Hey MJ, In defense of your article, and in attacking my latest rant, I thought this was a pretty fair and balanced perspective on this new "secession" discussion:
http://www.teapartyperspective.com/2012/11/13/counterpoint-to-secession-is-not-the-answer/ On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > My......Oh My! Where or where do you find these types of articles? > > Secession was in fact settled in 1865. The federal government, which has > tanks, drones, all kinds of really effective weaponry, says that secession > will not take place in the United States, Constitution be damned! Again, > this was determined in April and May, 1865. > > Secession in 1860/1861 had very little to do with, * > "treasonous/unAmerican/craaaazy/slavers".* > In fact, South Carolina put "nullification" of a Federal Congressional > Act to the test in 1832, during a South Carolina State Convention; the > State Legislature declared all protective tariffs, particularly those of > 1828 and 1832, to be null and void within the state. Then Vice President > John Calhoun resigned as the Vice President, and the South Carolina > Legislature, who supported nullification sent him to the Senate to > present its case. > > The “rebellion” was a war for Southern independence. The South had no > design to “conquer” the North, let alone to abolish elections. If anything, > it hoped that the 1864 election would replace Lincoln with a new president > who would make peace. > > Like most war leaders, President Lincoln grossly distorted and exaggerated > the motives of the South. He constantly insisted that the South wanted to > “destroy” the Union, when it merely wanted to withdraw from it. He called > honorable men like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee “traitors,” though > they never betrayed anyone in their lives. He accused the South of > “aggression,” when it was the South that was being invaded, and truly > destroyed, by the Union armies. Having assured the country that he had > neither the power nor the inclination to disturb slavery, Lincoln made the > destruction of slavery his lofty war aim in the middle of the war! > > The most glaring proof lies in the reaction to the Emancipation > Proclamation, which was simply an ultimatum to the Confederacy. All states > not in rebellion could keep their slaves, as could any state that ceased > participation in the war within 100 days. Years ago, I found a list > generated from some federal government entity, (Maybe the U.S. Census?) on > the internet, that showed the actual slave holders in each state, and every > state in the Union between 1861 and 1863 had slaves, to include all of the > Northern States!! > > Consider this. The South is fighting a bloody and costly war to preserve > slavery. Suddenly President Lincoln publicly announces that the South may > keep their slaves if they just stop fighting. What would the rebels do? > They would shoulder their rifles, march home, keep their slaves and declare > victory. Historically, if it is as you believe, the Emancipation > Proclamation would be considered a declaration of surrender by the Union. > So why didn’t the southerners stop the war and keep their slaves? Only one > possible answer……Slavery wasn’t the sole issue!!! > > In the decade preceding the Civil War, slaves were freed in unprecedented > numbers. Scottish, Irish and German immigrants moving south, willing to > work the plantations for pennies a week, rendered slaveholding impractical. > By the time the North invaded, fewer than 25 percent of Southern farmers > still owned slaves. I don’t know how your family came to the United > States, but parts of my family, the patriarchal side, were indentured!!! My > family for over 100 years, were sharecroppers. > > > > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
