Member since Dec 11, 2010



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Mayor Riley calls Secession Gala 'unfortunate,' 'the opposite of unifying'

@Paulius: Thank you.
You wrote: "Also, when people say secession was illegal, what would've happened had a Northern state chosen to secede to dissociate itself with a nation in which slavery existed? Think a war would've been fought over it? And what if that happened today? Perhaps California seceding over gay marriage if it was outlawed by an amendment to the Constitution, for example. You see, states rights doesn't necessarily equal racism. "

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Conv…
precedent of Northern States discussing Nullification and Secession when their livelihoods were threatened by Acts of the Jefferson and Madison Administrations.

Bluster about secession and nullification happened when the "powers that be" felt they are getting taken financially by their political opponents. Then throw in preexisting cultural and religious differences, and you had a recipe for conflict. The morality stuff about slavery was window dressing for the cannon fodder. I am speaking realpolitik, not about the actual morality, which is self evident to a rational person.

2. States Rights, like the Hartford convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and contemporary efforts such as those to prevent enaction of the REAL ID Act, to nullify federal medical marijuana laws, and to nullify the healthcare mandate to purchase insurance by the VA attorney general, are ALWAYS about preventing the Federal government from extending its powers by Unconstitutional laws beyond the Enumerated Powers of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The supremacy clause only applies to Constitutional Laws which fit the Enumerated Powers of Article 1 Section 8.


1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Honourablemeans on December 15, 2010 at 1:58 AM

Re: “Mayor Riley calls Secession Gala 'unfortunate,' 'the opposite of unifying'

@mat catastrophe
Is that what you understood from reading what I wrote?
There is no such return possible.
I blog about freedom. This freedom is blind to race, sex, religion...The only one who needs to fear such freedom is the incompetent individual , one who mooches or loots the comptent producer of wealth. Thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Honourablemeans on December 13, 2010 at 6:51 AM

Re: “Mayor Riley calls Secession Gala 'unfortunate,' 'the opposite of unifying'

From the Wikipedia entry on the Confederate Constitution:

"Continuing the US government's prohibition of importation of slaves after the year 1808, which is in the Articles of the confederate constitution unlike the U.S. Constitution, the confederate constitution does make explicit the legal protection of owning slaves.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]
The constitution likewise prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories (unlike the United States, where, prior to the Dred Scott decision, Congress had prohibited slavery in some territories). This did not necessarily mean that individual states could not ban slavery. However, section 2 of Article IV specified that "citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired".

A proposal to prohibit free states from joining the Confederate States of America was narrowly defeated[citation needed], largely due to the efforts of moderates such as Alexander Stephens. Stephens believed that economics might persuade free states with strong economic ties to the South to join the Confederacy."

Also, on States Rights:

The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution begins: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character..."

If you asked a North Carolinian or a man from Massachusetts in 1787: "what is your country?" They would have said the name of their State. In 1860, this was still prevalent. Most Confederates would not say their country was the CSA, but South Carolina, or Virginia. They realized they had to band together for mutual protection. After the War, the States became less and less important because the 10th Amendment was a casualty of war. It's successful enforcement has become rare, but there has been a resurgence of States rights advocates, over issues such as the REAL ID act, Medical Marijuana, gun rights, and Obamacare.

In a nation that is true to State's rights, you can "vote with your feet" and move to a place that is more consistent with what you believe. When an executive in Washington or nine Justices in black robes dictate the law for all 50 states, there is no escape for people with differing views. That is a part of what I consider tyranny. I believe that is one reason the country is so polarized. Repubs pass laws that p.o. dems, and vice versa. Swings back and forth every 4 to 8 years, and has become worse and worse. Because of the 14th Amendment, legislation is forced down all our throats.
No escape.

