Delete / Löschen
We're Still Fighting the Civil War, Boringly.
Lisa Lisa
11.04.2011 - 09:21
11.04.2011 - 09:21
rob me of my sovereignty. And count me as one person who is bored
with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. It's lost and
should stay lost! Time to get on with life!
4 ways we're still fighting the Civil War By John Blake, CNN
April 10, 2011 8:30 p.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The United States marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War
Americans still argue over many issues that led to war, scholars say
Scholar: "There are all of these weird parallels"
Southern historian: Confederate leaders are American heroes
CNN -- He stood 5-foot-8 and weighed 145 pounds. His face was gaunt
and sunburned. Ticks, fleas and lice covered his body.
Before battle, his lips would quiver and his body went numb. When the
shooting started, some of his comrades burst into maniacal laughter.
Others bit the throat and ears of their enemy. And some were shattered
by shells so powerful that tufts of their hair stuck to rocks and
trees.
Take a tour of a Civil War battlefield today, and it's difficult to
connect the terrifying experience of an average Civil War soldier --
described above from various historical accounts --
historic sites where we now snap pictures today.
But you don't have to tour a battlefield to understand the Civil War.
Look at today's headlines. As the nation commemorates the 150th
anniversary of its deadliest war this week, some historians say we're
still fighting over some of the same issues that fueled the Civil War.
"There are all of these weird parallels," says Stephanie McCurry,
author of "Confederate Reckoning," a new book that examines why
Southerners seceded and its effect on Southern women and slaves.
"When you hear charges today that the federal government is
overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a
league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist
charges in 1860," she says.
"Living history" on Civil War battlefields
These "weird parallels" go beyond the familiar debates over what
caused the war, slavery or states' rights. They extend to issues that
seem to have nothing to do with the Civil War.
The shutdown of the federal government, war in Libya, the furor over
the new health care law and Guantanamo Bay -- all have tentacles that
reach back to the Civil War, historians say.
They point to four parallels:
The disappearance of the political center
If you think the culture wars are heated now, check out mid-19th
century America. The Civil War took place during a period of pervasive
piety when both North and South demonized one another with self-
righteous, biblical language, one historian says.
One of the biggest debates during the Civil War was how far should
governments go in dictating our lives. We still debate those politics.
--William Blair, Civil War historian
The war erupted not long after the "Second Great Awakening" sparked a
national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the
country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier
campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.
They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen,
says David Goldfield, author of "America Aflame," a new book that
examines evangelical Christianity's impact on the war.
Goldfield says evangelical Christianity "poisoned the political
process" because the American system of government depends on
compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both
because "how do you compromise with sin."
"By transforming political issues into moral causes, you raise the
stakes of the conflict and you tend to demonize your opponents,"
Goldfield says.
Contemporary political rhetoric is filled with similar rhetoric.
Opponents aren't just wrong -- they're sinners, Goldfield says.
"The erosion of the center in contemporary American politics is the
most striking parallel between today and the time just before the
Civil War," Goldfield says.
In the lead-up to the war, political campaigns were filled with
religious fervor. Political parties paraded their piety and labeled
opponents infidels.
"Today's government gridlock results, in part, from this religious
mind set that many issues can be divided into good and evil and sin
and salvation," he says.
A Union artillery crew poses before battle. Each side underestimated
the opposing army, historians say.How much power should the federal
government have?
Nullification, state's rights and secession. Those terms might sound
like they're lifted from a Civil War history book, but they're
actually making a comeback on the national stage today.
Since the rise of the Tea Party and debate over the new health care
law, more Republican lawmakers have brandished those terms. Republican
lawmakers in at least 11 states invoked nullification to thwart the
new health care law, according to a recent USA Today article.
It was the kind of talk that led to the Civil War, historians say.
"One of the biggest debates during the Civil War was how far should
governments go in dictating our lives. We still debate those
politics," says William Blair, director of the George and Ann Richards
Civil War Era Center at Pennsylvania State University.
The Southern answer to that question ignited the war. When they
seceded, their leaders said that they were protecting the inherent
rights of sovereign states. They invoked the 13 Colonies' fight for
independence.
We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the war was Lincoln's
insistence that, no, we can't let these people go.
--H.W. Crocker III, Southern historian
RELATED TOPICS
American Civil War
Abraham Lincoln
H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the
Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the
Founding Father's belief that the Colonies were free and independent
states.
