Didn’t he preach during campaigning , “VOTE FOR REVENGE”.?

Small correction–> ” resentment that they have been branded and recognized that they sinned and … quite correctly labelled and recognized as the “bad guys” … brought Civil War to this nation

The ‘South’ fired in defense of offensive posturing by an adversary. Also, the North invaded the South. There would’nt have been a war if Northern politicians hadnt clamored for the invasion. The first volleys would have disolved into a stalemate of politics if it had’nt been for the invasion.
What would happen today if say Texas and LA, tries to succeed? Would the North invade? How will they succeed if not allowed? Quit send’n their tax checks?

SCOTT…suceed??? Twice is not a typo. Hooked on phonics, are ya?

It is called ‘the war of northern aggression’ due to Lincoln’s unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, which was all about Federal control.That is what led to the civil war. And to think,now we have Obama comparing himself to Lincoln. Hmm…

You and Sesame should do more studying from an objective standpoint. The South repeatedly made concession to compensate the Union for the fort which sat in the middle of Charleston Harbor, in the face of deception and utter refusals by Lincoln to withdraw from the fort. The South repeatedly warned that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of war. At the same time the soldiers there were supplied fresh food daily from Charleston. Lincoln, despite this, intentionally provoked the first shot by sending several ships loaded with over a thousand troops claiming that they were to resupply the ‘starving’ soldiers there with only “bread”. Having learned this, the bombardment began. So rather than make peaceful resolution with the South, Lincoln intentionally provoked the first shot… a bombardment I might add that result in NO deaths, and NO injuries.

Also take note that several other Border States, including Virginia, seceded as a result, because they knew the truth of this. In addition, it was then the North who invaded the South, and most of the war took place on Southern land. In the general populace of the South, the North was indeed the aggressors for refusing peaceful resolution, provoking war, followed by unbridled invasion which targeted even innocent women and children. When a captive Confederate Soldier was asked, “Why are you fighting?” he replied… “Because you’re down here.”. Northern Aggression? Without a doubt.

Sure john….sure.

John, you are correct. The fight was about cheap labor and economic policy, it had nothing to do with slavery. We are fighting the same fight today, sadly!

That’s a bunch of crap. Would the south have ended slavery if they had won?

I don’t think the South gave a tinkers damn about freedom or individual rights.History Has proven that out. The North was also guilty in taxing Southern businesses unfairly. Our Civil War was a waste of humanity brought to us by stubborn politicians and false patriotism.

John, would the south have freed the slaves if they had won?

Dear timothywilliamson,

You write: “John, would the south have freed the slaves if they had won?” Yes.

Best wishes,
Bob

Bob, that is not correct.

In the constitution of the confederacy, a clause was included which said, “Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed”

So no, they would not, nor could they legally outlaw slavery – a prohibition to that affect was part of the constitution of the confederacy. o such law could even be presented in the congress of the confederacy – it was unconstitutional to do so.

When the framers of the confederacy wrote their constitution, they kept most of the US constitution, but added that BIg clause.

This was a war over states rights alright – the primary right being the one to own another human being.

Dear timothywilliamson,

You write: “In the constitution of the confederacy, a clause was included which said, ‘Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.’” Irrelevant. No law was needed. Black slavery was dying throughout the civilized world. It would have died in the Confederacy as well.

Best wishes,
Bob

Bob, how long would they have waited to be free? How long would it have taken the economic engine of the south to replace slave labor with machines?

For that clause to be in the confederate constitution, when much of the rest of that constitution was ‘copied’ from the US constitution, says that slavery was a primary and principle concern for the south. It was an economic issue. They would not have changed with the times, but would have held onto the least costly means of production – as any good business would do even now. A transition away from slave labor to more costly free labor and mechanization would not have occurred anytime soon. It’s doubtful that the south, our south, would have changed at all for a very long time. But, that is of course, my opinion since there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion.

Dear timothywilliamson,

You write: “Bob, how long would they have waited to be free? How long would it have taken the economic engine of the south to replace slave labor with machines?” That I do not know. My guess is it would not have been many years.

