These are our our cultural and sometimes actual ancestors. God bless them, God bless their memory. May we possess the courage to remember and honor them with intellectual honesty, free from fear of the overbearing scourge of our time, pernicious leftism and its hideous offspring, authoritarian political correctness -- the antithesis of liberty.
Thanks to Robert for permission to post the videos here.
Good stuff !
ReplyDeleteThe second video says the south when it fought against the Union flag it was fighting for the Union Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI have asked this to many a Lost Causer...and never received an answer so since you think you are as much a historian as I am...I will ask you...and David since I know he read my comments here.
Why did the south write a new and different...however slightly...Constitution than the one Robert claims they were fighting for?
I'm not sure why you haven't received an answer ... perhaps it could be explained by the manner in which the question is asked ... or even the identity of the asker.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the Confederate Constitution is basically the U.S. Constitution, with (a) the content slightly rearranged and (b) a very few (but very important) changes. Generally, the changes were made because, after 70-something years, the flaws in the original document had come to light, and the Confederate Constitution sought to address those flaws:
=====
1.A one term limit of six years for the president.
2.Promotion of free trade by prohibiting protective duties levied for the benefit of any industry.
3.Elimination of cost overruns. "Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or service rendered." Of course, part of the cost overruns comes from agencies changing their minds or finding defects while a project is underway.
4.Line-Item Veto. It wasn't called that. But the president was authorized to approve or veto any item in a bill. That would eliminate horse-trading in Congress, which swells appropriations severely.
5.No Riders on Bills. "Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." What a wonderful restriction to the present system of congressmen tacking completely unrelated bills to legislation, forcing legislators to take the two together or nothing at all.
6.The Post Office department was required to pay its own way. No appropriations could come from government. Mail service, of course, might become more or less efficient.
7.Reduction of "pork barrel" legislation. "No clause contained in the constitution shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce" except for navigational aids or harbor and river improvements. Though the federal government would pay the costs, the constitution required repayment through user duties.
8.Paying for the "general welfare" was omitted. The U.S. constitution authorizes laying and collecting "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The Confederate constitution used the same language through "common defense," then concluded with "and carry on the government of the Confederate States." "General Welfare" was excluded. Welfare didn't mean the same then as now, of course. What is considered "welfare" issues today would be for the states to take care of.
=====
Obviously, the U.S. Constitution wasn't considered infallible when it was written, or a process for rewriting it (i.e., amendments) would not have been included in the document itself.
And considering that there are seventeen changes -- i.e., amendments following the first ten (the bill of rights) -- more than twice the eight the Confederates made -- it would seem an equally valid question was, why did the United States find it necessary to "re-write" the constitution by adding these amendments?
I note that the South would be better off today if it had been governed by a constitution with those changes. In fact, the whole country would be better off if the U.S. Constitution incorporated these changes (although I have no real argument with two presidential terms totaling eight years rather than one of six).
(Corey ignoring everything else and focusing solely on slavery commencing in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)
So why not work within the system created by the founders to make these changes? Why secede to make these changes...disregarding the issue of slavery at this point.
ReplyDeleteI see you are taking some time to think this through...but I am guessing that you cannot answer the question without going into the slavery issue...
ReplyDeleteI'm busy.
ReplyDeleteCorey, I have no problem going into the "slavery issue." I'm just not obsessed with it the way some people are -- people who need it in order to demonize white Southerners.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in demonizing folks, not even yankees. My criticism of them is limited to those who sowed hatred for the South, the soldiers who came down here to kill Southerners, the politicians who sent them, and the folks who got rich off Southern slave-grown cotton, directly or indirectly.
Corey, they didn't "work within the system" because the system was in the hands of people determined to use it against them.
ReplyDeleteSo what you are saying is that anytime the government is in the hands of the oppostition, then the other side is right to just up and unilaterally secede?
ReplyDeleteSo today, all the red states could just leave and tell the blue states to take a long walk on a short pier?
Is that your belief?
Connie,
ReplyDeleteI don't wish to demonize white southerners...I just want them to own up to the real heritage of the Confederacy.
If one side intends to use their possession of government power to victimize the other, yes, it is their right to secede. Yes, yes, yes...
ReplyDeleteIf the blue states intend to do that, yes it is the right of the red states to leave. I don't think they'd tell the blue states to take a long walk off a short pier; they'd just say "bye."
My belief is that whenever government becomes destructive of the rights of the people, it is also the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.
My belief is that altering or abolishing the government the way Jefferson meant (i.e. dissolving the political bands that have connected one people with another) should not be undertaken for light (trivial, frivolous) and transient (temporary causes.