"If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the
election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like
abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the
federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies
into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy,
are American heroes.
"Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the
North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the
war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
Slavery caused the war, says McCurry, author of "Confederate
Reckoning," and most historians.
Southern slaveholders invoked the Revolution while trying to build an
antidemocratic slave state "dedicated to the proposition that all men
are not created equal," McCurry says.
They also didn't want to lose the tremendous wealth generated by slave
labor, she says.
"They felt confident because they were the biggest producers of cotton
in the Western world at the height of the Industrial Revolution."
Unleashing the dogs of war
During the run-up to the Iraq War, former Vice President Dick Cheney
famously declared that American troops would be welcomed as
"liberators" in Iraq.
Cheney made the mistake that political leaders have been making for
ages -- he didn't know the enemy, says Emory Thomas, author of "The
Dogs of War," which examines how ignorance on both sides led to the
Civil War.
"Cheney thought it was going to be France in 1944, but it ended up
Georgia in 1864," Thomas says.
Civil War leaders made the same mistake, Thomas says. Northern leaders
like Lincoln didn't really think ordinary Southerners who had no
slaves would fight in defense of slavery. Southerners didn't think
Northerners were willing to go to war to preserve the Union, he says.
And few on both sides expected the war to be so bloody and long.
"America in 1861 didn't realize what the hell they were doing," he
says. "They just weren't willing to think of unpleasant
possibilities."
We risk the same mistakes when we commit to "limited" military
campaigns in places such as Iraq and, most recently, Libya, Thomas
says.
When President Obama announced a limited air bombing campaign in
Libya, Thomas thought about the political leaders before the Civil
War.
Each incrementally committed to various military provocations,
thinking events wouldn't spiral out of control. They were wrong.
"Once you commit to war, you don't have any control over how it ends,"
Thomas says. "It's amazing how that sounds like Libya now. We may
blunder into success, but we don't know who these guys (Libyan rebels)
are."
The battlefields are quiet and even tranquil today, but the average
Civil War soldier faced horror and exhaustion.The president as
dictator
Barack Obama isn't the first black president, according to some
Southern secessionists. That would be Abraham Lincoln. He was called a
"black Republican" and the "Great Dictator."
There a reason a large number of Americans despised Lincoln during the
war. Think of the nation's recent "War on Terror." Some Americans
thought Lincoln used the war to ignore the Constitution and expand the
powers of the presidency.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (it gives a person who is jailed the
right to challenge their detention in court) during the war and used
military courts to arrests thousands of civilians.
Those legal decisions loom over post-9/11 America, historians say.
How do we treat American citizens caught attempting to bomb U.S.
cities? How do we clamp down on American citizens who preach
overthrowing the government? What rights do Guantanamo Bay prisoners
possess?
"It's not just what does a president do against an enemy," says Blair,
the Civil War historian. "It's what do you do against your own
citizens to determine loyalty. That's a big debate today."
Lincoln skillfully addressed that debate, says Brian McGinty, author
of "Lincoln & the Court."
He says Lincoln confronted unprecedented problems: The South was in
rebellion, the nation's capital was in real danger from rebels in
Virginia and their sympathizers in Maryland.
At one point, a mob blocked passage of Northern troops through
Maryland to defend Washington.
"His oath of office required him to 'preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution' and he believed that the best way to do that was to
preserve the Union," McGinty says. "What good would the Constitution
be if the country itself was lost?"
McGinty doesn't think Lincoln became a dictator. He says he allowed
the presidential election to take place in 1864. He worked with
Congress. He asked military officers to arrest disloyal persons
sparingly, and he never tolerated abuse of prisoners.
Lincoln said his actions would ultimately be subject to the review of
the American people, not the courts, McGinty says.
"He called the people 'The Great Tribunal' and said that they would
have the final word on constitutional issues. In the end, The Great
Tribunal approved of what he had done. So, for the most part, has
history."
The Great Tribunal, however, has yet to render a unanimous verdict on
the Civil War.
A century-and-a-half after the war ended, people still clash over the
causes and meaning.
Blair says they still clash because the war doesn't fit many
Americans' image of themselves or their past.
"The American story of our past has been a hopeful, helpful
narrative," he says. "But it's hard for us to understand that there
was a time in this country when the Constitution protected slavery,
and it was actually legal.
"How do you insert the story of slavery into that?"
