Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My point was that some went.

On the government's dime or theirs? I knew of no offer by the government being extended to them for repatriation, and I would imagine some would return on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the government's dime or theirs? I knew of no offer by the government being extended to them for repatriation, and I would imagine some would return on their own.

 

I take it all back!

 

It seems the repatriations took place in the early 1800s before the civil war NOT after and most were privately funded only one paid for by the US Govt.

 

Interesting history!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff, I already know the answer. This is merely meant to encourage dialogue. So I will ask you. Did the Consitution prevent the South from seceding? Did the North have the authority and right to use military force, including deadly force ( in today's parlance). Did the North consider this a war or a riot?

 

Don't google, answer!

 

Jeff, still awaiting your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff, still awaiting your reply.

Good luck with that. I've asked him direct questions several times in the past that he's never seen...or ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on Jeff. Don't make us PM you. Where are the libs that claim to know history?

 

 

I'm amazed you guys really hang on my replies! LOL! :hysterical:

 

I thought your question was hypothetical and/or simply rhetorical, sorry! There are arguments on both sides made by scholars for both sides of the question and I don't think I've ever tried to pin either side right or wrong. I think it's pretty much mute though don't you? Over the life of the country there have been countless squabbles concerning the respective rights and powers of the States and and the Federal government. In the case of the civil war it would I guess depend upon whom you asked!

 

Back then, in the old days, the South maintained, with pretty strong convictions, that the Union was formed of mutual consent and not instituted by force; and from that the original States were the creators of the Union; and that all States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from England, and by doing so had never surrendered these things just because they in turn entered the Union; while the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and by which the South challenged the North to find any authority in the Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.

 

The North, on the other hand, maintained that the Union as formed under the Constitution was pretty much perpetual; that once entered the Union could not be divided; sort of like the Hotel California, also that regardless of any express power granted in the Constitution for stopping secession or invading a State, the right of self-preservation was in the supreme interest of all governments; and that the continuance of the Union was an essential part of life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, "liberty and union are one and inseparable."

 

The South would turn around and answer the charges of the North who claimed that secession was a rebellion and treason, that the name calling of rebel and traitor would not deter the South from its goal of independence, since these same words had been used against Washington, Jefferson, Hancock and Adams. In vindication of their right to secede, the South appealed to the doctrine that, "the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed," and to the right of independence as always reserved by the States. The North in turn would answer to all these points also cited the acts and opinions of the same Fathers, and urged that the purpose of those Fathers was to make a more perfect Union and a stronger government.

 

These opposing arguments went back and forth until everything broke down and the South attacked.

 

We're taught, I think wrongly, that the cause of the Civil War one side (meaning the North) was wholly right, while the other side (meaning the South) was wholly wrong. I might cite those on the Southern side of this, would have been glad to say that the North was wholly wrong; that they had waged war upon their southern sister States who had sought peacefully to set up a new government, and meant to ill-will to the remaining Union States. Back then the Southern leaders said that that the southern states people, in their exercise of the freedom and sovereign rights given them, were just asserting a sort of second independence in keeping with the teachings and example set by the forefathers.

 

But all that said I'm left to wonder what good can come from your question? What good can come from backward looking partisan utterances on either side? What good came from them back then? My own opinion is this: that the one thing which is wholly wrong is the effort of some people to inject a one-sided litany of sentiments in either side of the issue. Such sentiments are neither consistent with the truth of history, nor are they conducive to the future of our country. The very idea, on either side, of all the righteous North or South truth would only end up creating an arrogance, and an intolerance of the opposing region; or, if either region could be persuaded that it was "wholly and eternally wrong," it would inevitably destroy the self-respect and pride of its people so again what good can come of it and why try to pin blame or rights now? Because some desperate Texas Governor made a dumb comment?

 

As far as I'm concerned they were all American soldiers, whether he fought on the one side or the other, and it' said that we once endured that carnage as a nation. I am also moved to point out, if I can, the common ground on which we all may stand; where justification of one region's actions does not require or imply some wild condemnation of the other. Rather I see a broad, high, middle ground where North facts meet South facts, where argument confronts argument, and truth is balanced against truth.

 

 

BTW: I think it's funny though that the TX Governor, that offered the secession option, this week asked for help and money from the Federal Government to help with the flu.

