While on my way to a separation of church and state rally at the capitol, I happened to pass by the monument on the left. It’s a monument to the Confederate dead. There are many similar monuments throughout Texas.
I paused to read the inscription:
DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216
“FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?” That sentence made me laugh out loud. Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Whom do they think they’re kidding? Only themselves.
-David Drumm (Nal)
horus,
You wrote: “I pray to God that they willt try it again so we can once and for all wipe these disloyal, lying scum off the face fo the earth and complete the job that should have been done by our patriotic and loyal soldiers so long ago.”
There’s serious trouble brewing in these “united” states and, if somebody doesn’t wake up, it may be too late. NSLs (some of them, anyway, effectively muzzle recipients for life. The following from truthout spells it out:
http://www.truth-out.org/after-valerie-plame-obama-makes-fair-game-todays-whistleblowers64791
From the article:
As Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) told Truthout about the Bush approach compared to now:
“It’s the same or worse: the politics of personal destruction, vengefulness, is still there. Obama [i.e., the administration] has indicted four people for leaking, more than the last three administrations [George Bush’s and Clinton’s terms] combined. ‘No Drama’ Obama is driven to distraction by leaks, he seethes and is tormented by it.” As she pointed out in a blog post recently: “The reality is, Obama – not Bush – has criminalized whistleblowing.”
At the same time, the administration ostensibly supports reforms that aim to tighten the near toothless safeguards for whistleblowers – including those involved in the intelligence community, who have virtually no protection for exposing wrongdoing – that are now stalled in the Senate.
end of excerpt
And to repeat it: “…including those involved in the intelligence community, who have virtually no protection for exposing wrongdoing.”
Pretty much anything goes these days… I’ve always believed that telling the truth and exposure of “wrongdoing” were good things. What’s happened? What did I miss along the way?
horus- Outstanding! You said everything that needed to be said.
“People on this thread love to mention that the South fired at Fort Sumter, but what they fail to mention is that no one was even injured, let alone died when they did.” (Larry)
You neglected to mention that the firing on Ft. Sumter (April 1861) was the 2nd incident and that Citadel cadets had fired on a civilian merchant ship bringing supplies to the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter on January 9, 1861. Both were acts of war … the first firing was given a pass, the second was not. The fact that no one was injured in either provocation does not speak well for the Confederate’s ability to aim. Let’s put it this way Larry, if I fire a gun at someone and kill them, it’s murder, if I miss and don’t kill him/her, it’s attempted murder. Either way, I’m going to jail. The fact that the Confederates couldn’t hit the side of a barn with a cannon doesn’t change their attempt to do so.
Imagine … they started a war by missing what they were aiming at and ended the war with a destroyed cotton industry, a destroyed countryside, and a quarter of a million dead. Is it any wonder Southern sympathizers are into revisionist history.
It’s shocking to see people make any kind of claim that the south’s treasonous insurrection was in any way legally justified. It was not. Neither the north nor President Lincoln made any move whatsoever to end slavery. It was the south, through it’s evil attempt to continue slavery forever and protect that sinful, pernicious, and inhuman practice out of pure greed that ended slavery. The north rightfully put down the rebellion and showed unprecedented mercy in dealing with the traitors who attempted to destroy our republic. In return, the loyal citizens of the United States have had to put up with unending bullshit and lies about the protection of property and state’s right ever since. I pray to God that they willt try it again so we can once and for all wipe these disloyal, lying scum off the face fo the earth and complete the job that should have been done by our patriotic and loyal soldiers so long ago.
Dredd,
I agree with what you’ve said, with the possible exception of the following:
“…but usually the only one who can’t get out from under the effects of it is the person doing the deceiving.”
Too many people seem willing to “buy” the revisions of the “deceivers”, either because they are naive, “too busy”, and/or ignorant (or, just plain stupid, in some cases). Rove and his ilk know this, of course, and continue working towards their goal of a “permanent conservative majority.” They’re playing by different rules and will do anything — and I mean anything (if they can get away with it) — to achieve their stated goal.
Larry does not understand the difference between “history” and “revisionist history”, thus a follower of Karl Rove?
“History” is where you don’t own the facts, “revisionist history” is where you make up “your own” facts.
Karl Rove believes one can make “their own” reality by ignoring other people and other facts.
It is deceptive and deceitful, but usually the only one who can’t get out from under the effects of it is the person doing the deceiving.