You write: ” It’s doubtful that the south, our south, would have changed at all for a very long time. But, that is of course, my opinion since there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion.” You are correct that there is no way to prove or disprove either of our guess.

Best wishes,
Bob

Economics played a big part in this ordeal… New Orleans was competing strongly with New York as a major PORT City… Another point when reflecting back is that major military advances were made in the the 4 years. We were entering WWI in 50 short years afterwards. We were more ready to fight then, in part to the 1860′s…

timothywilliamson,

You write: “John, would the south have freed the slaves if they had won?”

probably in a few decades along the lines of how the Tsar freed the serfs in 1861 or South African Boers placed apartheid as the caste system in the late 19th century

One problem John. When the south seceded no attacks on their freedom had been made. They seceded based on what they thought was going to happen, not what actually was.

“timothywilliamson,”

I AGREE. THE CONFEDERACY WOULD ONLY HAVE FREED THE SLAVES AFTER CAUCASIANS MALES NO LONGER CONSIDERED THEIR ECONOMIC SURVIVAL TO BE TIED TO THE PLANTATION. JOBS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY, RAILROADS, ETC. WOULD HAVE LURED CAUCASIAN MALES AWAY.

IF THE CONFEDERACY HAD WON, I THINK SLAVERY WOULD HAVE ENDED AROUND THE TIME OF Queen Victoria of England’s DEATH – CIRCA 1900. VICTORIAN ENGLAND DID HAVE A SOCIAL IMPACT ON THE UNITED STATES. WHEN VICTORIAN VALUES WERE NO LONGER CHERISHED IN AMERICA, THIS NATION WOULD HAVE HAD A PROBLEM TRYING TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY JUSTIFY SLAVERY.

Gordon, let me ask you the same question I’ve asked of others, “Would the south have freed the slaves if they had won the war?”

I would think that the South would have eventually gotten rid of slavery. Most people in the South were not slave holders and there were contentions among white laborers because slavery was taking work from white wage earners.

Yes Liberia was bought and created by the north for the reparation of bllacks who no longer wished to live here after enduring many years of slavery. Thug you must lso note that the blacks sent here in slave ships were hunted down and captured to be sold to dutch traders as slaves. Lincoln was indeed a power grabber and the first of many Demorat’s that fought for a more centralized and federally controlled nation, taking more powers away from the individual states. The civil war was started over states rights, one of which is the right to secede and break free of the real or felt injustices of the central federal government. Lincoln wanted big central government which is the theme of communism. The north won and therefore got to write history in it’s image. Those that study history find the truth hidden away and see both it’s fallacies and the causes. Slavery was included after the gettyburg battle in the gettysburg address foght for there by northern abolishonists. slavery would have died off with in 10 to 20 yrs by its sheer economic pressure on the plantation owners. The abolishonist’s felt the slaves actually had better living and workng conditions than many people in the north in factories.

Timothy= red herring= slavery had nothing to do with Lincoln suspending the Constitution.

Gordan, let me try this again. Answer the question. It’s no ‘red herring’. It’s answer will reveal exactly how much you really know of southern, my southern, history, and not the attempt by some to color coat the truth to make themselves and others feel better.

Would the south have freed the slavey after the Civil War?

Just exactly what is this MANDATE? 50% does NOT a mandate make.

Flashy – I hate to tell you this, but the corruption of the government, the illegal votes, and people voting for the color of a man’s skin put your hero in charge. It was not the voice of the people. Check out which states voted him back in and check their welfare records. You will see states on the verge of bankruptcy from the liberal’s giveaway programs. Plus they all have large electoral college numbers. We in the center that raise the food you eat feel that if you want to eat – you work. Check out the red states and get back to me. If states want to secede, they have the right! If you don’t want them to secede because you don’t want to lose the tax base for liberal programs, think of ways to bridge the very large and growing gap between the workers and the takers instead of spotting how they are a fringe element. They are not a fringe element. They are voicing their disgust with the corruption of government! I hope they succeed. And I believe it will be – Our state, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL!

brabbie said it all! Flashy with no spark!

