Are You a Confederate? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LaRondo · #1 12-14-2008, 11:05 PM

You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

by Charley Reese

Most of the political problems in this country won't be settled until more folks realize the South was right.

I know that goes against the P.C. edicts, but the fact is that on the subject of the constitutional republic, the Confederate leaders were right and the Northern Republicans were wrong.

Many people today even argue the Confederate positions without realizing it.

For example, if you argue for strict construction of the Constitution, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you oppose pork-barrel spending, you are arguing the Confederate position; and when you oppose protective tariffs, you are arguing the Confederate position. But
that's not all.

When you argue for the Bill of Rights, you are arguing the Confederate position, and when you argue that the Constitution limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, you are arguing the Confederate position.

One of the things that gets lost when you adopt the politically correct oversimplification that the War Between the States was a Civil War all about slavery is a whole treasure load of American political history.

It was not a civil war. A civil war is when two or more factions contend for control of one government. At no time did the South intend or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. The Southern states simply withdrew from what they correctly viewed as a voluntary union.
They formed their own union and adopted their own constitution.

The U.S. government remained intact. There were just fewer states, but everything else remained as exactly as it was. You can be sure that, with as much bitterness and hatred of the South that there was in the North, the Northerners would have tried Confederates for treason if there had been any grounds. There weren't, and the South's worst enemy knew that.

Abraham Lincoln's invasion of the South was entirely without any constitutional authority. And it's as plain as an elephant in a tea party that Lincoln did not seek to preserve the Union to end slavery. All you have to do is read his first inaugural address. What Lincoln didn't want to lose was tax revenue generated by the South.

As Northern states gained a majority in both houses, they began to use the South as a cash cow. Here's how it worked: Most Southerners who exported cotton bartered the cotton in Europe for goods. When the protective tariffs were imposed, that meant Southerners had to pay them. To make matters worse, the North would then use the revenue for pork-barrel projects in its states. The South was faced with either paying high tariffs and receiving no benefits from the revenue or buying
artificially high-priced Northern goods.

Southerners opposed pork-barrel spending. Their correct view was that, because the federal government was merely the agent of all the states, whatever money it spent should be of equal benefit. Their position on public lands was that they belonged to all the people and the federal
government had no authority to give the lands away to private interests.

Northerners had announced they would not be bound by the Constitution. What you had was the rise of modern nationalism fighting the original republic founded by the American Revolution.

So, regardless of where you were born, you may be a Southerner philosophically.

t walgamuth · #2 12-15-2008, 06:39 AM

I happen to agree with some of the principals claimed there to be
"Southern".

That only proves that no matter how wrong a person can be in the big picture there will be things that they think that are perfectly normal.
Think of all the serial killers that folks later say " who would have guessed "x" seemed like such a nice fellow.

And I agree that the constitution did not directly authorize many of the things that Lincoln did.

But if he had not done what he did and the country had remained divided, it would not be the global power it is today, and for that I am very glad he did what he did.

Folks who say the Civil war was not about slavery for the South are in my mind southern apologists. The system of government/ school systems in the old areas of the deep south still preserve the remnants of slavery in their school systems which starve public schools of meaninful funding while most middle class and up folks send their kids to private schools.

If you think it was more about tax revenue than human rights issues with Lincoln I don't think you have read much about him.

The unfair distribution of tax revinues is an angle I have not heard before.

Botnst · #3 12-15-2008, 07:38 AM

Would dissolution of the union have been bad?

We would not be the world power -- would be bad?

Having 2 (probably 3) more Canada's would be bad?

MTUpower · #4 12-15-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Would dissolution of the union have been bad?

We would not be the world power -- would be bad?

Having 2 (probably 3) more Canada's would be bad?

There would be less snowbirds in FL this time of year... so no it would not be bad.

Carleton Hughes · #5 12-15-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Would dissolution of the union have been bad?

We would not be the world power -- would be bad?

Having 2 (probably 3) more Canada's would be bad?

You neglected the most important thing......no foreign labor as we would house and feed our own.

Txjake · #6 12-15-2008, 09:32 AM

There is a book about this premise, titled "the South Was Right". A fairly well written argument for the constitutional soundness of the south's secession.

Carleton Hughes · #7 12-15-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

There is a book about this premise, titled "the South Was Right". A fairly well written argument for the constitutional soundness of the south's sucession.

{secession}Ssshhhh....

Dee8go · #8 12-15-2008, 09:39 AM

The spirit of our Constitution seems to me to be a balancing act between these two extremes or nationalism and respecting states' rights. Straying too far one way or the other usually ends badly.

Txjake · #9 12-15-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

{secession}Ssshhhh....

thank you, I have not had the second cup of coffee yet....

pj67coll · #10 12-15-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Would dissolution of the union have been bad?

Not certain. I suspect so and am generally happy that the North won. Might makes right

Quote:

We would not be the world power -- would be bad?

Catasrophic. Germany might have won the first round. It would almost certainly have won the second.

Quote:

Having 2 (probably 3) more Canada's would be bad?

Yep.

- Peter.

Carleton Hughes · #11 12-15-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

thank you, I have not had the second cup of coffee yet....

Quite allright Sport,I'm still high on last night's cocktails

Dee8go · #12 12-15-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Not certain. I suspect so and am generally happy that the North won. Might makes right

. . . . - Peter.

Or, as they say, history is written by the victors . . . .

mgburg · #13 12-15-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

... Catasrophic. Germany might have won the first round. It would almost certainly have won the second. ...

If Germany had won the first, there wouldn't have been a reason for Hitler to get all upiddy and in everyones' face...he might have been that loser-painter that he started out as...or the head of the NEA as we know it!

Seig Hiel! Ya'll!

Carleton Hughes · #14 12-15-2008, 09:54 AM

Mein Dampf....

pj67coll · #15 12-15-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

...or the head of the NEA as we know it!

NEA?

- Peter.