Share DIV
Lisa Lisa
11.04.2011 - 09:46
11.04.2011 - 09:46
I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the
Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the
Founding Father's belief that the Colonies were free and independent
states.
"If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the
election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like
abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the
federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies
into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy,
are American heroes.
"Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the
North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the
war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
Oh, BTW, Crocker is WRONG. Or maybe he's deliberately lying. The
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 forced Northerners to return escaped slaves
to their masters. If you didn't cooperate, you'd be risking a very
heavy fine. Whereas before escaped slaves
were automatically free once they got past the Ohio River, they no
longer were because of the passage of this law, and many fled to
Canada.
Crocker also forgot the hideous Dredd Scott decision, which declared
that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress
had no power to forbid slavery in the territories. (Which included
Oregon Territory, at the time of the ruling.) The Democrats at that
time turned to Popular Sovereignty as a solution, but if the federal
government can't prohibit slavery, can a territorial legislature? The
Kansans eventually DID adopt an anti-slavery constitution, which
pissed off the South no end. Stephen Douglas ended up backing a free
Kansas, alienating once-friendly Southern politicians. So much for
wanting to "be left alone."
Lincoln often said that what he feared most was the "nationalization"
of slavery. He was RIGHT. The South wanted to spread slavery all
over the country. And Jefferson Davis is a schmuck.
Crocker is just a crock, alright.
Lisa
"Lee Curtis"
11.04.2011 - 16:41
11.04.2011 - 16:41
Nullification, state's rights and secession. Those terms might sound
like they're lifted from a Civil War history book, but they're
actually making a comeback on the national stage today.
Since the rise of the Tea Party and debate over the new health care
law, more Republican lawmakers have brandished those terms. Republican
lawmakers in at least 11 states invoked nullification to thwart the
new health care law, according to a recent USA Today article.
Funny who the same conservatives who applauded Bush
running roughshod over Florida (blocking state recounts),
Oregon (blocking its assisted suicide law), California
(medical marijuana clinics raided) and every other state
(No Child Left Behind education mandates) can now dare
to complain about the "intrusion" of the government into
"states rights".
Same people, two standards.
Yoorghis
11.04.2011 - 16:45
11.04.2011 - 16:45
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
<email@anonym; wrote:
I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
rob me of my sovereignty. And count me as one person who is bored
with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. It's lost and
should stay lost! Time to get on with life!
As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery, but they
do fight the same underlying battle that caused them to believe they
have a RIGHT to have those activities.
The substitute issues are now in the form of Health care, Immigration,
or a dozen types of laws they see as parallel to states rights which
serve as a substitute.
The very decision in Gideon v Wainwright applying the due process
clause to states simply unhinges them. (not to mention brown v board,
et al)
=============================================================
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Kurtis T. Nicklas of
1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
I don't pay much attention to him these days, but I'd wager he's not
happy.
You sure as shit paid attention when you got caught
making all those late-night hang-up phone calls, didn't
ya, Nickkkkers?
CLICK ! ! !
<email@anonym; wrote:
I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
rob me of my sovereignty. And count me as one person who is bored
with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. It's lost and
should stay lost! Time to get on with life!
As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery, but they
do fight the same underlying battle that caused them to believe they
have a RIGHT to have those activities.
The substitute issues are now in the form of Health care, Immigration,
or a dozen types of laws they see as parallel to states rights which
serve as a substitute.
The very decision in Gideon v Wainwright applying the due process
clause to states simply unhinges them. (not to mention brown v board,
et al)
=============================================================
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Kurtis T. Nicklas of
1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
I don't pay much attention to him these days, but I'd wager he's not
happy.
You sure as shit paid attention when you got caught
making all those late-night hang-up phone calls, didn't
ya, Nickkkkers?
CLICK ! ! !
Beam Me Up Scotty
11.04.2011 - 21:04
11.04.2011 - 21:04
On Apr 11, 3:21 am, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the
Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the
Founding Father's belief that the Colonies were free and independent
states.
"If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the
election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like
abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the
federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies
into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy,
are American heroes.
"Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the
North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the
war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
The question was who were the real slaves?
Aren't we all equally slaves under the law?
Lisa Lisa
11.04.2011 - 22:22
11.04.2011 - 22:22
On Apr 11, 3:040pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:21 am, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
>> H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the
>> Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the
>> Founding Father's belief that the Colonies were free and independent
>> states.