Laziness in all its forms and that whatever happens to this country it supposedly won’t effect them.

Sounds like you watched the movie about Obama 2016.

Mr: Tubb,, you are on my side! I got the wrong person to speak! all i want, is my country! ex navy! believe in our country! john jakes trilogy, is worth reading!

eddy everything that i have read that you have written, you are against the constitution. You are against what America has always stood for, if you dont like it here all you libs, instead of trying to change this country why dont you go to another country and see if you like it there. there is nothing holding you here,and by the way you can take the [expletive deleted] in the whit house with you!!!!!!!!!

we are rocket men! go! goes the grace of logic or the flight into never, never land of wrong idealism, but we are paltry idealists, with hope and dreams of self preservation!

Also well stated, eddie. However, the word you are looking for is not palagerism (claiming another’s work as your own), nor would it be expurgation (removal of origional material and alteration of relavency). What we are dealing with here is addition of the unauthorized that alters relavency. I would like to add that all of these tools have been employed by many pundit “tools” to rewrite history for their own propagandic purposes. and will likely continue to do so.

Tom Sawyer? Wasn’t that already banned by the left for no longer being PC enough?

rocket man,

Everything that was posted is accurate, and follows the US Constitution. Since you obviously don’t believe that it does, will you explain why you think that it doesn’t?

BTW, this country is OURS. ALL of ours. We are free to disagree with what you believe. We are free to agree. To argue.

Telling us to leave our OWN country because you don’t LIKE what we have to say is just plain wrong, not to mention that it goes against the ideals that this country was founded on.

Wil…both the far left and the far right have attacked Tom Sawyer being in school libraries and used in the classroom

Flashy says: “both the far left and the far right have attacked Tom Sawyer being in school libraries and used in the classroom”

Which is exactly what makes it great and should keep it in the classroom.

Rob

I can’t help you RocketMan if you don’t believe in Liberty and Justice for All.That is your unAmerican problem!

actualy tom sawyer did get rewrote a few years back,parts of the story were deleated and all of the words “nigger” were removed and boy were cut from any referance to a black person,check it out for yourself..it was done without permission by a liberal progressive printing company!!.and still to this day do it to other classics and to almost all of the school books our children read and learn from..the same company and their affiliate companies!

Wow. That takes a lot of hubris to do something this radical. The nerve of him and NewSouth Books publishing those books this way is terrible. So, there are 219 uses of the word “nigger” in Huck Finn. The main reason that these books are used, even in schools, is that it is a slice of the way things were during that part of our history.

Thank goodness that all the other book publishers are not doing this. Both “Tom Sawyer” and “Huck Finn” are far past the rights to a copyright. They can be found at most books stores and libraries. They can be found, also, at Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/

They accept help for transcribing books, too. They are all free, and the people who transcribe them are volunteers.

Francis Bellamy was a religious wacko Christian socialist and the Pledge was a small part of a larger program. If the Pledge’s larger program were performed in schools then it would include hymns, prayers, various references to the Bible and God, including the phrase “under God.” Of course, at that time, Bible reading etc was common in schools, and Francis wanted the government to take over all schools and impose such activity by law. When the government granted his wish, government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. See the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry.

Poli Tecs – I beg to differ. The words “We the people…” in the preamble was the first item that came under hew and cry against adopting and ratifying the Constitution. Patrick Henry of Virginia got up and spoke against ratification of the Constitution. He read those words and instantly denounced it on the basis that it was a lie. A document that lies in its first few words should not be trusted. In the legal sense he is correct. The Constitution was written by agents of the States sent to revise the Articles of Confederation. To reivise inherently includes the right to revise 100%. That is write a new one. The agents of the States signed the protocol document by state. We now know what happened in the Preamble with the discover of Madisons Notes on the Constitutional Convention in 1838, unavailable to Patrick Henry. The original Preamble expressly named all 13 states. BUT somebody pointed out that suppose all 13 didn’t ratify the Constitution. The Preamble would be a lie. Hence in a crash program the Committee on style rewrote it to what we now have. Patrick Henry pointed out that the Preamble presupposed one nation without states or delegated powers and that the Constitution was done by the entire population. He was correct since the Preamble obscured the States who created it. So the words have been used in the worst sense, We the people and NOT we the States. It is still used today.