:doh:

Edited by JeffIsHereToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, you still didn't answer the question. What is your opinion? Did the North have the right to use military force? Was it a war, riot, or rebellion. The other liberals should feel free to attempt feeble answers also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff, you still didn't answer the question. What is your opinion? Did the North have the right to use military force? Was it a war, riot, or rebellion. The other liberals should feel free to attempt feeble answers also.

 

I answered your question! Pretty specifically too with amplifying questions back to you! Sorry if it's not what you wanted to hear.

:headscratch:

Edited by JeffIsHereToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW: I think it's funny though that the TX Governor, that offered the secession option, this week asked for help and money from the Federal Government to help with the flu.

:doh:

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

 

You consider that offering an option?? All he did was dance. He's a politician and as a politician is going to try to pi$$ off as few of his voters - 37% of whom think secession needs to be an option - as possible.

 

Gov. Rick Perry today in a precautionary measure requested the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide 37,430 courses of antiviral medications from the Strategic National Stockpile to Texas to prevent the spread of swine flu. Currently, three cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Texas.

"As a precautionary measure, I have requested that medication be on hand in Texas to help curb the spread of swine flu by helping those with both confirmed and suspected cases of this swine flu virus, as well as healthcare providers who may have come in contact with these patients," said Gov. Rick Perry. "We will continue to work with our local, state and federal health officials to ensure public safety is protected."

 

Money?

How about his refusal of stimulus money for unemployment insurance?

 

Come on man. Get your stuff together. Perry aint perfect but now your just spinning junk. He's been labeled a secessionist unfairly but that does not matter. It makes for a better story the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You consider that offering an option?? All he did was dance. He's a politician and as a politician is going to try to pi$$ off as few of his voters - 37% of whom think secession needs to be an option - as possible.

 

Gov. Rick Perry today in a precautionary measure requested the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide 37,430 courses of antiviral medications from the Strategic National Stockpile to Texas to prevent the spread of swine flu. Currently, three cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Texas.

 

 

Money?

How about his refusal of stimulus money for unemployment insurance?

 

Come on man. Get your stuff together. Perry aint perfect but now your just spinning junk. He's been labeled a secessionist unfairly but that does not matter. It makes for a better story the other way.

 

 

I didn't start this thread! You guys did and all jumped on the bandwagon! You guys need to "your stuff together"! :hysterical:

 

BTW: here did you get 37%?

 

"Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.

However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose."

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._75_opt_to_stay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't start this thread! You guys did and all jumped on the bandwagon! You guys need to "your stuff together"! :hysterical:

 

BTW: here did you get 37%?

 

"Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.

However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose."

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._75_opt_to_stay

 

 

Jeff, what did you mean by "BTW: here did you get 37%?" What format do you have to use to catch the typos? Touche'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I answered your question! Pretty specifically too with amplifying questions back to you! Sorry if it's not what you wanted to hear.

:headscratch:

 

and no you did not answer specifically. You quoted what others opine without listing your opinion. So, in your opinion did the North have the right to use military force on the South? Was it a war or just a riot, an uprising that had to be put down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't start this thread! You guys did and all jumped on the bandwagon! You guys need to "your stuff together"! :hysterical:

 

BTW: here did you get 37%?

 

"Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.

However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn't even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose."

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._75_opt_to_stay

 

You guys? There is no you guys involved in this in fact this is my fourth post in this thread and only one had any significance. In fact I have not looked in this thread for awhile because, well, it's boring.

 

I don't know why 6% difference matters. Some might call that a margin of error but regardless...

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/4/22/TX/288

 

Scroll down to nearly the bottom. These guys give a 4% margin of error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like TX may have competition. Re to below:

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Les Gibbons

To: dsberlet ; WHITBY ; Walters ; harry Frey ; Hupp ; Kuhn ; Lorenz ; ACKOINES@aol.com ; Clarence Ells ; Miller, Richard CIV

Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:01 AM

Subject: Fwd: Gooooo Oklahomaaaaaaa

 

 

An update from Oklahoma.

 

 

 

The state law passed today, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...!

Guess what..........We did it anyway.

 

We recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from, unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

 

Guess what..........we did it anyway.