>> "If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the
>> election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like
>> abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the
>> federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies
>> into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
>> He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy,
>> are American heroes.
>> "Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the
>> North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the
>> war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
The question was who were the real slaves?
Aren't we all equally slaves under the law?-
I noticed that you snipped out the part on the Fugitive Slave Law and
the Dredd Scott decision (in which Chief Justice Taney said that a
black person had no rights that a white man was bound to respect.) So
here it is:
Oh, BTW, Crocker is WRONG. Or maybe he's deliberately lying. The
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 forced Northerners to return escaped
slaves
to their masters. If you didn't cooperate, you'd be risking a very
heavy fine. Whereas before escaped slaves
were automatically free once they got past the Ohio River, they no
longer were because of the passage of this law, and many fled to
Canada.
Crocker also forgot the hideous Dredd Scott decision, which declared
that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress
had no power to forbid slavery in the territories. (Which included
Oregon Territory, at the time of the ruling.) The Democrats at that
time turned to Popular Sovereignty as a solution, but if the federal
government can't prohibit slavery, can a territorial legislature?
The
Kansans eventually DID adopt an anti-slavery constitution, which
pissed off the South no end. Stephen Douglas ended up backing a free
Kansas, alienating once-friendly Southern politicians. So much for
wanting to "be left alone."
Lincoln often said that what he feared most was the "nationalization"
of slavery. He was RIGHT. The South wanted to spread slavery all
over the country. And Jefferson Davis is a schmuck.
Crocker is just a crock, alright.
Lisa
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:21 am, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
>> H.W. Crocker III, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the
>> Civil War," says Southern secessionists were patriots reaffirming the
>> Founding Father's belief that the Colonies were free and independent
>> states.
>> "If the Southern states pulled out of the union today after, say, the
>> election of Barack Obama, or some other big political issue like
>> abortion, how many of us would think the appropriate reaction from the
>> federal government would be to blockade Southern ports and send armies
>> into Virginia?" Crocker asks.
>> He says men such as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy,
>> are American heroes.
>> "Jefferson Davis was not trying to force anything on the people in the
>> North," he says. "We wanted to be left alone. What actually caused the
>> war is Lincoln's insistence that no, we can't let these people go."
The question was who were the real slaves?
Aren't we all equally slaves under the law?-
I noticed that you snipped out the part on the Fugitive Slave Law and
the Dredd Scott decision (in which Chief Justice Taney said that a
black person had no rights that a white man was bound to respect.) So
here it is:
Oh, BTW, Crocker is WRONG. Or maybe he's deliberately lying. The
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 forced Northerners to return escaped
slaves
to their masters. If you didn't cooperate, you'd be risking a very
heavy fine. Whereas before escaped slaves
were automatically free once they got past the Ohio River, they no
longer were because of the passage of this law, and many fled to
Canada.
Crocker also forgot the hideous Dredd Scott decision, which declared
that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress
had no power to forbid slavery in the territories. (Which included
Oregon Territory, at the time of the ruling.) The Democrats at that
time turned to Popular Sovereignty as a solution, but if the federal
government can't prohibit slavery, can a territorial legislature?
The
Kansans eventually DID adopt an anti-slavery constitution, which
pissed off the South no end. Stephen Douglas ended up backing a free
Kansas, alienating once-friendly Southern politicians. So much for
wanting to "be left alone."
Lincoln often said that what he feared most was the "nationalization"
of slavery. He was RIGHT. The South wanted to spread slavery all
over the country. And Jefferson Davis is a schmuck.
Crocker is just a crock, alright.
Lisa
Lisa Lisa
11.04.2011 - 22:28
11.04.2011 - 22:28
On Apr 11, 10:450am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
<harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
>rob me of my sovereignty. 0And count me as one person who is bored
>with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. 0It's lost and
>should stay lost! 0Time to get on with life!
As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery
No, they want this:
Search Engine provided by the Harry S. Truman Library. Our thanks to
Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che Kassim at Project Whistlestop for
critical assistance in the implementation of the search function, and
to Scott Roley at the Truman Library for facilitating this
collaboration.
Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party
August 14, 1948
Unanimously Adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948
- 1 -
We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest
charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.
- 2 -
We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it
to every citizen of this republic.
- 3 -
We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be
guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our
Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the
totallitaran, centralized bureaucratic government and the police
nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and
Republican Conventions.