But when possession of national government power becomes an arsenal of one side, which has a record of long-term abuses meant to reduce the other side to absolute despotism, it is their right -- their duty, Jefferson says -- to throw off that government and provide a new one.
Yes, you do wish to demonize white Southerns. You do it repeatedly.
You want white Southerners to do something? People in hell want ice water, or, as the old saying goes "wanting" and "getting are two ocmpletely different . Your wants are irrelevant, Corey. And you aren't the authority for determining what is the real heritage of the Confederacy. You have your opinion about it, that's all.
Besides, I don't think you give a rat's patootie about real Confederate heritage.
"I don't wish to demonize white southerners...I just want them to own up to the real heritage of the Confederacy"
ReplyDeleteI've read my ancestors letters and the writings from the men who served with him, They were fighting to save their homes from an invading army !
So what did your ancestors have to say about the war ?
Well David, your ancestors were fighting to protect those things they mention...no doubt about it. But since they served in the Confederate Army, they also fought for the things that the Confederacy felt were in need of protecting...namely African Slavery.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not.
But then again, many Union soldiers were not happy about the EP and refused to fight. However, those who were against the EP and stayed to fight...still fought for the EP and to end slavery because that is what the Union Government was fighting for.
History is a bitch when it gets complicated...aint it?
Corey, nothing about the history you're talking about was complicated. Union soldiers were subjected to a deplorable bait-and-switch. The war was sold to them on the basis of "preserving the union" though there was nothing particularly noble or right about saving the union. (Besides, the remaning states in the north could have certainly been "the union." It only took nine states to create the union, and there were more than twice nine in the union after the south left.)
ReplyDeleteThe war was well underway before the switch to slavery was made. Some of them deserted, but most didn't want that hanging over their heads, so they stuck it out. Doesn't mean they were gung-ho in favor of freeing slaves. Most folks up north couldn't stand black folks and did not want to compete with free blacks for jobs -- hence states like where you're living -- the Land of Lincoln -- having laws that put all sorts of restrictions on their coming there, and staying there -- to keep their migration and presence in Illinois to the absolute minimum.
LOOOOL Good old Corey always good for a laugh !
ReplyDeleteI asked you what "YOUR" ancestors had to say about the conflict !
David,
ReplyDeleteIs your memory failing you? I have said before that, unlike you, I do not have any letters or diaries of my ancestors who fought in the war. If they exist I am not aware of them.
If they did write letters the later family members may not have been able to read them as the G-G Grandfather who fought in the 106th Illinois came to this country from Germany in the 1840's.
On the other side, I know very littel about my G-G Grandfather... who fought in the 60th Illinois with Sherman... or if anyone in the family has letters or had letters.
So no, I cannot say what my ancestor thought about the conflict. The only thing I do know is that they both volunteered and both served into 1865 until their enlistments were up.
Connie,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be right for me to continue to debate you on any aspect of American History until you take a course or do some serious reading on the subject.
Your last statement was so rife with historical inaccuracies that I just don't feel like it would be gentlemanly of me to continue to make you look like the fool you are.
Let me know when you have done some actual studying of Am. History.
Aw, how gentlemanly of you. I'm really moved. I've got a lump in my throat.
ReplyDeleteNow, Corey, put up or shut up. Identify the historical inaccuracies in my post by offering the historical accuracy to refute them. I've numbered them for easy reference.
(1) The war was sold to union soldiers on the basis of "preserving the union".
(2) ...the remaining states in the north could have been "the union." (In fact, they WERE the union, and were called that, throughout the war.)
(3) It only took nine states to create the union, and there were more than twice nine in the union after the south left.
(4) The war was well underway before the switch to slavery was made.
(5) Some of them deserted, but most didn't want that hanging over their heads, so they stuck it out.
(6) Staying in the army (not deserting) doesn't necessarily mean they were gung-ho in favor of freeing slaves.
(7) Most folks up north couldn't stand black folks and did not want to compete with free blacks for jobs -- hence states like where you're living -- the Land of Lincoln -- having laws that put all sorts of restrictions on their coming there, and staying there -- to keep their migration and presence in Illinois to the absolute minimum.
1- Yes, as it was.
ReplyDelete2- Yep... you are correct.
3- No. I took 9 states to ratify the Constituion, the Union was created before the Const....at least under the Articles of Confederation. The Article of Confederation was just that... A Confederacy...one that suffered the same problems faced by the Southern Confederacy...problems fixed by the founders with the Constitution...the same Constitution that the south fought against.
4- Sort of true. The south seceded over the slavery issue in 1860-61. The North included the slavery issue in 1863 initially as a war measure and then on moral grounds. So according to the south, the VP, Secession Commissioners, the southern states legislatures, the war was always over slavery.