I am old enough to remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag every morning in class before the UNDER GOD was added to it., I always felt it was wrong to add it and still do.

I remember both versions too; under God didn’t bother me so much, because our Founders were Godly men, which is NOT to say they were all Christians as so many assert, and because our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles!

Dixie Suzan Davis, you’d better revisit the 10th Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now, I wonder where “or to the people” came from?

The very basis of our Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson eloquently expresssed the dictum of Natural Law that EACH INDIVIDUAL is sovereign in their own right. Or are you attempting to tell me that you subordinate your sovereignty to a state government?

“We the People” are the first three words of that estimable document, the Constitution, and it means “we the people.”

Your neoconfederate view of things denies the very fact that the main reason for writing the Constitution was to overcome the loose confederation of states in the Articles of Confederation, in which states were more powerful than the central government.in accomplishing the duties of the new nation.

For Dixie Susan Davis…….you might find this of interest

http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-real-history-of-the-united-states-of-america/

Actually “oxyMORON” (never, ever) Vigilant…..

We the People, does not mean We the people……..they don’t look the same and
they do not mean the same thing……

Shows you what happens when drunks hold secret meetings for extended periods of time
during really warm weather………

Poli…….sorry no “god” involved……..

From Wikipedia:

“The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble’s limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication…”

“The phrase “People of the United States”…has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people…as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect “the people” directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units. The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States. Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT THE ACT OF SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES. (caps mine).”

“Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the “Union,” and the country is called the “United States of America,” the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States. The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated by the Constitution.”

BOTTOM LINE: An amendment to the Constitution would be required to legalize “state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it,”

Thank you roy. I must point out that your comment leaves me unsure as to whether you are calling me an idiot, praising me or both. I am just wondering.

That could work as long as we could purge the blue voters from the red states .

Jimmy, I don’t know if you can get the blue voter out of the Red states, but the Red states could make people take a test on the Constitution before voting and that would eliminate the blue voters because there is no way they would ever understand the Constitution.

Make sure it’s written, and printed ONLY in English!

I take it that if you want a “Hitler” you are a Nazi. Am I wrong on that account? Does anyone else support the idea of a Nazi seizure of power? I don’t.

Long live Freedonia !!!!!!

Jimmy there is a vast difference between us and Weimar. For one thing our republic has been in existence for over 200 years as opposed to the Weimar Republic which only lasted from 1918 to 1933. The Weimar Republic never really held the faith or support of the people and there were differences in the structure and laws. Plus the Weimar Republic was conceived at the end of World War1 when heavy reparations and general devastation ravaged the country. Hitler gained popularity two times during the course of his rise to power. The first in the wake of World War 1 when Germany was in total chaos and second in the Great Depression when unemployment skyrocketed as did inflation. None of those circumstances even remotely resemble our country today. Here just like then the only way a person like Hitler could gain any power is when the people panic in an overwhelming situation. However unlike Germany our country is founded on the principles of equality and liberty and does not lend itself towards any kind of ruler much less an absolute one like hitler.

We already have a Hitler. It’s spelled OBAMA.

So much ignorance from Steve E and so little time to debate that selfish ignorance!

I disagree Wil. Besides like I said our country has a much stronger Republic and Constitution then the Weimar Republic. I believe we have the means to weather such a storm more effectively then Weimar. And I do not believe the storm is going to be anywhere near that bad.

HAD is the operative word here; we haven’t had a republic since 1871, and our Constitution, which was revised at that time, has been utterly shredded since!

1: Our country is not the point where its survival is in question. Our country just went through a massive election where many voters came out to voice their opinion. As I said I am loyal to the flag and Republic. Neither has been threatened. Secession is an extremist tactic and the necessary threat for such a tactic to be viable has not come.