 

Yesterday we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes.

Pelosi said it was unconstitutional.

 

Guess what........We did it anyway.

 

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. That, for your information, makes Oklahoma and Texas the only states to do so. Guess what.........More states are likely to follow. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, just to name a few. Should Mississippi act, so will Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again.

 

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the Kennedys and Ms Pelosi.

Guess what..........We did it anyway.

 

By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

Guess what....who cares...were doing it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, so Oklahoma may not be soooo bad after all. it does make a nice hat for Texas anyway :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/...-exemption-law/

 

Looks like Montana is now challenging the obama administration. Montana will have gun laws that do not comply with the federal government and is not required to due to the 9th and 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Law goes into effect Oct. 1, 2009. Look for the DOJ (Eric Holder) and others to try and fight it. Will be interesting. Montana will tell the feds to appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. The DOJ will try to take it federally. Montana can ignore the federal decision and what can the feds do?

 

PS- to Jeff and the other libs- Lesson for the day; Montana was NOT a slave state.

Edited by 69dejavue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess not everyone voted for obama the socialist and is willing to allow their state to become socialist. Let's see now, TX, OK, MT, how many more states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess not everyone voted for obama the socialist and is willing to allow their state to become socialist. Let's see now, TX, OK, MT, how many more states?

Tennessee is moving that way. They just passed a resolution in the senate confirming their position on the 10th Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those left wing radicals on this site that constantly claim that secession is a racist issue may we remind you that neigher Montanna or Oklahoma were slave states. There is growing dissension in this country and it is not related to racism. Rather it is the usurpatation of powers from the states. The country was founded as a loose confederation of states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those left wing radicals on this site that constantly claim that secession is a racist issue may we remind you that neigher Montanna or Oklahoma were slave states. There is growing dissension in this country and it is not related to racism. Rather it is the usurpatation of powers from the states. The country was founded as a loose confederation of states.

 

 

And there are some great REAL Jefferson quotes on this topic!

 

Go look!

:lurk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are some great REAL Jefferson quotes on this topic!

 

Go look!

:lurk:

 

Concur. Obviously Jefferson was a very wise man. Would Jefferson have supported the South's right to secede?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, I am not saying anyone should secede at this time. But I am inquiring, in the historical text, if secession was permissable in 1861? WWJD! (What would Jefferson Do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas

hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise

enumerated and granted to the federal government by the

Constitution of the United States; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal

government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective

immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these

constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that

directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal

penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation

or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it

further"

 

NOW !!! YES, DO IT NOW !!! Let the Socialists/obama/pro communist's have their own Country (state). No Worries, the obama/Leftists/Socialist/Pro Marxist, 'dead beats', will be broke in just a few years.

TO THE NEW AMERICA, July 4th 2009, WHERE IT IS;

 

AGAINST THE LAW, FOR THE PRESIDENT;

 

TO HATE HIS OWN COUNTRY

TO BE A SOCIALIST/PRO MARXIST COMMUNIST

TO HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE COUNTRY'S MILITARY

NOT TO SALUTE THE AMERICAN FLAG OF THE COUNTRY

TO BE A MUSLIM, DEVIL WORSHIPPER, ATTEND THE CHURCH OF REV WRIGHT

NOT TO OWN GUNS AND ENCOURAGE ALL CITIZENS TO CARRY THEM

TO MOCK HIS OWN COUNTRY, AND BELITTLE HIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY

NOT TO BE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES

 

WELL, THAT WOULD BE A START.

Edited by turnsignaldelete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff was here, et al....words from a very wise man, Mr. Walter Williams, economist, historian, and author.

 

Walter Williams

 

 

 

 

Misplaced priorities

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --

NOW THAT THE SCHOOLS that black youngsters attend are educating well, the devastating crime rate in black communities has abated and the black family has recovered its past stability, the NAACP can now focus on perceived indignities such as the Confederate battle flag flying over the Capitol Dome of South Carolina.

 

The NAACP has done just that with a proclamation that calls for boycotts and economic sanctions against South Carolina. Surely, the NAACP leadership can't really believe that blacks have reached a point where we can now focus attention and expend resources on social fine-tuning.