That is why I support states rights today, and honor the memory of my 6 three-great grandfathers who literally fought for states rights, by serving in the Confederate States Army. None owned slaves, and all were farmers of low to middling income.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Honourablemeans on December 12, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Re: “Mayor Riley calls Secession Gala 'unfortunate,' 'the opposite of unifying'


After that quote at Appomattox, he later said:

"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
 Gen. Robert E. Lee

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." CSA General Robert E. Lee



Does the possibility that someone else can have an opposing view DESPITE knowing and acknowledging what you say is true (i have read the secession ordinances of all Confederate States)threaten your world view? Does it give you pause that your focus may be too narrow? Probably not. Many people become trapped by complacency in their knowledge base, and trapped by their faith in the sources of that knowledge. The knowledge base may be lacking. The sources may be inaccurate or spun a certain way. Anyway, all I suggest to open minded people is to read both sides of an issue and let reason be your guide.
On slavery again: the southern perspective was that the federal government was tyrannically reaching beyond it's own mandate, and the issue of 3/5 representation and it's extension into western territories affected the balance of power between competing ideologies of government, and interfered with Northern protectionist and mercantilist economic goals. These issues were contemporary to that time period -- not revisionist history. Saying the war was fought over slavery, implying it is a struggle of moral Yankee principles against southern evil principles IS post war revisionism. Freeing millions of slaves at a stroke with no plan for integration, certainly no compensation, empowering blacks politically and taking away the rights of white southerners was a recipe for intense racial animosity. This suited the ruling class.
The country's founding: slaves introduced to New England in 1630's. New Englanders profited most from the slave trade. 1776 1/4 of Connecticut families owned slaves. Stars and Stripes was the flag flying over a country whose founding had legitimized and institutionalized slavery in it's Constitution and laws for 74 years before the Confederate States of America was founded....but other than that you are absolutely right...
Does it make sense that a CSA soldier fought tooth and nail and risked all until broken to protect the right of the wealthiest 10% of the CSA to own slaves? These guys were Americans! They fought until their ruin for their wives, children, their read of the Constitution, and to prevent what did come to pass: everything they believed in has disappeared, or nearly so.
But go on and say " the war was fought over slavery" and I won't trouble you any more trying to disrupt your knowledge with my knowledge.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Honourablemeans on December 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Re: “Mayor Riley calls Secession Gala 'unfortunate,' 'the opposite of unifying'

@Sark: here are some basic confirmable facts about the way Americans thought about themselves and their country from 1783 or so, until the time of the War of 1861-1865--
The people are the sovereign power, endowed with Natural rights.
The States are created by the People, and derive their mandate to guide the State from the voluntary consent of the People.
The Constitution clearly states that the States are Sovereign entities which delegate specific powers to a new entity called the Federal government, as this government was created by a voluntary Confederation of sovereign States. The States explicitly retain every other right not enumerated to the Federal entity to the several States and to the people. This includes setting local laws and customs, such as slavery, which had been established in North America for 230 years by the time of the War of 1861-1865. The States are free to choose these laws independent of Federal executive will.
So the conflict, which had primarily economic and ideological/Constitutional causes, was fought over whether the States should retain their Sovereignty, and whether the Confederation of the United States was to be a voluntary or involuntary Union.
The Slavery issue and it's impact on the balance of power in Wasington was a proximate cause. The morality of slavery was not an issue--many leaders on both sides of the conflict abhorred the institution while others had what we consider by modern standard to think of Slavery in racist and paternalistic terms. Racism was endemic throughout the United States. This is neither denied nor forgotten by Sons of Confederate veterans.
Northeners fought to keep the Union whole. Southeners fought to maintain freedom from a Federal entity growing out of it's Constitutional boundaries to establish a new Nation.
The Federal government succeeded in establishing this Nation -- at the point of a gun.
Those who celebrate Confederate Heritage remember this and remember the struggle for independence, and brutal subjugation of the Southern people. They remember the remnants of Confederate forces returning home not to return to US citizenship, but to military occupation and political disenfranchisement -- at the point of a gun.
Some of us alive today feel no different in our feelings to Washington today than our ancestors of 1776 or 1861.
By the way, I went to a Northern public school, lived my whole life in the North, and attended a Northern Ivy league University where I majored in History. I didn't even know I had Confederate ancestors until earlier this year.
Do I strike you as "completely ignorant or a racist"?
History books are written by the victors, and the books in our public schools today are written to be, if you'll forgive the pun, black and white in their depiction of the history of our Nation. True history is much, much, more muddy.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Honourablemeans on December 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2018, Charleston City Paper   RSS