2: Perhaps yes it is all conjecture. My point is that secession would lead to the break up of the Union. As to your example regarding Canada I would point out there is a vast difference between two countries joining together and several colonies joining together to form one nation.

3: My view of secession is based on what this country is. Tml you made the example of France leaving the European Union. There is a huge difference. Our country is a nation, not an alliance. It is not made up of several sovereign nations. When the constitution was ratified it was made with the purpose of forming a “more perfect union”. Our country is like an organism. A state seceding would be no different then a person cutting off a limb. The lose of a part weakens the whole. This is not an alliance like the EU. It is one nation. That is not blind devotion to the state. It is my view of The Republic itself. Like I said my loyalty is to the Republic and the Flag. And I believe in my heart of hearts that regardless of the motivation to secede I believe secession would forever hurt the flag and the Republic. So I cannot in good conscience treat it as something peaceful. If our country was ruled by a tyrant and secession was the only option left to preserve the flag and republic then I would support it. However our country has not reached that point. Secession can only work when it is made against a real threat. But secession that is committed prematurely can only lead to disunion. Whether that would lead to anarchy is open to conjecture. But at the end of the day I put my faith in the Republic to protect me from tyranny, not secession.

Sir, I took an oath to the Constitution{ which represents our Republic} over 40 years ago; and I stand by that oath today; unfortunately, since the election was a SHAM, on 6 November 2012, our Republic officially DIED! IT was already ON life support, and that was the last chance to save it; but since you don’t believe anything against your savior you won’t believe that election was LITERALLY stolen; the “fix” having been in since September, which Obama gave away in his statement to Medvedev to relay to Putin he’d have more flexibility AFTER the election. There was NO DOUBT in his mind he’d be “re-elected” and the massive fraud that’s been uncovered but won’t be dealt with proves it. My oath compels me to separate from what is NO LONGER a Constitutional Republic but a dictatorship that has NOTHING to do with that Constitution or the Declaration which it guarantees!

Jeremy Leochner says “1: Our country is not the point where its survival is in question. ….”

Of course, many do actually talk secession out of disfavor of the election results – Obama’s re-election rather than Romney – and I do not subscribe to that sentiment. And while I may agree that our country is not yet to the point of survival to which secession is justified at this time; it is well on its way. But I sense that we have different views on what constitutes the survival of the nation. When I see our foreign policy dominated by imperialism regardless of the party in charge… when I see waning personal liberties and violations of natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights manifest in grotesque rationalizations such as the NDAA and Patriot Act as a result of those policies… when I see federal government prescribe when to sow and when to reap…. I would argue there is no question that the survival of our country is threatened.

As a wise man once said, “Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.”

Jeremy Leochner says “2: …As to your example regarding Canada I would point out there is a vast difference between two countries joining together and several colonies joining together to form one nation.
3: …There is a huge difference. Our country is a nation, not an alliance. It is not made up of several sovereign nations. When the constitution was ratified it was made with the purpose of forming a “more perfect union”.”

I wholeheartedly disagree. The United States of America is a Union of independent sovereign nations, or ‘City States’. Speaking of the ratifications; Rhode Island ratification, first Amendment states: “I. The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.” Declaration of Independence: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States” And this is especially true for Texas, which was literally an independent nation state prior to entering the union. While it is of course a unique political union, it is nonetheless a political union of independent sovereign nations, or States that ‘act’ as one nation through the mutually beneficial political union.

—–

Jeremy Leochner says “Like I said my loyalty is to the Republic and the Flag.”

Even if the Republic and the flag for which it stands has become a government of tyranny? Is it really the flag and the republic which you are loyal to, or is it the idealistic principles on which they were originally founded?

Jeremy Leochner says “And I believe in my heart of hearts that regardless of the motivation to secede I believe secession would forever hurt the flag and the Republic. So I cannot in good conscience treat it as something peaceful.”