- 4 -
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of
each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to
accept private employment without governmental interference, and to
learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of
segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of
private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed
civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a
minimum interference with individual rights.
- 5 -
We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in
sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of
segregation, social equality by Federal fiatt, regulations of private
employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
- 6 -
We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be
utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the
Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be
differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers.
- 7 -
We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments
of our government. We oppose the usurpation of legislative functions
by the executive and judicial departments. We unreservadly condemn the
effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would
destroy the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.
- 8 -
We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they
belong, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and
the discharge of our responsibility as democrats for human welfare. We
oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of
those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or
violation of those rights by the Federal Government. We call upon all
Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to
totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously
defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate
for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United
States of America.
- 9 -
We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J.
Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-
president, respectively, of the United States of America. PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORS
Wm. H. MURRAY JOHN STEEL BATSON
CLIFTON RATLIFF M.F. RAY
MRS. ANNA B. KORN O.L. PENNY
J.K. WELLS BARNEY WOLVERTON
R.W. MOTT FRANCIS HASKELL
OTHER OFFICERS ELECTED
ROSS LILLARD, President
CHUCK HERD, Vice-President
MRS. RUTH LACKEY, Secretary
HEADQUARTERS
At Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency
Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pidD25851.
Home Contact
9 1999-2011 - Gerhard Peters - The American Presidency Project
Read more at the American Presidency Project: Minor/Third Party
Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pidD25851#ixzz1JFSMtk1y
DCI
12.04.2011 - 05:54
12.04.2011 - 05:54
On Apr 11, 1:280pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:450am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
> <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
> >rob me of my sovereignty. 0And count me as one person who is bored
> >with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. 0It's lost and
> >should stay lost! 0Time to get on with life!
> As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
> Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
> within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
> Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery
No, they want this:
0Search Engine provided by the Harry S. Truman Library. Our thanks to
Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che Kassim at Project Whistlestop for
critical assistance in the implementation of the search function, and
to Scott Roley at the Truman Library for facilitating this
collaboration.
Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party
August 14, 1948
0Unanimously Adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948
- 1 -
We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest
charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.
- 2 -
We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it
to every citizen of this republic.
- 3 -
We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be
guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our
Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the
totallitaran, centralized bureaucratic government and the police
nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and
Republican Conventions.
- 4 -
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of
each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to
accept private employment without governmental interference, and to
learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of
segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of
private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed
civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a
minimum interference with individual rights.
- 5 -
We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in
sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of
segregation, social equality by Federal fiatt, regulations of private
employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
- 6 -
We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be
utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the
Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be
differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers.
- 7 -
We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments
of our government. We oppose the usurpation of legislative functions
by the executive and judicial departments. We unreservadly condemn the
effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would
destroy the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.
- 8 -
We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they
belong, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and
the discharge of our responsibility as democrats for human welfare. We
oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of
those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or
violation of those rights by the Federal Government. We call upon all
Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to
totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously
defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate
for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United
States of America.
- 9 -
We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J.
Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-
president, respectively, of the United States of America. PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORS
Wm. H. MURRAY JOHN STEEL BATSON
CLIFTON RATLIFF 0M.F. RAY
MRS. ANNA B. KORN 0O.L. PENNY
J.K. WELLS 0BARNEY WOLVERTON
R.W. MOTT 0FRANCIS HASKELL
OTHER OFFICERS ELECTED
ROSS LILLARD, President
CHUCK HERD, Vice-President
MRS. RUTH LACKEY, Secretary
HEADQUARTERS
At Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -----
Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency
Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web:http:/=
/www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pidD25851.
Home 0 0 0 0 0Contact
9 1999-2011 - Gerhard Peters - The American Presidency Project
Read more at the American Presidency Project: Minor/Third Party
Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Partyhttp://www.presi=
dency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pidD25851#ixzz1JFSMtk1y
Lisa, I'm following this series of posts by you. They are reminders,
enlightening so, of a past that some fear to discuss.
Good stuff! Thank you.
DCI
On Apr 11, 10:450am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
> <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan to
> >rob me of my sovereignty. 0And count me as one person who is bored
> >with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. 0It's lost and
> >should stay lost! 0Time to get on with life!
> As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
> Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
> within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
> Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery
No, they want this:
0Search Engine provided by the Harry S. Truman Library. Our thanks to
Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che Kassim at Project Whistlestop for
critical assistance in the implementation of the search function, and
to Scott Roley at the Truman Library for facilitating this
collaboration.
Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party
August 14, 1948
0Unanimously Adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948
- 1 -
We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest
charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.
- 2 -
We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it
to every citizen of this republic.
- 3 -
We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be
guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our
Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the
totallitaran, centralized bureaucratic government and the police
nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and
Republican Conventions.
- 4 -
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of
each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to
accept private employment without governmental interference, and to
learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of
segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of
private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed
civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a
minimum interference with individual rights.
- 5 -
We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in
sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of
segregation, social equality by Federal fiatt, regulations of private
employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
- 6 -
We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be
utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the
Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be
differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers.
- 7 -
We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments
of our government. We oppose the usurpation of legislative functions
by the executive and judicial departments. We unreservadly condemn the
effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would
destroy the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.
- 8 -
We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they
belong, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and
the discharge of our responsibility as democrats for human welfare. We
oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of
those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or
violation of those rights by the Federal Government. We call upon all
Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to
totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously
defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate
for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United
States of America.
- 9 -
We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J.
Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-
president, respectively, of the United States of America. PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORS
Wm. H. MURRAY JOHN STEEL BATSON
CLIFTON RATLIFF 0M.F. RAY
MRS. ANNA B. KORN 0O.L. PENNY
J.K. WELLS 0BARNEY WOLVERTON
R.W. MOTT 0FRANCIS HASKELL
OTHER OFFICERS ELECTED
ROSS LILLARD, President
CHUCK HERD, Vice-President
MRS. RUTH LACKEY, Secretary
HEADQUARTERS
At Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -----
Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency
Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web:http:/=
/www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pidD25851.
Home 0 0 0 0 0Contact
9 1999-2011 - Gerhard Peters - The American Presidency Project
Read more at the American Presidency Project: Minor/Third Party
Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Partyhttp://www.presi=
dency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pidD25851#ixzz1JFSMtk1y
Lisa, I'm following this series of posts by you. They are reminders,
enlightening so, of a past that some fear to discuss.
Good stuff! Thank you.
DCI
Lisa Lisa
12.04.2011 - 20:17
12.04.2011 - 20:17
On Apr 11, 11:540pm, DCI <50b...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:280pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:450am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
> > <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan =
to
> > >rob me of my sovereignty. 0And count me as one person who is bored
> > >with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. 0It's lost and
> > >should stay lost! 0Time to get on with life!
> > As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
> > Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
> > within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
> > Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery
> No, they want this:
> 0Search Engine provided by the Harry S. Truman Library. Our thanks to
> Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che Kassim at Project Whistlestop for
> critical assistance in the implementation of the search function, and
> to Scott Roley at the Truman Library for facilitating this
> collaboration.
> Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party
> August 14, 1948
> 0Unanimously Adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948
> - 1 -
> We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest
> charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.
> - 2 -
> We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it
> to every citizen of this republic.
> - 3 -
> We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be
> guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our
> Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
> constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the
> totallitaran, centralized bureaucratic government and the police
> nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and
> Republican Conventions.
> - 4 -
> We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of
> each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to
> accept private employment without governmental interference, and to
> learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of
> segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of
> private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed
> civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a
> minimum interference with individual rights.
> - 5 -
> We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in
> sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of
> segregation, social equality by Federal fiatt, regulations of private
> employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
> - 6 -
> We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be
> utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the
> Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be
> differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers.
> - 7 -
> We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments
> of our government. We oppose the usurpation of legislative functions
> by the executive and judicial departments. We unreservadly condemn the
> effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would
> destroy the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.
> - 8 -
> We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they
> belong, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and
> the discharge of our responsibility as democrats for human welfare. We
> oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of
> those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or
> violation of those rights by the Federal Government. We call upon all
> Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to
> totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously
> defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate
> for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United
> States of America.
> - 9 -
> We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J.
> Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-
> president, respectively, of the United States of America. PRESIDENTIAL
> ELECTORS
> Wm. H. MURRAY JOHN STEEL BATSON
> CLIFTON RATLIFF 0M.F. RAY
> MRS. ANNA B. KORN 0O.L. PENNY
> J.K. WELLS 0BARNEY WOLVERTON
> R.W. MOTT 0FRANCIS HASKELL
> OTHER OFFICERS ELECTED
> ROSS LILLARD, President
> CHUCK HERD, Vice-President
> MRS. RUTH LACKEY, Secretary
> HEADQUARTERS
> At Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---- -----
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---- -----
> Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency
> Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web:http=
://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pidD25851.