5- Maybe...would need so serious research to prove this. Research you are not capable of and lots or reading of primary and secondary sources which you have said you have no interest in.
6- True. But the same thing about southern soldiers could be said. Claiming in letters to be defending hearth and home does not mean they don't disapprove of slavery.
7- Again, hard to prove the term "most". Yes some Northern states had laws on blacks living in the state and Illinois was one of them. However I have not seen anything to show that these laws were heavily enforced. I would go into some of this but here is not the place.
So...there you go!
Well, I do declare. My statement wasn't so "rife with historical inaccuracies," after all....
ReplyDelete(3) What if only nine states had ratified the Constitution? Would that have created a union of nine states? Would all the states that didn't ratify it be a part of that union because they had been part of the one under the Articles?
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution may have fixed the problems of the Articles, but it created new ones, else it wouldn't have had to be amended so many times. The South fought against an invading army, Corey, not a government document.
(4) Secession and war are not the same thing. You're calling me a fool, and you still don't know the difference between secession and war? The SOME of the Southern states seceded over slavery but they ALL *fought* because they were invaded by an Army sent to kill Southerners.
(5) If I need serious research to prove what I'm claiming, you need serious research to disprove it. I think that means a draw.
Please link to where I've said I have no interested in research and reading primary and secondary sources.
(6) Your claim was that my post was rife with historical inaccuracy. That something claimed for one side could also be said of the other does not constitute historical inaccuracy.
(7) "Hard to prove" is not the same thing as historical inaccuracy.
Look up your own comments about the Black Confederate myth and how willing you are to debate that with any historical research.
ReplyDeleteCorey, you didn't link where I've said I have no interested in research and reading primary and secondary sources.
ReplyDeleteObviously, you can't.
Skuse me , I got distracted by daily life, Corey using your logic where you say the Confederates were fighting to preserve slavery like it or not, The Yankees were fighting to preserve it also.
ReplyDelete??????? you say !
Sure, if at the start of the war the focus was to Preserve the Union, and slavery was protected by the laws of the Union using your logic (as applied to the Confederate soldier) The union Soldiers were fighting to preserve as well !
Fine Connie, you win...
ReplyDeleteSo, tell me what books have you been reading on the war lately.
Me Too ? Ya skipped over me !!!
ReplyDelete"if at the start of the war the focus was to Preserve the Union, and slavery was protected by the laws of the Union using your logic (as applied to the Confederate soldier) The union Soldiers were fighting to preserve as well" !
David,
ReplyDeleteI have a life and a job... that requires work after the paid hours are over... off the internet.
But just so that you don't whine anymore...here you go.
Yes, in a round-about way, those Union soldiers fighting to defend and perserve the Union were fighting to preserve slavery insomuch as that slavery was part of the Union.
However through southern secession, the south gave those soldiers ultimately a way in which to preserve the Union and deal a death blow to slavery...whether they liked it or not.
But then agian, the stated goal of the Union war was to Preserve the Union, while the south wanted to preserve slavery.
Corey I'm impressed !
ReplyDeleteYou used a compound word !!!
However your reply is a typical white bread and mayonnaise with the crust cut off sandwich.
Very noncommittal of you.
It's kinda like being pregnant either she is or she ain't !
No inbetween !
Is no TRY, is DO or NOT DO !
So if the Confederates were fighting to preserve slavery, and in doing so went with the Governments plan, So were the Yankees !
So like it or not "Your ancestors were fighting to preserve slavery"
David,
ReplyDeleteThey were fighting to preserve a country...a country that unfortunately included slavery. It was also a country that had a president who was elected on a platform of not letting slavery expand...thus hoping for its ultimate extincition.
That is a bit of a difference from forming a government based on slavery as its Cornerstone ...don't you think?
All differences being what they are
ReplyDeletelike it or not "Your ancestors were fighting to preserve slavery"
Yes David, they were...all differences set aside. However those difference were not set aside like you wish once the EP was issued.
ReplyDeleteStill, with all differences set aside, the South still fought from the start to preserve slavery.
Corey. Some states SECEDED to primarily protect slavery though not solely to protect slavery. But they FOUGHT because and ARMY of INVASION was bearing down on them, their homes, families and communities. An army that did NOT invade to FREE SLAVES.
ReplyDeleteBut, let's say for a moment, hypothetically, that the South was fighting to preserve slavery. What, in your opinion, is the significance of that?
Corey? Let's say for a moment, hypothetically, that the South was fighting to preserve slavery. What, in your opinion, is the significance of that?
ReplyDeleteIf you say, "They were fighting to preserve slavery," and somebody says, "So what?" how do you answer that?