Nay, I’m sure life within the States who remain in the Union would carry on much the same. Can you explain to me how Texas secession would forever hurt the citizens of Washington? How is it that the citizen of New York could rightfully view Texas secession as hostile to them, when secession concerns the local citizens only? As I said, it is this view that such secession is impossible to be carried out peacefully which nurtures conflict.

Jeremy Leochner says “But at the end of the day I put my faith in the Republic to protect me from tyranny, not secession.”

Which is to assume that the seceding State would not be a Republic?

Jeremy Leochner says “But secession that is committed prematurely can only lead to disunion.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.” – Thomas Jefferson

TML I wish to answer point by point:

1: My issue is the idea of our nations survival being in danger in the future still seems like a slippery slope argument to me. And whatever your views on secession I feel it needs to be considered carefully and the evidence understood first. The acts you mentioned can be repealed and or amended. There are still none secession avenues open.

2: TML in your quote from the declaration the beginning of the statement was “That these United Colonies”. They were speaking in terms of a united front not as a series of individual states acting on their own. And after the revolution the original framework the articles of confederation proved unable to preserve the nation. I feel the nation is more then just the sum of its parts. It is a whole unto itself.

3: This may sound stupid but I do not equate the government with the Republic. Perhaps I can best support that statement by saying you are right that I am more loyal to “the idealistic principles on which they were originally founded”. That is where my loyalty lies. Not to the government but to the ideals. I stand by the government so long as I believe its actions are what is best for those ideals. When the government is not I oppose them.

4: I believe the lose of some will hurt the all. Just look at the imagery on the dollar bill. You will countless examples of the strength of unity. If we lose one all are affected. I know I sound like an after school special but the truth is that we are all in this together and as Ben Franklin said “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. And because I believe in this I believe that secession when it is not necessary is itself what nurtures conflict, not the misperception of secession.

5: I believe secession to mean the end of the Republic. If secession takes place when the Republic is not in danger as I believe is the case now I believe it will destroy the Republic regardless of what the seceding states elect to be.

6: I do not believe Jefferson meant secession when the country is not ruled by a tyrant. And I would not consider it to be the same as ” not to be exercised at all” to oppose secession when I do not believe it is necessary.

I keep reading that secession will ruin or destroy our republic. There have been several secessions since the beginning of the 20th century. The ones I can think of is Sweden leaving Norway, Singapore leaving Malaysia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Can someone please tell me where in any of these cases that the breakup of these countries or those that seceded were worse off after they seceded than they were before? Also isn’t it ironic that the USA, which also seceded from Great Britain, in every case supported those that seceded? Yet we talk as if secession will cause this supposed great nation to fall apart. I have news for everyone. This nation is going to fall apart whether states secede or not. Its just too damn big to survive. What happened when the cruise ship Concordia took on water off the shores of Italy? Did they say, “we need to stay on this great big ship because its too big to sink and we need to be loyal and stay on it”. No, they got off on little boats because smaller boats can maneuver through the rocks much better than a large ship. So I’m really tired of hearing that USA won’t survive if states leave. I will say this much, the states that leave will not only survive but will prosper.

Jeremy Leochner says “1: My issue is the idea of our nations survival being in danger in the future still seems like a slippery slope argument to me. And whatever your views on secession I feel it needs to be considered carefully and the evidence understood first. The acts you mentioned can be repealed and or amended. There are still none secession avenues open.”

Absolutely, and any projection to future events could be considered a slippery slope, but isn’t a logical fallacy is you can show the casual connection between one policy or taking one action and the series of other policies or actions. This is what I’ve been driving at regarding the historical record of how imperialism, and perpetual wartime conditions, always undermine personal liberty, and how the United States is on this course as both sides of the isle carry virtually identical foreign policies. Along with how such duopoly dominates the political arena. And I agree, and would go further to say, all other avenues will be exhausted before secession would even be accepted by two thirds of citizen representatives of that State.

Jeremy Leochner says “2: TML in your quote from the declaration the beginning of the statement was “That these United Colonies”. They were speaking in terms of a united front not as a series of individual states acting on their own. And after the revolution the original framework the articles of confederation proved unable to preserve the nation. I feel the nation is more then just the sum of its parts. It is a whole unto itself.”

They were, in fact, a confederation of sovereign independent states. They ‘were’ “United Colonies”, but became “Free and Independent States”. Many States didn’t even ratify the Articles of Confederation until 1781, five years after the Declaration of Independence. So I disagree with the statement that they were ‘not a series of individual states acting on their own’.

Jeremy Leochner says “4: I believe the lose of some will hurt the all. Just look at the imagery on the dollar bill. You will countless examples of the strength of unity. If we lose one all are affected. I know I sound like an after school special but the truth is that we are all in this together and as Ben Franklin said “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. And because I believe in this I believe that secession when it is not necessary is itself what nurtures conflict, not the misperception of secession.”

Granted… and personally I don’t think it absolutely necessary, yet.

Jeremy Leochner says “5: I believe secession to mean the end of the Republic. If secession takes place when the Republic is not in danger as I believe is the case now I believe it will destroy the Republic regardless of what the seceding states elect to be.”

I disagree. Without a casual connection between proposed events, this in itself is a slippery slope. What do you mean when you say you think it would “destroy” the Republic? I guess it comes down to optimism verse pessimism on that issue.

Jeremy Leochner says “6: I do not believe Jefferson meant secession when the country is not ruled by a tyrant. And I would not consider it to be the same as ” not to be exercised at all” to oppose secession when I do not believe it is necessary.”

It was meant to convey that even though I agree that secession is not yet necessary, and that many tools and avenues can still be used; I don’t believe secession, even if not necessary, is anything to ‘get up in arms’ about, or think it would destroy the country because it isn’t necessary from the standpoint of outsiders. Obviously, if secession occurred, it would be considered necessary to the people of that, and that’s all that should matter.

As for Jefferson’s direct mention of secession:

“…if there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change it’s republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

I apologize if I get emotional about this issue TML. I guess for me I believe secession is something “to ‘get up in arms’ about”. The reason is I believe secession is basically a person or state deciding to go it alone or at the very least as a portion of the country rather then as a country. I see secession as the the break up of the country and whether it is peaceful or not I disagree with it. Because it is a form of change and I believe that it is a radical change if it results in the permanent break up of the country. That is why I get so testy when I hear about it. I will grant that President Bush, Obama and others in recent years have made decisions and implemented policies that violate our nations principles. However I still see secession as something that is far too extreme, even if it is conducted peacefully, solution for the issues we face. I believe that the issues while complex and at times overwhelming and disheartening have not reached the level or are anywhere near the level where the break up of the country is necessary in order to protect the people from tyranny. I do not wish to insult the founders who had great respect for dissent against those with power. I myself hold such ideals in great esteem. I hope to always be intelligent and foresighted enough to hold those in power accountable for their actions. And I hope that should the legislative and judicial protections our constitution and declaration provide us ever be taken away I will have the courage to recognize it and support what must be done. However until that day comes my faith remains with the Republic. I will always be loyal to the principles of the declaration and constitution and I will only support our government so long as I in my limited wisdom believe they are strengthening our republic. At the end of the day my view of secession in regards to the present situation as I see it can be best summed up by Abraham Lincoln when while speaking of our country and its republic he said “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” In our present state of affairs I believe secession whether peaceful or violent will be suicide for our republic. I apologize if I offend you and I am sorry if I suggested you were one of those advocating for secession now. I never meant to imply that at all.

So I’m guessing that when Ahmadinejad drops his nuke on your head from his rented Venezuela launch site, THEN maybe you’ll notice that our “leadership” has become the “enemy, domestic” against whom many of us took our oaths to defend the Constitution?

You went to school?

Is the plague a dance something akin to the Watusi?

Question asked: “What will they say next time they recite the pledge?”

Doesn’t matter. If they want to quit and go away they can’t be trusted to stick with the new whatever it is.

Rob

LOL Bob. Tell that to George Washington.

THAT WAS “COOL,” “Flashy!”