> Home 0 0 0 0 0Contact
> 9 1999-2011 - Gerhard Peters - The American Presidency Project
> Read more at the American Presidency Project: Minor/Third Party
> Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Partyhttp://www.pre=
sidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pidD25851#ixzz1JFSMtk1y
Lisa, I'm following this series of posts by you. They are reminders,
enlightening so, of a past that some fear to discuss.
Good stuff! Thank you.
DCI-
Did you notice that the language----the identification of "rights" and
the defense of the Constitution, has a very familiar ring?
Segregation and Poll Taxes are freedom. The use of the government to
enforce rights is tyranny. Lynching is individual freedom and the
protection of the Constitution.
It's just unbelievable. And these idiots have commandeered a party
and are running the country.
Lisa
On Apr 11, 1:280pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:450am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
> > <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >I'm a rational person, so I don't think "Obamacare" is an evil plan =
to
> > >rob me of my sovereignty. 0And count me as one person who is bored
> > >with the whole Civil War business and Lost Causes. 0It's lost and
> > >should stay lost! 0Time to get on with life!
> > As long as the "civil rights" plank remains in the GOP party
> > Platform---the issue of the "right" of the state to do what it wants
> > within it's borders will never lay the issue to rest
> > Republicans, certainly, aren't wanting to re-instate slavery
> No, they want this:
> 0Search Engine provided by the Harry S. Truman Library. Our thanks to
> Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che Kassim at Project Whistlestop for
> critical assistance in the implementation of the search function, and
> to Scott Roley at the Truman Library for facilitating this
> collaboration.
> Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party
> August 14, 1948
> 0Unanimously Adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948
> - 1 -
> We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest
> charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.
> - 2 -
> We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it
> to every citizen of this republic.
> - 3 -
> We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be
> guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our
> Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
> constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the
> totallitaran, centralized bureaucratic government and the police
> nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and
> Republican Conventions.
> - 4 -
> We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of
> each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to
> accept private employment without governmental interference, and to
> learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of
> segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of
> private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed
> civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a
> minimum interference with individual rights.
> - 5 -
> We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in
> sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of
> segregation, social equality by Federal fiatt, regulations of private
> employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
> - 6 -
> We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be
> utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the
> Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be
> differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers.
> - 7 -
> We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments
> of our government. We oppose the usurpation of legislative functions
> by the executive and judicial departments. We unreservadly condemn the
> effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would
> destroy the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.
> - 8 -
> We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they
> belong, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and
> the discharge of our responsibility as democrats for human welfare. We
> oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of
> those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or
> violation of those rights by the Federal Government. We call upon all
> Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to
> totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously
> defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate
> for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United
> States of America.
> - 9 -
> We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J.
> Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-
> president, respectively, of the United States of America. PRESIDENTIAL
> ELECTORS
> Wm. H. MURRAY JOHN STEEL BATSON
> CLIFTON RATLIFF 0M.F. RAY
> MRS. ANNA B. KORN 0O.L. PENNY
> J.K. WELLS 0BARNEY WOLVERTON
> R.W. MOTT 0FRANCIS HASKELL
> OTHER OFFICERS ELECTED
> ROSS LILLARD, President
> CHUCK HERD, Vice-President
> MRS. RUTH LACKEY, Secretary
> HEADQUARTERS
> At Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---- -----
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---- -----
> Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency
> Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web:http=
://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pidD25851.
> Home 0 0 0 0 0Contact
> 9 1999-2011 - Gerhard Peters - The American Presidency Project
> Read more at the American Presidency Project: Minor/Third Party
> Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Partyhttp://www.pre=
sidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pidD25851#ixzz1JFSMtk1y
Lisa, I'm following this series of posts by you. They are reminders,
enlightening so, of a past that some fear to discuss.
Good stuff! Thank you.
DCI-
Did you notice that the language----the identification of "rights" and
the defense of the Constitution, has a very familiar ring?
Segregation and Poll Taxes are freedom. The use of the government to
enforce rights is tyranny. Lynching is individual freedom and the
protection of the Constitution.
It's just unbelievable. And these idiots have commandeered a party
and are running the country.
Lisa
Ähnliche Themen