 

It must be ignorance, an ignorance I once shared. The NAACP crowd sees the Confederate battle flag as a flag of slavery. If that's so, the United States flag is even more so. Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865, while under the Confederate flag a mere four years.

 

The birth of both flags had little or nothing to do with slavery. Both flags saw their birth in a violent and proud struggle for independence and self governance. However, if one sees the War for Southern Independence solely or chiefly as a struggle for slavery, then it's natural to resent the Confederate battle flag.

 

The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South to abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors. Here's an oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.

 

I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Slavery simply emerged as a moral front for northern aggression.

 

A more plausible source of North-South antagonism is suggested in an 1831 speech by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun where he said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence and force must ultimately prevail."

 

A significant source of Southern discontent was tariffs Congress enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. Referring to those tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North." Among other Southern grievances were Northern actions similar to King George III's Navigation Acts, which drove our Founders to the 1776 War of Independence.

 

Though it's not politically correct for our history books to report, black slaves and free blacks were among the men who fought and died heroically for the cause of the Confederacy. Professor Edward Smith, director of American studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully-equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam -- the war's bloodiest battle. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim Crow and segregation. They fought because their homeland was attacked and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be rewarded for their patriotism."

 

If the NAACP leadership just has to commit resources to issues surrounding the Confederacy, I'd like to see them make an effort to see to it that black Confederate soldiers are memorialized and honored.

 

I am sorry as I also forgot to mention that Mr. Williams is Black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Jeff was here too....More wisened words.

 

Black Confederate Soldiers

by Walter Williams

DURING OUR WAR OF 1861, ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government."

 

Dr. Lewis Steiner, a Union Sanitary Commission employee who lived through the Confederate occupation of Frederick, Maryland said, "Most of the Negroes ... were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army." Erwin L. Jordan's book "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" cites eyewitness accounts of the Antietam campaign of "armed blacks in rebel columns bearing rifles, sabers, and knives and carrying knapsacks and haversacks." After the Battle of Seven Pines in June 1862, Union soldiers said that "two black Confederate regiments not only fought but showed no mercy to the Yankee dead or wounded whom they mutilated, murdered and robbed."

 

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them" in defense of Virginia. Erwin L. Jordan cites one case where a captured group of white slave owners and blacks were offered freedom if they would take an oath of allegiance to the United States. One free black indignantly replied, "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave in the group upon learning that his master refused to take the oath said, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave said, "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." One of the slave owners took the oath but his slave, who didn't take the oath, returning to Virginia under a flag of truce, expressed disgust at his master's disloyalty saying, "Massa had no principles."

 

Horace Greeley, in pointing out some differences between the two warring armies said, "For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union." General Nathan Bedford Forrest had both slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, General Forrest said of the black men who served under him "(T)hese boys stayed with me ... and better Confederates did not live."

 

It was not just Southern generals who owned slaves but northern generals owned them as well. General Ulysses Grant's slaves had to await the Thirteenth Amendment for freedom. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, General Grant said, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

 

These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States.

 

The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression.

 

They don't deserve the dishonor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tennessee General Assembly

 

House of Representatives

Weekly Legislative Update from Representative Mike Harrison

A weekly wrap-up of legislative news

State sovereignty resolution continues forward

Joins 8 other states in reclaiming state sovereignty

 

Tennessee joined eight other states this year in filing resolutions to declare sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This week, House Joint Resolution 108 cleared the committee system, and will now be scheduled for a vote on the House floor.

 

The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "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."

 

The resolutions have been filed in response to what many state lawmakers believe is an increased level of fiscal irresponsibility on the federal level, and over-reaching by the federal government. Lawmakers in Tennessee argued that the federal government has handed down a series of unfounded mandates and directives that are dangerously close to violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution.

 

The House is expected to take up House Joint Resolution 108 sometime next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainty sounds and appears that not All Americans share, Comrade barrack Hussein obams's' 'NIGHTMARE', for America.

Comrade barrack and Comrade Michelle want to destroy, the America we love.

The Socialist/Communist, want to end States rights, and individual liberties and freedoms. Well, it appears that we have ourselves a New Ball, Game. It appears our Leftist/Socialist/Pro Marxist new, president, has a FEW' States, that do not care about his or Michele's, , NEW AMERICA', we like the old America, just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...