Larry:
Well the facts are what they are and Lincoln was no Jefferson. And according to the Kentucky Resolve the south had every right to seperate. Mr. Jefferson was pretty clear when he wrote the Resolve.
Funny how you arent taught that in school isnt it?
@Marnie:
>There are also thousands of memorials in Texas to Texans who died in every war that has been fought by the US since the founding of the Texas Republic. Are “they” also kidding?
>Surely the patriotism of thousands upon thousands of “they” who have fought for this nation both before and after the erection of this one memorial deserve more respect.
I agree with this and am surprised at the original post. Ironically, many who fought and died and are so memorialized, likely were slaves.
From what I understand, Lincoln was resisting the spread of slavery but was not going to go to the extent of pursuing a war to end it where it was being practiced in the union. It does seem popular and somewhat revisionist to rebrand the war in civil rights terms when it was functionally about denying the secession of some of the slave-holding states.
Incidentally, the post-war “transition” was particularly terrible as the North failed to occupy and maintain order. Many heinous things happened after the war when the South was unattended – oops.
People on this thread love to mention that the South fired at Fort Sumter, but what they fail to mention is that no one was even injured, let alone died when they did. Plus, they were provoked by Lincoln. “Larry may be right”—-yes Ive heard of the Kentucky Resolve of 1798—-Jefferson’s writing about states rights—-in which New England referred to when they heavily opposed Jefferson’s trade embargo. They didnt want it because it would have killed the New England shipping industry—-the people spoke and opposed it and referred to Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve [and even planned to secede from the Union…..which their RIGHT to do so was never in question] and guess what, it was nullified……..peacefully…..but Lincoln wouldnt have a peaceful opposition to his policies, would he? Oh no. So he murdered 300,000 to get his point across.
Looks like me and you are the only two that knows the facts here.
Henman,
When will “HenMan is mighty funny” weigh in on the subject?
😉
looks likes HenMan is the winner 3-2
congratulations HenMan
HenMan- Me too!
HenMan- I agree with you.
larry might be right,who might be Larry- Curly and Moe are still ashamed of you. Shemp too.
Larry:
Have you heard of the Kentuckey Resolve of 1798?
“The most important chapter of Liberty, State, & Union is Chapter 6, “The Nature of the American Union: Jefferson and States’ Rights.” The core of Jefferson’s idea here is what Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolve of 1798, which explained why the state of Kentucky was nullifying the federal Sedition Act, which effectively outlawed free political speech in America. Jefferson defined political tyranny as “the consolidation of power in a single center” and, consequently, he believed that under the American system of government, it was essential that the citizens of the states be acknowledged as the true sovereigns, and as having such rights as nullification and secession as means of asserting that sovereignty and defending themselves against a consolidated tyranny. As Bassani writes, “Jefferson asserted that the states, inasmuch as they were sovereign parties entering into the constitutional compact, had created the federal government simply as their agent, subordinate to their own power, and designed to carry our limited and well-defined functions. As a result, the federal government had no right to expand its own sphere of authority without the agreement of the contracting parties.””
link supplied:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
Larry: There were MORE slaves in the NORTH! This is undisputable fact
citation please
Larry: then why didnt Lincoln end it peacefully, through compensated emancipation like every other country did between 1800 and 1860????
there was to be no compromise Larry, the slave holders were bound and determined to keep their slaves or have other people die trying
larry might be right
1, November 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Blousie:
no you are not, but it was a reasonable request.
==========================================================
Which I refused to honor as it would be very time consuming and so threw the ball back to you … use your own time.
However, one caution … my contention is: had the Confederacy stuck with their original ruse (a term with which you might legitimately take issue)ie, the “The Nullification Doctrine” and refrained from firing on Fort Sumter … everything might have gone differently for them. The thread I referenced dealt with the Constitutionality/legal right to secede … and to that end I believe a specific discussion on Texas would have been illuminating as it was not part of the original 13 yet was part of the first 7 to secede before Lincoln’s inaugural. Although Texas’s position was not specifically addressed on that thread, the Constitutionality of secession was.
If you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend it.
Blousie:
no you are not, but it was a reasonable request.
Y’all shud no ya Don’t Mess with Texas nur good ol’ suthen boyz like Ol’ Lar n’ me. Theyz a lot of Suthen/Confedicy pride xhibited on YouTube n’ sheer is won mo’ xample ‘mongt many: