I have been amazed at the furor over the flying of the Confederate battle flag. I personally have always viewed this symbol as of southern heritage and history.....never as a symbol of racism.
Some have claimed it somehow represents an anti-American mindset that favors succession and break-up of the union. This I can see......and find to be a positive thing.
It seems quite odd that so many are upset about flying a traditional, historical flag is wrong......while at the same time the Government is seriously considering placing the image of Harriet Tubman on U.S. money.
Tubman's claim to fame is that she entered another country to steal livestock and smuggle it back to the United States. It's OK to honor a criminal, but not to fly a historical flag???
Yankee through and through here, but here's my thoughts on this. A LOT of very brave men died for that flag. If their sons and daughters, many generations removed, want to fly that flag, so be it. It's a sad, sad day when we can't honor the sacrifices of others. Let the battle flag fly with honor.
Yep. I see the Meskin flag flying all over TX. And It's a crying shame! I personally don't see the Confederate Flag as Racist. I see it as a reminder of my Southern Heritage, and as a tribute to my ancestors who fought and died in the war of Northern Aggression!
It's nothing more than a full frontal attack on the Constitution.
Any amendment the Furor doesn't like... Such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th for starters. They will get around to violating the other ones that aren't on their radar as strongly in the future.
The ones after our rights are testing the waters now to determine the amount of resistance they will have, and weighing the options of whether it is the right time to proceed or not..
I'm another Yankee, but like gophergunner, I'm all for remembering and honoring those who fought and died for something they believed in. Let it proudly fly for those who wish to do so, and Obama's make-believe government be damned. yooper
It's nothing more than a full frontal attack on the Constitution.
Any amendment the Furor doesn't like... Such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th for starters. They will get around to violating the other ones that aren't on their radar as strongly in the future.
It should be viewed the same as the Nazi flag in Germany and be outlawed. Save your flames - I have no intentions of responding to your taunts.
Yeah,...well,...maybe,..maybe not.
But all of those Mexicans that your hero "Obama" is flowing into the country are eventually going to send you to Haiti to find relief.
So get practiced up on Santa Maria and biting the heads off of chickens.
I think the first thing someone should understand about that flag is that it wasn't about "slavery". Nor was that the only flag of the Confederacy by any means. It never stood for half of what uneducated fart knockers think it stands for.
The whole war between the states wasn't fought over slavery either.
Whole lot of folks need to come down off their self placed pedestal and realize that perhaps the war wasn't about owning slaves or anyone else.
Defending the Confederate flag on public buildings is the wrong battle, for two strong reasons.
The first no win problem is about authority. This flag is a symbol of rebellion against the U.S government, the one that put down the rebellion. Slice it any way you want but that's the pertinent fact of history on this topic. Be amazed and grateful that only in America would this much tolerance of a rebellious symbol have been allowed for this long.
Second, no matter what it means to you, it means something bad to huge numbers of other people. Their perception carries the same value as yours and you can argue what it means and should mean endlessly with nothing achieved but harder feelings. In that regard it is not so different from a Nazi flag on a public building after all, perhaps in Fredericksburg or New Berlin... On this front it is a social good sense and courtesy issue, like not wearing a swastika in downtown Auschwitz or driving an Obama bumper sticker to my family reunion. You lose and you look bad while losing.
Put the emotion and effort into something genuinely useful.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
As Bristoe says, this flag is a symbol of rebellion against the "constitutional" government, .
I very definitely didn't say that.
Pardon my too general reference and cutesy quote marks that I did not think about long enough before posting. Inevitably they mislead by indicating that you said it. My error and I apologize. I will go delete that now.
My poorly worded intent was that the Washington DC government won over what they considered a rebellion.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
Originally Posted by Oldman03
Damn Bristoe, your confusing them with facts... they dont understand facts!
I bet you kids are thinking about the "Declaration of Independence"! Am I right?
Some have claimed it somehow represents an anti-American mindset that favors succession and break-up of the union. This I can see......and find to be a positive thing. ....
Anti-American doesn't sound so good, to me at least.
Mississippi has the 'Stars and Bars' as part of the state flag. Several years ago, when all the ruckus was being raised over the Confederate flag, Mississippi put it before the voters in a state wide election. Keep the 'Stars and Bars' or get rid of it on the state flag. Keeping the 'Stars and Bars' passed by over 80%. Thus it will take another statewide election to change the law and get rid of the current flag.
Not hard enough. Don't mistake what I am saying. They should have been able to immigrate like other people did, but they were ill prepared for being freed. Similar problem with lots of the Indians. They were just not ready to be jerked out of the stone age. miles
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
Originally Posted by Oldman03
Damn Bristoe, your confusing them with facts... they dont understand facts!
I bet you kids are thinking about the "Declaration of Independence"! Am I right?
You are correct that it no longer flies on top of the State Capitol building, which I did not realize, but it flies on a permanent flagpole on State ground near the Capitol building. Nit pick placement details if you want but that is PUBLIC.
Once we correct all of my errors of detail, the truth remains that this is a losing battle over the wrong topic.
If they get their way and outlaw the Confederate flag, then do we also have to outlaw the American flag to satisfy them further ?? (since slavery here in the US originated under the American flag)
I have family who fought and died for both sides in the Civil War and I am equally proud of them all.
In the bitter end, there is a certain faction in this country that will never be happy, no matter what we change or flag we fly.
The whole war between the states wasn't fought over slavery either.
Would that war have been fought if slavery hadn't existed in the South...?
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
...cotton was king in the South, the only game in town, ALL of the Southern leadership had made their fortune in cotton and they made slavery the centerpiece of their documents of secession, the causes of secession, and their very Confderate Constitution. THAT is what they wrote.
...cotton was king in the South, the only game in town, ALL of the Southern leadership had made their fortune in cotton and they made slavery the centerpiece of their documents of secession, the causes of secession, and their very Confderate Constitution. THAT is what they wrote.
Extrapolate, spin, and interpret all ya want.
I'm going with that too. All our lives it was crammed down our throats the war wasn't about slavery, it was about secession. The south wanted to secede in order to keep their slaves, and their economy intact.
I went to high school in Columbus Ga. back in the day. At any game, rally, assembly , etc. The star Spangled Banner was played, and Dixie was played, and you by God stood up for them both.
They of course had to stop the playing of dixie, and the star Spangled Banner will be next.
If I remember correct one of the "deals" Lincon made with some of the blabk "leaders" at the time was the backs would leave the US and start and new life on some island or south away from this country , but [bleep] never left
Don't know if it was part of that deal or what, but a number were returned to the west coast of africa to what is now Liberia...where they promptly enslaved the local populace when they landed. True story.
I bet they attack the Christian flag next! And then of course all state flags that have any remnants of our past like the Palmetto Flag.
Wouldn't suprise me at all, David! The Musilum Loving POS POTUS would LOVE to destroy Christianity as we know it. He's already well on his way to his goal of destroying America
here in Memphis, the city council voted to change the name of any city park that had Confederate roots. Nathan Bedford Forrest Park became Health Science Park. Confederate Park became Memphis Park, and Jefferson Davis Park became Mississippi River Park.
Would that war have been fought if slavery hadn't existed in the South...?
Yes, but ignorant people don't care.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
The only real reason for the South to secede was to ensure that slavery continued, because both the economy and massive personal fortunes were tied up in the value of their slaves.
So you can say the war was about state's rights, and the right to secede, but those rights (in this instance) were primarily only to protect the fortunes of rich slave owners and the institution of slavery.
Confederate Alexander H Stephens said what the Civil War was about in his Cornerstone Speech of 1861. The southern economy was based on slavery and prior to the war, the southern power structure tried to expand the slave economy into all of the new territories of the United States including Oregon. Amazing how revisionist Confederate historians ignore all that.
This kind of stuff just reminds me of how most think the KKK was founded as just a hate group against blacks , is was not , do some resesarch and learn more
This kind of stuff just reminds me of how most think the KKK was founded as just a hate group against blacks , is was not , do some resesarch and learn more
Great analogy. The Democratic Party has become a hate group against whites.
This kind of stuff just reminds me of how most think the KKK was founded as just a hate group against blacks , is was not , do some resesarch and learn more
Great analogy. The Democratic Party has become a hate group against whites.
Two cops got let go from the Anniston PD for belonging to "League of the South" a group that advocates secession. Since when do cops not have any freedom of speech off the job?
The vast majority of southern men who fought in the war did NOT own slaves THAT is a cold hard fact. They fought because they were invaded. The history books fail to mention that...
The vast majority of southern men who fought in the war did NOT own slaves THAT is a cold hard fact. They fought because they were invaded. The history books fail to mention that...
The fat-cat Southern politicians lied to the vast majority of southerner's and made em' think it was all about freedom and liberty.
Wouldn't be the first time, or last, that politicians have lied to the public in order to garner public support for a war that was beneficial to the politicians.
The vast majority of southern men who fought in the war did NOT own slaves THAT is a cold hard fact. They fought because they were invaded. The history books fail to mention that...
The fat-cat Southern politicians lied to the vast majority of southerner's and made em' think it was all about freedom and liberty.
Wouldn't be the first time, or last, that politicians have lied to the public in order to garner public support for a war that was beneficial to the politicians.
You are absolutely right. And the liberal Northern politicians lied to the northerners and made them think it was about slavery. At three to one, it was a slam dunk for the Union.
The vast majority of southern men who fought in the war did NOT own slaves THAT is a cold hard fact. They fought because they were invaded. The history books fail to mention that...
The fat-cat Southern politicians lied to the vast majority of southerner's and made em' think it was all about freedom and liberty. Wouldn't be the first time, or last, that politicians have lied to the public in order to garner public support for a war that was beneficial to the politicians.
You are absolutely right. And the liberal Northern politicians lied to the northerners and made them think it was about slavery.
As Birdwatcher pointed out...slavery was the centerpiece of the South's documents of secession, slavery was the centerpiece of the South's causes for secession, and slavery was the centerpiece of the South's very Constitution. THAT is the truth.
So you really think a couple of dumbass country boys from Arkansas and Delaware were killing each other because some rich guy, neither one of them ever heard of, had cheap labor?
antlers thinks gay marriage is just nature taking a normal course.....so yeah, every yankee suited up because of slavery and every reb suited up for the same reason.
For those who are AMERICAN, here's a song for YOU; I don't care where you live:
I think the factual evidence clearly presented by Birdwatcher on this issue carries much more weight than whatever may be one's wishes, or inclinations, or the dictates of one's passions on this issue.
Right? I don't care how much liberals try to change history, I'm not forgetting the facts laid out by the children of people who were there. Same goes for the savages.
No slight to Mike, who I consider a good friend, but where do you think he's from?
Where he's from doesn't alter the state of facts and evidence.
Fact and evidence dictates one who can think to begin with.
Bottom line is citizens of the era did not believe in dictating from the government on their soil (read tyranny) that both sides seemed to have a hard on for.
Its kind of like having a referendum for or against slavery and having a judge make the opposite law because the legislatures hadn't the balls to do their job....REPRESENTING.
Just a small quip not from post war history that lt. speaks of.
(General) Halleck reported to Lincoln "The operations of (Senator) Lane and Jennison had so enraged the people of Missouri that about 80.000 of them had joined the Confederate side."
These people did NOT join because they were "duped" by "fat cat" slave owners and this was just one border state although the Kansas/Missouri fighting and raiding (by Kansas abolitionists) started many many months before declared war began. The winners wrote the history books and left out the parts where peoples very right to breath air was jeopardized. I know this because my family lived through it.
But as Birdwatcher pointed out, the Southern leadership wrote their documents of succession, and they made slavery the centerpiece of those documents; slavery was the centerpiece of the South's causes for succession; and the Southern leadership wrote their Constitution, and they made slavery the centerpiece of that Constitution. That's what the Southern leadership wrote. With a million or more casualties in that war, it's certain that innocent people on both sides were killed...and it's certain that atrocities happened on both sides.
But as Birdwatcher pointed out, the Southern leadership wrote their documents of succession, and they made slavery the centerpiece of those documents; slavery was the centerpiece of the South's causes for succession; and the Southern leadership wrote their Constitution, and they made slavery the centerpiece of that Constitution. That's what the Southern leadership wrote. With a million or more casualties in that war, it's certain that innocent people on both sides were killed...and it's certain that atrocities happened on both sides.
Several slave states did not secede and slavery was not abolished in them until after it was in the states that had seceded. Lincoln started the war by not evacuating Fort Sumter, which was in southern territory. President Davis practically begged Lincoln for a non-violent solution, but Lincoln instigated the war by attempting to re-supply and reinforce Fort Sumter. Thus it does not matter what the war was about. The South and Davis himself contended that secession was legal and proper. The North evidently disagreed because The Great Emancipator himself said the war was about preserving the Union. I don't have statistics, but the "slavery" issue couldn't have been important to over a third of the people in both countries, probably closer to ten percent. Slavery would have been done for in another twenty years anyway. I don't think any major country still held slaves in 1900, probably well before that year.
But as Birdwatcher pointed out, the Southern leadership wrote their documents of succession, and they made slavery the centerpiece of those documents; slavery was the centerpiece of the South's causes for succession; and the Southern leadership wrote their Constitution, and they made slavery the centerpiece of that Constitution. That's what the Southern leadership wrote. With a million or more casualties in that war, it's certain that innocent people on both sides were killed...and it's certain that atrocities happened on both sides.
The real reasons for the war are there for anyone to learn but you go ahead and stick to your watered down version...in this country you have the right to be wrong...
The real reasons for the war are there for anyone to learn but you go ahead and stick to your watered down version...in this country you have the right to be wrong...
The very words that the Southern leaders wrote themselves, in their seccession documents and in their Confederate Constitution, are also there for anyone to read.
The Southern leadership's main 'reason' for seccession was clearly slavery. Others who participated in the war might've had their own, or other, reasons and motivations for doing so. But slavery was clearly the centerpiece of the documents of secession and the Confederate Constitution that were written by the Southern leaders themselves.
I didn't make it the truth...it just 'is'.
It'd still be the truth if I never mentioned what Birdwatcher so clearly pointed out on this issue previously.
The real reasons for the war are there for anyone to learn but you go ahead and stick to your watered down version...in this country you have the right to be wrong...
The very words that the Southern leaders wrote themselves, in their seccession documents and in their Confederate Constitution, are also there for anyone to read.
The Southern leadership's main 'reason' for seccession was clearly slavery. Others who participated in the war might've had their own, or other, reasons and motivations for doing so. But slavery was clearly the centerpiece of the documents of secession and the Confederate Constitution that were written by the Southern leaders themselves.
I didn't make it the truth...it just 'is'.
It'd still be the truth if I never mentioned what Birdwatcher so clearly pointed out on this issue previously.
I looked for Birdwatcher's post and could not see it either on this thread or in his list of posts.
As Kaywoodie pointed out, slavery was legal under the US flag longer than it was under the Confederate Battle Flag. As I pointed out, Lincoln didn't free any slaves until after the war was well underway. The United States said time and again that the war was to preserve the Union. The Confederacy and its President contended even after the war that Secession was legal under the US Constitution.
I'm not saying slavery was right, but the union started the war because of economics, not slavery.
If the war had been about slavery, why did Lincoln wait 2 years after the war started to abolish slavery? The war was 1/2 over!!!
The war was about states rights and economics. Prior to the war, the north tried to get congress to prevent the south from dealing directly with European countries. Make the south send the cotton to the northern mills for processing, instead of dealing directly with the buyers. Congress of the US told them to 'fly a kite'. So the northern industrialist had to come up with something to stop the bleeding, thus all of a sudden they were against slavery. Slavery was fine with the north, as long as they got their cut. If you stop the slavery, you stop the southern rise to power, and the north will continue to be the middle man and rake in the profits.
I'm not saying slavery was right, but the union started the war because of economics, not slavery.
If the war had been about slavery, why did Lincoln wait 2 years after the war started to abolish slavery? The war was 1/2 over!!!
The war was about states rights and economics. Prior to the war, the north tried to get congress to prevent the south from dealing directly with European countries. Make the south send the cotton to the northern mills for processing, instead of dealing directly with the buyers. Congress of the US told them to 'fly a kite'. So the northern industrialist had to come up with something to stop the bleeding, thus all of a sudden they were against slavery. Slavery was fine with the north, as long as they got their cut. If you stop the slavery, you stop the southern rise to power, and the north will continue to be the middle man and rake in the profits.
That's fact!!!
And IIRC, Lincoln did not abolish slavery in states he considered loyal to the Union at that time. IOW slavery remained legal in the USA but not in the Confederacy, under US law. Lincoln himself was a racist, whereas President Davis welcomed a black child into his own family and raised him as his own child! This child was carried off by Union soldiers and never seen by Davis' family again.
Technically that is true, but Lincoln did sign the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which stated “all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
It actually took the 2nd 13th amendment to the constitution to free the slaves.
Wanna read something interesting... google "Corwin Amendment".
Slavery was the main reason that the Southern leadership wanted to secede from the Union, and they were willing to go to war over their right to secede.
That seccession was the main reason that the Northern leadership was motivated, and they were willing to go to war to prevent the South's seccession.
Slavery was the stumbling block in the way of Northern industrialists plan for internal colonialism in the south. Had nothing to do with what was right or wrong. It was about money. Northern politicians couldn't give a rats azz less for the blacks. The vast majority of abolitionist were anti-slave because they were anti-black!!! They did not want them here!!!
There was lots of money to be made in the south. Unlike the Wild West, the hard work had already been done. The plantations established. Just a matter of eliminating the middle man.
I'm not saying slavery was right, but the union started the war because of economics, not slavery.
If the war had been about slavery, why did Lincoln wait 2 years after the war started to abolish slavery? The war was 1/2 over!!!
The war was about states rights and economics. Prior to the war, the north tried to get congress to prevent the south from dealing directly with European countries. Make the south send the cotton to the northern mills for processing, instead of dealing directly with the buyers. Congress of the US told them to 'fly a kite'. So the northern industrialist had to come up with something to stop the bleeding, thus all of a sudden they were against slavery. Slavery was fine with the north, as long as they got their cut. If you stop the slavery, you stop the southern rise to power, and the north will continue to be the middle man and rake in the profits.
That's fact!!!
DAMN! It's about time someone got it right. England and Europe were willing to pay more for the South's cotton and the North wanted that cotton. So, let's take it. And they did. Paul B.
Slavery was the main reason that the Southern leadership wanted to secede from the Union, and they were willing to go to war over their right to secede.
That seccession was the main reason that the Northern leadership was motivated, and they were willing to go to war to prevent the South's seccession.
Why was the north trying to prevent the south's succession?
And, if the north was so against slavery, why did the stars and stripes fly over slavery states for 85 years?
And, why did the northern states pass the Corwin Amendment?
It should be viewed the same as the Nazi flag in Germany and be outlawed. Save your flames - I have no intentions of responding to your taunts.
No taunts, you're entitled to your opinion. However, let me say this. I have ancestors that owned slaves that owned slaves back then, some of whom were military leaders. I have a small Confederate battle flag that hangs in my shop in their honor. Why? Right or wrong they fought for what they believed in. I'll honor that. I never owned a slave and frankly have no desire to. I have no reason the suffer from "white guilt". That'd be like having some gunman like John Wesley Hardin who shot a man because his snoring disturbed him as a distant relative. I should feel guilty for all those he killed. Bovine excrement. Same with he issue of long dead kin who owned slaves. Paul B.
Slavery was the main reason that the Southern leadership wanted to secede from the Union, and they were willing to go to war over their right to secede. That seccession was the main reason that the Northern leadership was motivated, and they were willing to go to war to prevent the South's seccession.
Why was the north trying to prevent the south's succession?
The Northern leaders most likely had some financial and political reasons for wanting to prevent Southern seccession. Lincoln was also reportedly a firm believer in 'the American experiment' and he wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. He reportedly felt like the fracturing of the Union would be detrimental...not only to the Union...but also to 'the American experiment' as a model for others.
And, if the north was so against slavery, why did the stars and stripes fly over slavery states for 85 years?
The Northern leadership was against the South's seccession first and foremost (above slavery). Yep, slavery existed under the Stars and Stripes longer than it existed under a Confederate flag.
Slavery was the main reason that the Southern leadership wanted to secede from the Union, and they were willing to go to war over their right to secede. That seccession was the main reason that the Northern leadership was motivated, and they were willing to go to war to prevent the South's seccession.
Why was the north trying to prevent the south's succession?
The Northern leaders most likely had some financial and political reasons for wanting to prevent Southern seccession. Lincoln was also reportedly a firm believer in 'the American experiment' and he wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. He reportedly felt like the fracturing of the Union would be detrimental...not only to the Union...but also to 'the American experiment' as a model for others.
Your correct, the north did have financial (economical) reasons for wanting to keep the south from succeeding. The south produced about 75% of the nations economy and the northern economist/politicians knew they couldnt survive, without the south.
Doesnt get much simpler than that... just follow the dollar!
And, why did the northern states pass the Corwin Amendment?
Because they were attempting to attract the seceding states back into the Union, and to entice the border slave states to stay in the Union. Lincoln said he wanted to preserve the Union at all costs.
And, why did the northern states pass the Corwin Amendment?
Because they wete attempting to attract the seceding states back into the Union, and to entice the border slave states to stay in the Union. Lincoln said he want to preserve the Union at all costs.
Correct again, the north didn't care if the southern states had slaves or not. The Corwin amendment proves that.
Corrupt men do corrupt things. Today as well as 150 years ago, or 1500 years ago. Can't believe so many are still hung up on something they can't change when so many things are staring them in the face that they can.
...the north did have financial (economical) reasons for wanting to keep the south from succeeding. The south produced about 75% of the nations economy and the northern economist/politicians knew they couldnt survive, without the south. Doesnt get much simpler than that... just follow the dollar!
Yep.
"...cotton was king in the South, the only game in town, ALL of the Southern leadership had made their fortune in cotton..." - Birdwatcher
And the cotton industry in the South was built on slavery.
So, the Southern leaders AND the Northern leaders had financial (economical) reasons motivating them.
To me the Confederate Flag is a piece of American history.. If some don't care for it tough.. There are many things in life I have to endure even though I don't like it.. The Bastard in the White House is an example.. Fly it with pride..
This issue is just another means of pounding Americans into a hole, and taking our pride away..
To me the Confederate Flag is a piece of American history.. If some don't care for it tough.. There are many things in life I have to endure even though I don't like it.. The Bastard in the White House is an example.. Fly it with pride..
This issue is just another means of pounding Americans into a hole, and taking our pride away..
Exactly. I'm not southern, none of my relatives I'm aware of are either. The flag bothers me not one whit. It's incumbent upon us as a nation to remember our heritage and history. Lots to be both proud and ashamed of on both sides of the Civil War.
If offensive is the litmus test for removing symbols, how about the african flags, the puerto rican flags, the messycan flags, etc. The offend the living phouc outta me, but there's no damn recourse for that.
we should get off our asses and take back our country,screw them people. let the call it racist.i say more racists is a good thing.the lack of it is what has allowed the mexicans,muslims ,russians and indians to take over.wave the flag and stand up and fight.
Just something else for the liberal left to complain about and brain wash minorities with incorrect facts...
Yet as shown, the Mexicans sure are allowed to fly their flag all over the place...
4 or 5 years ago at the local Unemployment Office over in Medford, someone complained about the Mexican flag drapping the back all of the office....most of the employees were Mexican as the State of Oregon tries to be all bilingual for the hispanics, so they Hire Mexicans who speak English, instead of Americans who speak Spanish....
The Mexicans in the office got all pissed off about someone complaining about their flag on the back wall, so each one not only started having Mexican Flags on their desks, they started putting them on other walls, partitions etc...they finally got to the tune that they took down the American Flag out front and flew the Mexican Flag..... for TWO WEEKS...
Finally Veterans were taking down the Mexican Flag and running up the American Flag and standing guard over it.... Local Mexican gangs started showing up....
The State finally diffused it.. the local news outlets wouldn't cover it because they claimed it would cause "Racial Tension"...
but were acting like the Americans were in the Wrong and the local Mexican Population was in the right...
I am a Product of Virginia, when it was still a Southern State.
Even tho we were 30 miles from Downtown DC, on Friday night at the start of our football games, the High School Band would stand and play the National Anthem....people on both sides of the field would stand at attention in respect for our National Flag as it was raised....
Then without missing a beat, The Confederate Battle Flag was raised and the band broke into Dixie with an increase in tempo...
and people on both sides of the Field, stood and cheered...
We had pride in our nation and bigger pride in our heritage....
now liberals try to paint our pride in our heritage as a symbol of racism and tell us its wrong... they are the ones that are wrong.... and full of Scheiss...per usual..
It should be viewed the same as the Nazi flag in Germany and be outlawed. Save your flames - I have no intentions of responding to your taunts.
No taunt meant here....
I support the flying of the Stars and Bars... to me it doesn't represent the glorification of Slavery....
and my support of it does NOT mean to show ANY Disrespect to Black Americans...
Less than 3 per cent of the entire white population owned slaves n the south before the Civil War...Even Freed Black Men owned slaves....
I am 17th Generation from Virginia... and to our knowledge, NONE of our ancestors owned slaves, but we do know that there were some who were ministers that were involved getting slaves to northern locals where they were given their freedoms...
All my ancestors fought for the confederacy at the time, particularly fighting for their state...but it wasn't in support of slavery....
I offer this in respect, not as an excuse...or a condemnation of your opinion...
Using offense as a weapon, libs are persistantly trying to re-write history and re-configure the U.S. to suit their Euro-scoialist agenda. Look how well that mind set/system has worked over there. Did someone mention, "Greece"...??
It just ain't gonna happen. History is history, what happened, happened. We have to move on, hopefully having learned something from the past, not by trying to bury it.
Buried skeletons have a habit of surfacing over and over again. So, don't try burying them, you really can't. Embrace history, learn from it, the good and the bad, then move forward. Hopefully, understanding history will provide perspective, light and direction for the future.
Hopefully. As is often stated, those who don't understand history will live to repeat it...
And that could be pretty bad, some of it wasn't very good.
Only history O knows is muslin indonesian history and not even an American.
Yep, including that mention of 57 states he let slip. A Muzzie number from what I've heard.
Oh well...
We just can't repeat history by electing another Dem, or even a RINO. We need a real president with leadership or we're headed towards becoming a big ole GREECE of a mess.
It should be viewed the same as the Nazi flag in Germany and be outlawed. Save your flames - I have no intentions of responding to your taunts.
Well, well,well if I read your screen name correct your a black guy that like hunting and fits in here more so than with his big city " gang banging " type brothers, great !!! BUT
It should be viewed the same as the Nazi flag in Germany and be outlawed. Save your flames - I have no intentions of responding to your taunts.
If I read your profile name correct you're a black man that enjoys hunting and other stuff that most n here enjoy, not [bleep] , but if I was you I'd be so pissed off cause all your [bleep] "brothers"are making you look really bad with all the "black" BS this day and age
Yep. I see the Meskin flag flying all over TX. And It's a crying shame! I personally don't see the Confederate Flag as Racist. I see it as a reminder of my Southern Heritage, and as a tribute to my ancestors who fought and died in the war of Northern Aggression!
My nephew married a mexican. They go to a mexican church that does not speak english. Had to have a translator at the baptism.
They fly flags of all kinds of countries in the church but not a single US flag. Pissed me off to no end.
And I have helped that church with permits and such in town as the inspector... I have had a tough time not wanting to slam they as hard as I can, and remain fair....
You do know that "Provincialism" as a derogatory term is one utilized by Liberal globalist a who consider regional differences something beneath them don't you?
I simply pointed out your hypocrisy & ignorance with regard to its use.
Slavery was the main reason that the Southern leadership wanted to secede from the Union, and they were willing to go to war over their right to secede.
That seccession was the main reason that the Northern leadership was motivated, and they were willing to go to war to prevent the South's seccession.
No one denies that slavery was an issue but it was not the issue that the VAST majority of the southern men who picked up arms fought for, not even close. There can be no war unless someone shows up to fight it. Anyone who believes that all those folks who did not own slaves were fighting because they were saving up for a new 1850 Nigra has no sense of true history.
I now see them all up and down I-81 in Southwest Virginia. One farm has a giant one flying. Has to be at least a 30 footer.
That flag is all about tyranny boys. Too bad current day rednecks give it a bad image.
Other than the Capitol lawn you really do not see all that many in South Carolina. Heck I've more in PA and Ohio than anywhere else.
see plenty in Georgia, and so what, its a free country, that flag has been linked to less deaths in the last century than the japanese flag or anyone with a box cutter
Yep. I see the Meskin flag flying all over TX. And It's a crying shame! I personally don't see the Confederate Flag as Racist. I see it as a reminder of my Southern Heritage, and as a tribute to my ancestors who fought and died in the war of Northern Aggression!
Every time I see somebody displaying the Mexico Flag, I always make it a point to ask them, "if I moved to Mexico, how do you think the locals down there would take to me flying the American flag from my porch?"
Every time I see somebody displaying the Mexico Flag, I always make it a point to ask them, "if I moved to Mexico, how do you think the locals down there would take to me flying the American flag from my porch?"
I've always sympathized with the Confederate cause. My children all scoff when a classmate cites Lincoln as the greatest President. The "provincial" cause of states' rights, and the freedoms exercised by the confederate states to secede when the greater political power of the Yankees was aligned against them for economic superiority and the political lessons from those events are all things I've taught my children to consider when they are of voting age. I love the southern spirit and their independence. I mourn the Constitutional Republic that was fundamentally and fatally changed by the Union's victory in the war.
That having been said I've become confident that had the war gone the other way I would also mourn, for that Declaration of Independence condemns the ownership of one man by another every bit as much as it defends the provincialism of local governance and its resulting self determination.
Had the South won I am confident our republic would have been equally flawed as the one in which we now reside, though perhaps in different ways (and perhaps not). That flaw is the one many are reminded of when they they see the stars & bars even though I (and I like to believe the majority of those who wave it) see the ideals mentioned in my first paragraph. If I'm intellectually honest I can understand that.
In the end I understand the offense of those who celebrate a different side of the war. I sure wish, however, that we didn't live in such a hypersensitive time where one persons' expression of an ideal could "offend" in such a way as this. It's sad to me that our country is degrading the way it is.
Of course the ultimate irony of all of this is that in the end provincialism will lose to the "urbane (vacuous) globalism" of the "New World Order" and we'll all become slaves to it. That, we see, in this instance of our lack of freedom of self-expression.
Just to set the record straight, this flag doesnt fly above or on top of any state building.The flag stands at the confederate soldier monument that is at the front of the state house grounds. There is also a statue of a confederate soldier there, should that,be removed?
What about the robert e lee memeorial magnolia, the confederate women memorial statue or the wade hampton (csa cavalry and eventual sc gov) statue also on the state grounds?
The CSA and the nazis werent even close, read a non revisionist history book sometime.... read bury my heart at wounded knee and feel good about old glory
I don't guess you can hold a major fraction (the actual majority in two states) of one's population as a possession and de-facto agricultural implement without that having a major effect on one's outlook.
The overwhelming fear was, in their own words, that an an actual majority of non-slavery states inevitably would mandate abolition. Abolition and the implications thereof were regarded as catastrophic.
I blame cotton more'n anything, cotton production exploded across the South in the Nineteenth Century and became the major cash crop, ALL the COnfederate leadership had made their fortunes in it, couldn't imagine a South without it. And cotton needed slavery.
First off let me say that I think enslaving your fellow man is wrong, then and now, but it was a common thing in that day and time. I maintain that the war was not fought over slavery for a couple of reasons. One is that the North was not fighting to end slavery, when the war started. That came along later. Another reason is that the majority of the ones doing the fighting, owned no slaves. Now I do agree that the ones in Southern power wanted to maintain slavery and the North was trying to keep new states added to the union from being slave holding states, but the North was mostly fighting to keep their foot on the neck of the South. Those upstart Southerners started importing their own slaves, and breeding them, thus cutting out the New England merchants that had made a fortune from it. They also wanted all of the Souths products to be routed through them so that they could profit, even though it meant lower prices for the South. Most of the Southerners fought because they believed in freedom from the Government. The hard feelings that are left over, are from after the war. miles
In the end I understand the offense of those who celebrate a different side of the war.
That's where people have it all wrong. Nobody "celebrates" a war they lost. That flag represents the opposition of an oppressive government, therefor it must be silenced.
First off let me say that I think enslaving your fellow man is wrong, then and now, but it was a common thing in that day and time. I maintain that the war was not fought over slavery for a couple of reasons. One is that the North was not fighting to end slavery, when the war started. That came along later. Another reason is that the majority of the ones doing the fighting, owned no slaves. Now I do agree that the ones in Southern power wanted to maintain slavery and the North was trying to keep new states added to the union from being slave holding states, but the North was mostly fighting to keep their foot on the neck of the South. Those upstart Southerners started importing their own slaves, and breeding them, thus cutting out the New England merchants that had made a fortune from it. They also wanted all of the Souths products to be routed through them so that they could profit, even though it meant lower prices for the South. Most of the Southerners fought because they believed in freedom from the Government. The hard feelings that are left over, are from after the war. miles
Miles nailed it. But THAT don't fit the Yankee/Black narrative.
The war between the states and the reconstruction period afterwards gave rise to a new millionaire class in the north, the likes of, this country had never seen in it short history.
It is sad the times we are seeing. I will not state anything in particular. We know what they are. But our rights and the things our fore fathers fought and died for seem to not matter to a lot of people. Do we even have any true statesmen left?
So it seems what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right. So should we have to please a few people, by letting our children and grand children be taught that God and nature is wrong, but a few sick people are right?
In light of the recent call to remove the stars and bars from state flags, I hope that someone in each discussion of the confederate battle flag knows enough history to point out that the flag IS a symbol of oppression by a brutal system against a weaker minority. One where an attempt to gain freedom from tyranny was met with crushing, overwhelming violence. I am talking about the minority southern states who dared to want freedom from an oppressive federal government that imposed its will over their own elected representatives and crushed their declaration of independence with brutal violence including untold thousands of civilian deaths and uncounted property destruction on a massive scale.
And for the record, I am not a racist. I vote against liberals of all colors.
IMHO, The bitterness of many whites that hangs to this day in some corners of the south has nothing to do with the defeat of southern military forces. But with the humiliation of reconstruction.
The first thing northern power brokers had to do was eliminate the man who stated, "with malice toward none."
IMHO, The bitterness of many whites that hangs to this day in some corners of the South has nothing to do with the defeat of southern military forces. But with the humiliation of reconstruction.
The first thing northern power brokers had to do was eliminate the man who stated, "with malice toward none."
Bingo! Finally someone brings up the origin of it all.
One of the major issues that ignited the Civil War was that the future Confederate States resented getting out voted and thus dictated to by the more populous and more industrial northern States. Issues included slavery, but that was but one of many reasons the future Confederate States ultimately decided that they could no longer exist within the Union.
Reconstruction was a heavy handed suppression of the people and the culture. Sherman's Scorched Earth policy coupled with the Emancipation Proclamation displaced millions, both Black and White.
Reconstruction then came to dictate life on a local level. The Southerner was humiliated and suppressed and the resentment toward the Federal Gov't and the Northern elites grew.
This resentment was real and nearly ubiquitous. The Southerner had very little to be proud of right through the first half of the 20th Century. When the issue of desegregation came about in the 1950s, once again the Federal Gov't and the Northern Elites were dictating how the former Confederate States were going to live.
As a protest and act of defiance, some States chose to incorporate the Confederate Battle Flag into their State flag. This had nothing to do with race and everything to do with defiance of being strong armed by the Feds.
It was the racist groups such as the KKK in the 1960s that adopted the flag as their standard that caused it to be seen as an overt symbol of racism to some. There is no intelligent human on the planet that has any use for such groups today, nor no flag supporters that view the flag as a tool of racism, but as a symbol of defiance. That is defiance against the over reach of Federal power, the ridiculousness of political correctness, the absurdity of revisionist history, and the pandering to all minorities and special interest groups at the expense of the conservative, Christian, caucasian.
It is, in fact, a way to give Washington DC, and the liberal Northeast the finger. I hope this explains the situation more clearly. My state got rid of the battle flag in the State flag a few years ago, and it hasn't affected me one way or another. I do hate it when the World has to bow to political correctness and its double standards. Maybe the next flag in South Carolina should just have a big fist with the middle finger extended. It would be vulgar, but would retain the same message .
Northern politicians did not trust any of the southern NG units or any southerner foolish enough to be a career officer for 60 years!!! Neither did army command.
See Lt. Charles Gatewood "oldest"' Lieutenant on the US Army. Also pay attention to most serving state units in War with Spain as well as units seeing service on border during Mexican punitive expedition. Yes Texas units were called up but they never left Texas!
The vast majority of all units that saw action were either regular army or northern NG units.
Mr roof ,is getting his wet dream ...Forever history will say the battle flag of the south was Pulled/removed due to HIM.....what a f-ed up country we have ...
In the end I understand the offense of those who celebrate a different side of the war.
That's where people have it all wrong. Nobody "celebrates" a war they lost.
I ought to have used a different word (commemerate?), but I disagree. Many people have undertaken many worthwhile endeavors & failed. Failure doesn't negate the fact that One has tried to do the right thing, nor necessitate a less than celebratory response.
Originally Posted by ltppowell
That flag represents the opposition of an oppressive government, therefor it must be silenced.
I absolutely agree that this is the ultimate issue here.
I've got direct ties to the Confederacy in my family. My great grandfather fought and was held prisoner for a time in a Union prison camp. If I want to fly the flag, I dang sure will.
I've got direct ties to the Confederacy in my family. My great grandfather fought and was held prisoner for a time in a Union prison camp. If I want to fly the flag, I dang sure will.
me too on family and me too on one held captive by the union, even received a federally sponsored confederate soldiers pension years later !!!
Id be ok with them dropping the battle flag for the stars and bars as it was the original confederate flag....
At the First Battle of Manassas, near Manassas, Virginia, the similarity between the "Stars and Bars" and the "Stars and Stripes" caused confusion and military problems. Regiments carried flags to help commanders observe and assess battles in the warfare of the era. At a distance, the two national flags were hard to tell apart.[22] In addition, Confederate regiments carried many other flags, which added to the possibility of confusion. After the battle, General P. G. T. Beauregard wrote that he was "resolved then to have [our flag] changed if possible, or to adopt for my command a 'Battle flag', which would be Entirely different from any State or Federal flag."[15] He turned to his aide, who happened to be William Porcher Miles, the former chairman of the Confederate Congress's "Committee on the Flag and Seal". Miles described his rejected national flag design to Beauregard. Miles also told the Committee on the Flag and Seal about the general's complaints and request for the national flag to be changed. The committee rejected this idea by a four to one vote, after which Beauregard proposed the idea of having two flags. He described the idea in a letter to his commanding General Joseph E. Johnston: "I wrote to [Miles] that we should have "two" flags—a peace or parade flag, and a war flag to be used only on the field of battle—but congress having adjourned no action will be taken on the matter—How would it do us to address the War Dept. on the subject of Regimental or badge flags made of red with two blue bars crossing each other diagonally on which shall be introduced the stars, ... We would then on the field of battle know our friends from our Enemies."[15]
The flag that Miles had favored when he was chairman of the "Committee on the Flag and Seal" eventually became the battle flag and, ultimately, the most popular flag of the Confederacy.
I've got direct ties to the Confederacy in my family. My great grandfather fought and was held prisoner for a time in a Union prison camp. If I want to fly the flag, I dang sure will.
You actually have the RIGHT to, and SHOULD, if it pleases you. Removing the flag will do precisely NOTHING to improve race relations. It seems we are supposed to be considerate of black people's "sensitivities" at all times, and MUST not offend them. Apparently, it's FINE to offend the ever loving crap out of ME. Oddly, they do not seem too sensitive about what may offend me. I do not think embracing failed cultures has worked out so good for the US.
The Confederates were literate and educated folks and took pains to clearly elucidate exactly WHY they did what they did, in their own words, based upon reality as they experienced it.
First off there's Confed Veep's Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech" in which he clearly and carefully states that slavery was both the rock upon which the Confederate Constitution rested and the cause of secession in the first place.
Then there's five Confederate States' (collectively containing around 65% of the Southern Population) "Declaration of Causes of Secession" in which they spelled out their reasons for taking this momentous step.
Tubman's claim to fame is that she entered another country to steal livestock and smuggle it back to the United States.
Flat amazing the sh&t that flows through folks' fingers from their hearts and out onto the 'net.
That is a real gem isn't it...? Relegating other human beings to the status of "livestock". All some gotta do to justify abhorrent treatment of other human beings is to demonize em' first...just like the Nazi's did with the Jews and millions of others
The battle flag of the northern Va was used to make the flag easier to tell apart from the stars and stripes. It never flew at the confederate capitol and it wanst created until after the first manassas. I would bet that 90 percent or more of the CSA soldiers didnt own slaves, i kniw none of my family members did. What they did know was there was an invasion coming from the north and they would eithwr pick up arms or flee. Check shermans march to the sea or my ggg grandfathers older brother was killed by yankees and he wasnt in the CSA.this flag was flown fornthe entire war on the uss columbia in ww2 and wasnthe first flag raised after the battle of okinawa. My point is this flag hardly represents slavery and if so it does hardly more than the stars and stripes which also presided over indian massacres like wounded knee and also the trail of tears.... hey old glory, dont throw stones if you live in a glass house
Tubman's claim to fame is that she entered another country to steal livestock and smuggle it back to the United States.
Flat amazing the sh&t that flows through folks' fingers from their hearts and out onto the 'net.
That is a real gem isn't it...? Relegating other human beings to the status of "livestock". All ya' gotta do to justify abhorrent treatment of other human beings is to demonize em' first...just like the Nazi's did with the Jews and millions of others
im not aware of any jews fighting with hitler, however there were many black confederates...also there were no mass graves or gas chambers, so to draw any similarities with the csa and nazi germany is futile at best...many slaves remained with their people aftwr the war, where else would they go? Us Grant himself was a slave owner, hypocrite lincoln said he wouldve freed no slaves if it wouldve meant the war would end
Those 2 were really stroing in,their beliefs of emancipation LOL
The Confederates were literate and educated folks and took pains to clearly elucidate exactly WHY they did what they did, in their own words, based upon reality as they experienced it.
First off there's Confed Veep's Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech" in which he clearly and carefully states that slavery was both the rock upon which the Confederate Constitution rested and the cause of secession in the first place.
Then there's five Confederate States' (collectively containing around 65% of the Southern Population) "Declaration of Causes of Secession" in which they spelled out their reasons for taking this momentous step.
Like I said, it ain't me saying this, it was THEM.
Bend, twist, recast, rephrase it all ya want.
Birdwatcher
I don't really have a dog in this fight since I'm from the West although I did have some relatives from the border states. Not sure which side they fought on.
It's hard to argue that slavery wasn't a key factor in secession. And slavery absolutely needed to be ended. Nevertheless, when you look at why individual confederates chose to fight I would imagine that defending their homeland was at the top of the list. The politicians and the wealthy were heavily invested in slavery, but average folks were likely responding to what they perceived as an invasion. So I can see why people look at the battle flag as part of their heritage. Not only that, but it was the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and that was one hell of an army.
The fact is that different people perceive the battle flag differently. I'm sure most black people see it as a symbol of oppression which is understandable given its association with slavery and with segregationists in the 60's. And many white southerners see it as part of a proud heritage. The problem is that it's very difficult to reconcile these radically different viewpoints.
I think the battle flag is on its way out as something to display at state capitols. It simply won't be part of government displays going forward. Statues of the confederate generals are a whole different thing and I think it will be hard for the left to get rid of those. I certainly hope they don't succeed with that.
[That is a real gem isn't it...? Relegating other human beings to the status of "livestock". All some gotta do to justify abhorrent treatment of other human beings is to demonize em' first...just like the Nazi's did with the Jews and millions of others
Exactly!
That's how most southerners felt when they voted state by state to secede, especially since more than 90 percent did not own slaves.
To help you out, its like having your taxes pay for abortions or sex alterations or for illegals to get welfare....or for folks who don't work to not have to.
Of course now tell us that the Northern states and enlistees knew they were signing up to free all the slaves and make them full citizens and your Civil War = all about slavery argument might have merit.
The North despised the Dred Scott fiasco and the South despised Federal intervention in determining slavery in states and territories.
People get pissed when their government is used as a weapon....
Then there's five Confederate States' (collectively containing around 65% of the Southern Population) "Declaration of Causes of Secession" in which they spelled out their reasons for taking this momentous step.
Slavery front and center in all of 'em.
Like I said, it ain't me saying this, it was THEM.
Bend, twist, recast, rephrase it all ya want.
Birdwatcher
So the politicians said it?
See where that gets us these days?
No offense, learned one, all I can take is the conversations with Grandpa, about his kin that fought for the south.
They did not own slaves, its just that the revolution was too fresh in their mind and they didn't want anyone telling them what they could and could not do.
Seems they thought the items noted were "only the beginning".
Fancy that.
As far my mom's side (from Michigan) that fought for the north, they wondered why they were even involved in the thing.
I guess your scholarly view only appears in books and links noted, but the other non-literate and uneducated folks just talk about it at the dinner table.
I guess I know why I am such an idiot and a bad person. I am descended from all those evil idiots who went to war to fight for slavery even though they had no slaves. And one saintly and good idiot who went to war to end slavery even though his family owned 90 of them.
Thank goodness a guy from England knows enough to clue me in on it all.
Honestly, I'm okay with all governmental use of the flag going away. That flag is too damned good to be associated with any government we have around here these days. But the cultural genocide and equating it with the NAZIs is just [bleep] offensive. There are so many examples all of us could give to say why that wasn't true, but most of the biggest talkers aren't interested, even though the most vociferous defenders of the south will readily concede that slavery was a terrible wrong as an institution.
What about monuments....theyre being vandalized and beijg called for removal...if you validate the flag issue and thus allow itnto be torn,down...will it lend credibility to the subsequent issues like monuments, parks, etc etc
Now they're going to replace some of the stained glass windows in the Nation Cathedral because they have pictures depicting a couple of Confederate camps with the flag and a couple of Confederate generals.
Thats my point and after that they will be eradicated from history books.....my kids learn more aboit rosa parks and mlk than the founding fathers now anyways
I'll say, the only flags the states should fly at present are the American and state flag.
The only confederate flags that I have are small ones that I put on my two Great Grandfathers graves for decoration day at the cemetery. Right next to their Confederate tombstones. I just bought some more just a few weeks ago, to put on a row of confederate graves that have no tombstones, just white gravel to mark the location. I might have to rethink that though, since the only reason that I have an AR-15 type rifle is because my Government did not want me to have one. miles
Now that the libs have everyone talking about a flag that apparently "caused" some whacko to shoot up a church, they have done a fine job of obscuring the real reason the shooting happened. Can't wrap their minds around a basic whack job acting out, bu it was a flag and guns that was the cause.
I am getting to the point of being embarrassed to be an American.
Lincoln said if it wouldve stopped the war, he wouldnt have freed a single slave, that means the war was not over slavery, period
The South plainly thought it was.
Jefferson, who was a slave-owning SOutherner, plainly said it best in 1840, and it only got worse over the next 40 years....
"But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." - Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, (discussing slavery and the Missouri question), Monticello, 22 April 1820.
I guess your scholarly view only appears in books and links noted, but the other non-literate and uneducated folks just talk about it at the dinner table.
No, the War of Secession was the most literate war, in terms of the education of its participants, ever fought at that time, and these people left literally thousands of journals, diaries and and letters. Several books too.
What you suggest is that the average Confederate soldier was unaware of or did not care about the wording of the Constitution which he was fighting to uphold.
Likewise you suggest that the Union men who died in droves in near-suicidal frontal assaults under Grant really had no idea for what they were fighting, even though they overwhelmingly voted to re-elect Lincoln in '64 at the bloody peak of that war.
Overwhelmingly, as preserved in their own words, at the time, the Northern soldier felt the Union was worth shedding blood to preserve, as Lincoln himself plainly stated from the very beginning.
Did the average Confederate soldier own slaves? No, of course not, but the prospect of freed slaves in their midst (more than a quarter of the Southern population, actual majorities in South Carolina and Mississippi) was a catastrophe that haunted the South.
Taxation without representation was a root cause of our Revolutionary War, as clearly stated by the participants at the time. Yet no one seems to have a problem with that.
Southerners at the time state clearly that the slavery/imposed abolition issue was what pushed 'em over the edge? Naah... it was just "politicians" saying that.....
BTW.... about THE most dangerous thing to be during that period was a pro-Union man from the South. Dissent was NOT tolerated, persecution was general.
Southerners at the time state clearly that the slavery/imposed abolition issue was what pushed 'em over the edge? Naah... it was just "politicians" saying that.....
Glad you were there to verify what the common man said....
Speechmaking was the order of the day. Somebody, I don't remember who, was holding forth from the steps of the capitol. A big, rough looking fellow, a carpenter, I believe, stepped up among the crowd, and, after listening a few minutes, said to those in his vicinity:
"What the hell's it all about, anyway?"
"The n$gger," someone answered.
"The n$gger! H----l. I ain't got no n$gger. Give me a n$gger, some of you, and I'll fight for it as long as any of you. I ain't going to fight for somebody else's n$gger," And yet that was just the kind that had to do a large part of the fighting.
Lot of white Southerners did pick there own cotton. I'll never forget every time it rains while the sun is shining my Mother saying "This is cotton picking showers". In other words they had to keep on picking even though it was raining.
Speechmaking was the order of the day. Somebody, I don't remember who, was holding forth from the steps of the capitol. A big, rough looking fellow, a carpenter, I believe, stepped up among the crowd, and, after listening a few minutes, said to those in his vicinity:
"What the hell's it all about, anyway?"
"The n$gger," someone answered.
"The n$gger! H----l. I ain't got no n$gger. Give me a n$gger, some of you, and I'll fight for it as long as any of you. I ain't going to fight for somebody else's n$gger," And yet that was just the kind that had to do a large part of the fighting.
Birdwatcher
Mike..... do you believe that the Americans who fought in Vietnam were fighting to preserve freedom for the South Vietnamese?
I was fighting in Vietnam to kill communists. That is also what I was told I was going to be there for. No disappointment for me.
I thought that was the reason too, but looking back I think the Government lied to us about that, amongst other things. I am not sure that I fully understand what went on in the back rooms back then. I know it was not good for our country in the long run and I still don't like the way it ended. miles
If it was plainly slavery why didnt the Corwin Amendment fix the problem?
Lincoln was no abolitionist lincoln wanted all blacks colonized elsewhere lincoln said, if I could this war without freeing a single slave i would US Grant owned slaves as did Lincolns wife, hypocrites how come the emancipator only freed the slaves in the south and waited until 1863 to do it, if it wasnt about slavery...the reason was mclellan was making a living getting his ass handed to him by bobby lee despite having a bigger army, more ammo, more supplies etc
Revisionist history is a great pulpit for which you can pontificate from
If it was plainly slavery why didnt the Corwin Amendment fix the problem?
Lincoln was no abolitionist lincoln wanted all blacks colonized elsewhere lincoln said, if I could this war without freeing a single slave i would US Grant owned slaves as did Lincolns wife, hypocrites how come the emancipator only freed the slaves in the south and waited until 1863 to do it, if it wasnt about slavery...the reason was mclellan was making a living getting his ass handed to him by bobby lee despite having a bigger army, more ammo, more supplies etc
Revisionist history is a great pulpit for which you can pontificate from
I was under the impression that the Emancipation Proclamation was, at least partly, intended to put a "moral high ground" hurdle ahead of any European power that might consider recognizing the CSA as a legitimate government. After all, it was, at least to some degree, in Europe's favor to have two or three weak countries occupying the footprint of what was and would become the USA.
I think that states that were part of the CSA should have a right to honor the memory of their CW veterans by flying the Confederate Battle Flag.
I guess your scholarly view only appears in books and links noted, but the other non-literate and uneducated folks just talk about it at the dinner table.
No, the War of Secession was the most literate war, in terms of the education of its participants, ever fought at that time, and these people left literally thousands of journals, diaries and and letters. Several books too.
What you suggest is that the average Confederate soldier was unaware of or did not care about the wording of the Constitution which he was fighting to uphold.
Likewise you suggest that the Union men who died in droves in near-suicidal frontal assaults under Grant really had no idea for what they were fighting, even though they overwhelmingly voted to re-elect Lincoln in '64 at the bloody peak of that war.
Overwhelmingly, as preserved in their own words, at the time, the Northern soldier felt the Union was worth shedding blood to preserve, as Lincoln himself plainly stated from the very beginning.
Did the average Confederate soldier own slaves? No, of course not, but the prospect of freed slaves in their midst (more than a quarter of the Southern population, actual majorities in South Carolina and Mississippi) was a catastrophe that haunted the South.
Taxation without representation was a root cause of our Revolutionary War, as clearly stated by the participants at the time. Yet no one seems to have a problem with that.
Southerners at the time state clearly that the slavery/imposed abolition issue was what pushed 'em over the edge? Naah... it was just "politicians" saying that.....
BTW.... about THE most dangerous thing to be during that period was a pro-Union man from the South. Dissent was NOT tolerated, persecution was general.
Birdwatcher
Mike it was a most literate war but persecution ran deep and was meted out by Union forces against pro secessionist Missourians in a very harsh manner. There are mountains of writings showing the main reason (according to southerners and conveniently left out of the history books) they fought was because they were occupied, their constitutional rights were taken away, robbed, looted, raped and murdered by union troops. It is fair to say that not all Union troops did this and there are writings stating the abhorrence of some Union officers to these actions but Lincoln was definitely aware of it and did nothing.
Here is just one writing of many from the southern view:
In reply to the vast numbers of out of state Federal troops in Missouri, native Francis W. Springer said: "We must remember the majority of Southerners did not own slaves and most certainly did not fight so others could own them. The real answer is quite simple. The South was fighting because it was invaded."
I can believe that the common Southerner, that owned no slaves, would fight to keep them from being freed to roam the country and create mischief. More so than to keep them working in the fields. A scare tactic, if you will. Seems that is the reason that the red man went on a Reservation. I still fail to see how the war could be fought over freeing the black man unless both sides thought that it was the case, and they did not at the beginning, because just a few abolitionist were calling for that to happen. Certainly not Lincoln. The North was trying to control the South in lots of ways because they needed the crops to come through them. They did not want the Southern ports to send the cotton and other things to Europe without them making their dollar. They had already lost the income from the slave trade. miles
It has been my impression that most Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union and freeing the slaves was of only minor importance to the majority.
I sincerely wish that Grant had been in a position to be promoted to General-In-Chief before Gettysburg and therefore would have been in a position to force Meade to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia before it could retreat south across the Potomac River into Virginia. That move would likely have shortened the American Civil War and saved tens of thousands of lives that were lost between July 1863 and June 1865. Grant had the killer instinct that the other Union Army commanders lacked.
Speechmaking was the order of the day. Somebody, I don't remember who, was holding forth from the steps of the capitol. A big, rough looking fellow, a carpenter, I believe, stepped up among the crowd, and, after listening a few minutes, said to those in his vicinity:
"What the hell's it all about, anyway?"
"The n$gger," someone answered.
"The n$gger! H----l. I ain't got no n$gger. Give me a n$gger, some of you, and I'll fight for it as long as any of you. I ain't going to fight for somebody else's n$gger," And yet that was just the kind that had to do a large part of the fighting.
Birdwatcher
And all this proves that this fella did not fight (if at all) for someone else s "n$gger"...
What a ridiculous exchange. I got an "F" in American History, but I know enough to not fight over a war on principle that was never really decided and still people are killing each other 150 years later.
You guys get an "F" for resurrecting this outdated issue. Get over it, these guys did...
What a ridiculous exchange. I got an "F" in American History, but I know enough to not fight over a war on principle that was never really decided and still people are killing each other 150 years later.
You guys get an "F" for resurrecting this outdated issue. Get over it, these guys did...
The epitome of provincialism.
Just like 'WOOD' rifles good, plastic bad. Till you are asking to buy/borrow a plastic rifle for an AK hunt. Seems I recall you NOT believing how wet AK was till you went, then you saw.
Just like 'WOOD' rifles good, plastic bad. Till you are asking to buy/borrow a plastic rifle for an AK hunt. Seems I recall you NOT believing how wet AK was till you went, then you saw.
How come the emancipator only freed the slaves in the south and waited until 1863 to do it, if it wasnt about slavery...the reason was mclellan was making a living getting his ass handed to him by bobby lee despite having a bigger army, more ammo, more supplies etc
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political master stroke designed to keep Britain from recognising the Confederacy (a permanently divided United States would otherwise have worked to England's advantage), it could not be passed with any credibility until after the major check of the Confederates at Antietam/Sharpsburg, even though the long chain of Union victories against Braxton Bragg continued unabated in the Western Theater.
Quote
Lincoln was no abolitionist lincoln wanted all blacks colonized elsewhere
The platform of the Republican Party circa. 1860... (Lincoln was their candidate).
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
If you take the time to read the "causes of secession" linked earlier, you'll find that Lincoln's position on banning the spread of slavery to new states was precisely what pushed them over the edge, the certainty being that the Slave States (their own name for themselves BTW) would become even more of a minority.
Note that while Lincoln's own party was calling the slave trade "execrable traffic" as their official position, in the South they would soon get busy formulating a Constitution built upon chattel slavery as a "cornerstone" of their society (their own words, not mine).
In the Presidential Election of 1864, the Republican Party Platform was more explicit on the topic...
3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Note that the Democrat Lincoln defeated in '64, George McClellan, was for a negotiated peace and compromise on the slavery issue.
Lincoln's masterwork was the Thirteenth Amendment, banning slavery in the whole United States, in very public progress before, and ratified after that '64 election.
So, if the war started over slavery in the South, and preservation of the Union in the North, Lincoln et al. damn sure made it about slavery too before the shooting was over.
Quote
Revisionist history is a great pulpit for which you can pontificate from
Revisionist history? Where?
OTOH, cherry-picking facts as you do because you cannot agree with the sentiments of the actual people on the scene is also revisionism.
General Grant's wife owned slaves, Grant himself fought on Lincoln's side, including for Lincoln's position on slavery. General Lee IIRC had freed his own slaves, but chose to fight for a Constitution that was built upon slavery.
. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.
2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites. Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.
Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.
3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery. For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).
Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.
4. Emancipation was a military policy. As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
In July 1862 the president presented his draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. Secretary of State William Seward urged him to wait until things were going better for the Union on the field of battle, or emancipation might look like the last gasp of a nation on the brink of defeat. Lincoln agreed and returned to edit the draft over the summer. On September 17 the bloody Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln the opportunity he needed. He issued the preliminary proclamation to his cabinet on September 22, and it was published the following day. As a cheering crowd gathered at the White House, Lincoln addressed them from a balcony: “I can only trust in God I have made no mistake … It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment on it.”
5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves. Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.
Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment.
The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[1] Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[2] Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress
36th CongressEdit In the Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[7] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[8] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Mississippi Democratic Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[8] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a "dignified, peaceful, and fair separation" that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government's assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[9]
On February 27, 1861, the House of Representatives considered the following text of a proposed constitutional amendment:[10]
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121. The House then declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and then of 123 to 71.[10][11] On February 28, 1861, however, the House approved Corwin's version by a vote of 133 to 65.[12] The contentious debate in the House was relieved by abolitionist Republican Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who questioned the amendment's reach: "Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?" Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: "Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?"[8]
On March 2, 1861, the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, on a vote of 24 to 12.[13] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven slave states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment.[14] The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures and to be adopted "when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures".[15] Its supporters believed that the Corwin Amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, since state conventions were being conducted throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful—just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment.
Out-going President James Buchanan, a Democrat, endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it.[16] His signature on the Congressional joint resolution was unnecessary, as the Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), ruled that the President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process.
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[1][17]
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment,[18] noting that Buchanan had approved it.[19]
The Corwin Amendment was the second proposed "Thirteenth Amendment" submitted to the states by Congress. The first was the similarly ill-fated Titles of Nobility Amendment in 1810.
The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.
Just like 'WOOD' rifles good, plastic bad. Till you are asking to buy/borrow a plastic rifle for an AK hunt. Seems I recall you NOT believing how wet AK was till you went, then you saw.
Don't you ever tire of being right all the time?
It is an unwritten rule that while WO1s can be wrong, on occasion and only if they are newly minted, CWOs in grades 2/3/4/5 are never wrong, it isn't allowed or acknowledged.
I think that Lincoln was the greatest POTUS because he preserved The Union. No other POTUS has faced a challenge that even came close to what Lincoln faced.
I don't think that all Southerners were then, or are today, racists. I don't think that all Northerners were then, or are today, not racists. I think that African-Americans are their own worst enemies, in that they make little, if any, social and economic progress despite being handed opportunity after opportunity after opportunity. In contrast, many Vietnamese who came to American in the early 1970s have become fully integrated into the American way of life. Despite being a small percentage of the population, they (as a group) put a disproportionate share of their children into highly selective colleges. Their passion for education, strong work ethic, and two parent homes are the foundation for their success.
The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.
THIS, then again we have absolute insane kooks here that are stuck in 1863 with such an insane hatred of "yankees" it borders, no it IS pathological. BTW, it's not you SAKO. Your posts are informative and well-reasoned. I've posted before, that in my belief the war WAS about state rights, but THE locus of THE RIGHT was slavery, and yes, a few states were prepared to give that up until Lincoln mobilized, but still, if you follow the MONEY (as always) it lay with the slave owners. Many here who yearned (and still do) for a Southern Victory, it's kind of hard to prove a negative, but I just don't know how a USA/CSA world would have looked like, but those here convinced that it would have been some sort of Utopia are in my view, mired in romance. Tough times we have now...
The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.
THIS, then again we have absolute insane kooks here that are stuck in 1863 with such an insane hatred of "yankees" it borders, no it IS pathological. BTW, it's not you SAKO. Your posts are informative and well-reasoned. I've posted before, that in my belief the war WAS about state rights, but THE locus of THE RIGHT was slavery, and yes, a few states were prepared to give that up until Lincoln mobilized, but still, if you follow the MONEY (as always) it lay with the slave owners. Many here who yearned (and still do) for a Southern Victory, it's kind of hard to prove a negative, but I just don't know how a USA/CSA world would have looked like, but those here convinced that it would have been some sort of Utopia are in my view, mired in romance. Tough times we have now...
'Bout like the money in the North being tied to industrialists that couldn't stand to lose the Southern raw goods to export; thus, their backing of Lincoln.
But, hey, listen to Birdwatcher...he'll expound as to how every Southern fought for slavery or was pressed into service for the same (never mentioning the Germans and Irish pressed into service in the North against their will), despite family lineages and documentation (hint, family and individual diaries often held in museums or historical societies). He'll go chapter and verse about a history that any damned Brit (born and/or raised and educated) has no attachment to and little comprehension of. Why, it'd be like listening to Obama opine about American history and the Constitution, since he's a "scholar" of the same, at least as much so as a HS history teacher with a Brit background, right?
That war is over. History is being rewritten or deleted (I'm sure that will make life in HS history class easier), and all means to a gov't end.
What lies next; how, when, and why, are all that matter.
The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.
Here's part of the problem.
Quote
unity of purpose
That doesn't appeal to people who are forever looking back.
The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.
Here's part of the problem.
Quote
unity of purpose
That doesn't appeal to people who are forever looking back.
I doubt there is any "unity of purpose" in this empire any longer. Therein lies the problem, and the solution.
The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.
THIS, then again we have absolute insane kooks here that are stuck in 1863 with such an insane hatred of "yankees" it borders, no it IS pathological. BTW, it's not you SAKO. Your posts are informative and well-reasoned. I've posted before, that in my belief the war WAS about state rights, but THE locus of THE RIGHT was slavery, and yes, a few states were prepared to give that up until Lincoln mobilized, but still, if you follow the MONEY (as always) it lay with the slave owners. Many here who yearned (and still do) for a Southern Victory, it's kind of hard to prove a negative, but I just don't know how a USA/CSA world would have looked like, but those here convinced that it would have been some sort of Utopia are in my view, mired in romance. Tough times we have now...
'Bout like the money in the North being tied to industrialists that couldn't stand to lose the Southern raw goods to export; thus, their backing of Lincoln.
But, hey, listen to Birdwatcher...he'll expound as to how every Southern fought for slavery or was pressed into service for the same (never mentioning the Germans and Irish pressed into service in the North against their will), despite family lineages and documentation (hint, family and individual diaries often held in museums or historical societies). He'll go chapter and verse about a history that any damned Brit (born and/or raised and educated) has no attachment to and little comprehension of. Why, it'd be like listening to Obama opine about American history and the Constitution, since he's a "scholar" of the same, at least as much so as a HS history teacher with a Brit background, right?
That war is over. History is being rewritten or deleted (I'm sure that will make life in HS history class easier), and all means to a gov't end.
What lies next; how, when, and why, are all that matter.
Like I said, just follow the money. I'm not stupid Sean, I don't need to listen to BW. I've been pretty clear about the South's clear and inalienable right to do what they did. I've always supported their cause. I do firmly believe the war COULD and SHOULD have been easily avoided by Lincoln. My only point was and it really can't be proven, is the issue of two countries, western expansion (to name just one) and how that would have panned out.
Unity of purpose? Why in the frick would I want to have unity of purpose with someone from Massachusetts? I have more in common with your average Mexican than I do someone from Massachusetts. And besides, they work harder, are nicer, and have better food.
The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification....
Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government.... etc... etc... etc...
???
All this is saying then is when faced with imminent secession Lincoln would have left slavery in place if it would only preserve the Union?
Didn't Lincoln plainly state that his own self in that famous single sentence about preserving the Union?
You should note too that the Corwin Amendment said nothing about allowing slavery into the Territories that were not yet states, THAT ban being a fundamental tenet of Lincoln's election platform..
But, once the bullets were already flying, how was Lincoln's work on the Thirteenth Amendment, AND his reelection platform in '64 NOT about total abolition?
Their motives for doing this, as the platform clearly stated was to once and for all eliminate this fundamental divisive factor from the United States.
Some irony in that both sides agreed...
The Confederates (via Veep Alexander Stephens)....
The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
...and the Lincoln Administration as expressed in their '64 reelection platform....
3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion,
But, hey, listen to Birdwatcher...he'll expound as to how every Southern fought for slavery or was pressed into service for the same (never mentioning the Germans and Irish pressed into service in the North against their will)
Sir, you didn't answer the question...
Both side instituted a draft, but that is not what we are talking here.
..what would have happened to people like that anonymous Austin TX carpenter in '61 if they did NOT side with secession?
For clues here in Texas google up the "Treue Der Union" monument in Comfort, and the largest public lynching/execution in our entire US history in Gainesville.
But it ain't just Texas, look up such incidents all across the South.
As for the sentiments of those guys actually in combat, drafted or not, in the '64 election the Union troops overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln like 5 to 1 even in the midst of the horrific bloodletting after Grant took command of the Army of the Potomac.
We dunno how the Confederate soldiers would have voted at that same time, we do know that the Confederate armies were by then evaporating out from under their commanders through steady losses to desertion despite the draconian punishments imposed for the same, tho' in fairness Confederate desertion in of itself at that time likely had little to do with political sentiment
despite family lineages and documentation (hint, family and individual diaries often held in museums or historical societies).
So quote them, so many people across the South are emotionally invested in this that they oughta be easy to find.
Quote
He'll go chapter and verse about a history that any damned Brit (born and/or raised and educated) has no attachment to and little comprehension of.
*SHRUG*, I expect yer just PO'd because you don't have an argument.
I'm not quoting my words, I'm quoting THEIRS, and taking them at their word.
Anyhoo... like most Americans you are plainly clueless about our original White homelands
It was my great good fortune to be schooled by an order of Irish Catholic Brothers, in an all-male setting, where both Latin and a liberal application of the strap were laid on early. I do clearly recall the strap (that sumbitch HURT ) but sadly, little Latin tho when I came here in my early teens I was years ahead of my American peers in all but "Social Studies" (WTF??) which was rather shallow anyhow in that by comparison history as taught over there started like 2,000 years earlier
So... if you think Irish Catholics were/are "Brits" well hey, go for it Bub....
...and a point of clarity, I figure I am truly American by right of my father, who won it in principle with the Sixth Marines on Okinawa, and I was indeed born here, right outside of NYC, a citizen since I first drew breath. My folks just took a ship to England when I was four months old is all, see, they wanted us to have a good education, and brung us back later for the greater opportunities here once all that was achieved.
But, I can and have truly stated; I never set foot here until my early teens.
Actually, here in Texas I figure I am sorta like the Texians, see, all of THEM were from somewhere else also....
Look,my point is if the war was only about slavery the corwin amendment seems like it couldve stopped it or delayed it...the. you have lincoln who,was all for it yet is known as an abolitionist and has spielberg making movies about him yet doesnt mention this amendment nor the fact thay lincoln didnt see blacks as our equal
He does get a pass of sorts in how he is taught in revisionist history...by todays standards he would be a major racist
"....But the 13th Amendment we know now differs substantially from the one first proposed. The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it.
This early version of the 13th Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, was proposed in December 1860 by William Seward, a senator from New York who would later join Lincoln’s cabinet as his first secretary of state.
The Corwin Amendment read as follows:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
The Corwin Amendment was an effort to placate the South and contain secessionist sentiment. It proposed to do three things. First, to protect slavery by giving each state the power to regulate the “domestic institutions” within its borders. This was an enticing carrot for the slave states: stay in the Union and you can keep slavery. Second, to dispossess Congress of the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. And third, to make itself unamendable by providing that “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution” that would undo the Corwin Amendment.
After Seward proposed the Corwin Amendment, then newly-elected President Lincoln defended the states’ right to adopt it. In his first inaugural address Lincoln declared that he had “no objection” to the Corwin Amendment, nor that it be made forever unamendable. He didnt seem too worried about blacks
The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861. Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment. Had it been ratified, however, the Corwin Amendment would have become the 13th Amendment, forever protecting slavery instead of abolishing it"
This early version of the 13th Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, was proposed in December 1860 by William Seward, a senator from New York who would later join Lincoln’s cabinet as his first secretary of state.
The Corwin Amendment guaranteed slavery where it already existed, LIMITING the power of the Federal government to abolish it, and Lincoln supported that.
Odd coming from a Lincoln who is held up around these parts as being the original Federalist Beelzebub hisself....
....and then Lincoln does an about-face on the slavery issue with the Thirteenth Amendment unequivocally abolishing slavery and his clearly-stated '64 reelection tenet to that effect.
Inconsistent?
Naah....
Lincoln's own words, published for all to see in an open letter to the Abolitionist Horace Greeley the August 20th, 1862 edition of the New York Tribune....
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.…
For context it should be noted that Lincoln openly declared that at a time when the outcome of that war was still very much in doubt. I wish all presidents would be so forthright and plain-spoken.
The Corwin Amendment was a last-ditch effort to stave off secession, so of course Lincoln supported it. When that didn't work the Thirteenth Amendment was intended to finally eradicate an institution which both sides agreed had been the cause of the war, so of course Lincoln supported that too.
Note once again however that the Corwin Amendment did NOT alter the ban on slavery in Federal territories, ensuring that the residents of those areas when statehood arrived would include but few with any compelling economic stake in propagating slavery and hence vote themselves in as Free States,at one stroke further marginalizing the Slave States and effectively cutting them off from participation in the future of the nation.
despite family lineages and documentation (hint, family and individual diaries often held in museums or historical societies).
So quote them, so many people across the South are emotionally invested in this that they oughta be easy to find.
Quote
He'll go chapter and verse about a history that any damned Brit (born and/or raised and educated) has no attachment to and little comprehension of.
*SHRUG*, I expect yer just PO'd because you don't have an argument.
I'm not quoting my words, I'm quoting THEIRS, and taking them at their word.
Anyhoo... like most Americans you are plainly clueless about our original White homelands
It was my great good fortune to be schooled by an order of Irish Catholic Brothers, in an all-male setting, where both Latin and a liberal application of the strap were laid on early. I do clearly recall the strap (that sumbitch HURT ) but sadly, little Latin tho when I came here in my early teens I was years ahead of my American peers in all but "Social Studies" (WTF??) which was rather shallow anyhow in that by comparison history as taught over there started like 2,000 years earlier
So... if you think Irish Catholics were/are "Brits" well hey, go for it Bub....
...and a point of clarity, I figure I am truly American by right of my father, who won it in principle with the Sixth Marines on Okinawa, and I was indeed born here, right outside of NYC, a citizen since I first drew breath. My folks just took a ship to England when I was four months old is all, see, they wanted us to have a good education, and brung us back later for the greater opportunities here once all that was achieved.
But, I can and have truly stated; I never set foot here until my early teens.
Actually, here in Texas I figure I am sorta like the Texians, see, all of THEM were from somewhere else also....
Birdwatcher
I've seen you pull this schit time and again; trying to rewrite people's familial history of which you haven't a clue.
You want to see the proof? Hop on your wee bike and go find it. It's there, and in publicly accessible places. As for quoting it for you; F'k that. Earn it and learn it.
despite family lineages and documentation (hint, family and individual diaries often held in museums or historical societies).
So quote them, so many people across the South are emotionally invested in this that they oughta be easy to find.
Quote
He'll go chapter and verse about a history that any damned Brit (born and/or raised and educated) has no attachment to and little comprehension of.
*SHRUG*, I expect yer just PO'd because you don't have an argument.
I'm not quoting my words, I'm quoting THEIRS, and taking them at their word.
Birdwatcher
You apparently didn't hear the word of a lot of people, just the information that you chose to read, which maybe someone else already:
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Bend[ed], twist[ed], recast[ed], rephrase[d]
You're opening argument is to quote 5 articles of secession that supposedly govern 65% of the population as proof that the whole thing is about slavery.
As if the popular vote of those 5 were for it, not to mention the remaining people in the other states who's articles mention nothing of it.
What was the reason for those remaining states then? Shouldn't you quote them and take them at their word?
Gee, sorry you got the strap in school. But that does foist your CV into some sort of savant status....Glad that the Irish folks were so thorough in your history studies.
I've seen you pull this schit time and again; trying to rewrite people's familial history of which you haven't a clue.
You want to see the proof? Hop on your wee bike and go find it. It's there, and in publicly accessible places.
Let us speak plainly.
The real problem is, when asked to put up or shut up on this specific issue you got nothing.
Truth is important, and the people back them spoke it and wrote it as they knew it. Much as we might fervently wish people back then lived in our same reality, it weren't so.
On the 4th I'll be at the Alamo dressed out 1836. Travis of course famously brung his slave Joe and Bowie among other things had previously tried to make his fortune buying, selling and illegally smuggling them. Crockett AFAIK was largely silent on the topic tho his principled stance against Indian Removal whatever the cost to his career is but one of the things that makes him so admirable.
ALL of these guys were justly respected by those who knew them as good and honorable men regardless of their own degree of involvement in what to us today was a morally reprehensible institution, an actual atrocity.
Its like Noah Smithwick (who, tho pro-Union, owned two slaves in 1861) said; times were different back then.
Quote
As for quoting it for you; F'k that. Earn it and learn it.
Aye, there's the rub.... you yourself ain't ever hardly looked at all, else you'd be all over it <shrug>
I've seen you pull this schit time and again; trying to rewrite people's familial history of which you haven't a clue.
You want to see the proof? Hop on your wee bike and go find it. It's there, and in publicly accessible places.
Let us speak plainly.
The real problem is, when asked to put up or shut up on this specific issue you got nothing.
Truth is important, and the people back them spoke it and wrote it as they knew it. Much as we might fervently wish people back then lived in our same reality, it weren't so.
On the 4th I'll be at the Alamo dressed out 1836. Travis of course famously brung his slave Joe and Bowie among other things had previously tried to make his fortune buying, selling and illegally smuggling them. Crockett AFAIK was largely silent on the topic tho his principled stance against Indian Removal whatever the cost to his career is but one of the things that makes him so admirable.
ALL of these guys were justly respected by those who knew them as good and honorable men regardless of their own degree of involvement in what to us today was a morally reprehensible institution, an actual atrocity.
Its like Noah Smithwick (who, tho pro-Union, owned two slaves in 1861) said; times were different back then.
Originally Posted by 4ager
As for quoting it for you; F'k that. Earn it and learn it.
Aye, there's the rub.... you yourself ain't ever hardly looked at all, else you'd be all over it <shrug>
Birdwatcher
The men who enlisted to fight for the Confederate States of America were more varied in motivations and backgrounds than what is commonly realized or known. The soldiers who went to fight were not just native Southern white males or rich slave-holding plantation owners, but were also of foreign birth, native French-speaking Creoles, and even of Northern origin. There were also Mexican-Americans who enlisted, but the most surprising of those who chose to enlist to fight, or even wanted to enlist to fight for the Confederacy, were Native- Americans and African-Americans! None of these groups come to mind as Rebel soldiers, but they were. Of course that brings about a very probing question. Why did they enlist or want to enlist? To understand "native" white Southerners will be looked at first. What will be dealt with is the fact that many did not even consider slavery the major motivation to enlist, or even one at all. This tends to indicate that slavery was not the overriding factor to all white Southerners, or the even only factor (as common historical teachings, specifically school textbooks, have dictated).
In the South, 385,000 families owned slaves, out of a white population of 1,516,000 families.1 In the Army of Northern Virginia, for example, the majority of soldiers did not come from families that even had a direct personal stake in slavery.2 Therefore, "it was not the issue of slavery for which the average officer or enlisted man went to war." Actually, what really motivated them to enlist was their tremendous pride in their own land and what they and their fathers had achieved, "combined with a general dislike of Northerners stemming from most superficial knowledge of the real people who inhabited the northern states".3
Many white Confederate soldiers stated reasons other than slavery as motivations for enlisting. After the secession of the state of Virginia, "Benjamin W. Jones found that 'the determination to resist invasion-the first and most sacred duty of a free people-became general, if not universal'". Historian William C. Davis then stated, "that determination sent him into the army, and thousands more with him".4 Carlton McCarthy wrote in his memoir with some poetic prose, that the Southerner "dared not refuse to hear the call to arms, so plain was the duty and so urgent the call. His brethren and friends were answering the bugle-call and the sound of the drum," and "to stay was dishonor and shame"!5 Defense of the home and duty with honor seemed to be very strong primary reasons for enlisting for the average Confederate soldier. McCarthy's quote points out another factor as well. The power of one's peers.
Popular pressure was a very strong factor for enlisting to fight for the Confederacy (as well as the Union). Thousands of persons indifferent to enlisting, and even many who were openly opposed to it, were swept like a wave into the ranks in 1861 by the tremendous force of popular pressure.6
The defense of the women of the South was another strong motivating factor for many white Southern males. The women offered thanks to the men who enlisted "but turned with coolest disdain from those who were reluctant to come forward in defense of Southern womanhood".7
But again many volunteered not from any great enthusiasm, but simply because enlistment was the trendy thing to do .8 Therefore, peer pressure had the strongest influence. All of these reasons seem to have motivated members of the yeoman class to enlist, because most of them viewed the defense of slavery as "to protect the fortunes and property of a leisured upper-class that most (of them) looked upon with hatred, envy and contempt".9
The yeoman class had no slaves to fight for, they had some property, their families, and their native states. They also had something else as their property to protect, and that "was their white skins which put them on a plane of civil equality with slave holders and far above those who did not possess that property," as stated by Princeton University historian, James M. McPherson.10 Since many could not read or write very well (or at all), they were not given much of a chance to defend themselves to later generations from statements like Dr. McPherson's. It should be stated as fact that racism was very strong at that time, in the North as well as the South. It was simply the pattern of thought in the 1800s that the white class was superior, even though it was not true.
One motivation that has been around since recorded time (and certainly even before then), was the want for adventure.11 It is doubtful that particular motivation was that strong after being in the storm of combat. War has never been the romantic event that has been portrayed in writings, only a "living hell."
Many high-ranking Confederates showed reasons for enlisting other than slavery. The examples consist of generals (or future generals). Robert E. Lee believed in neither slavery nor secession, but would fight for his old Virginia.12 Ambrose Powell Hill, better known as A.P. Hill, chose to fight for the defense of his state, Virginia, even thought he was deeply opposed to slavery.13 John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky (a boarder state), a one-time Vice-President of the United States, sided with the Confederacy primarily for his home-state's self-defense from the North.14 The individual motivations are endless.
Not only did Southerners and "boarder-staters" enlist (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware) to fight for the Confederacy, but so did Northerners themselves!15 Their motivations are varied (to be sure), but it can be speculated that economic or family ties had something to do with this phenomenon. Ideology and sympathy for "the cause" also had influence on these men to serve with what their fellow Northerners called "the enemy."
An interesting class of Southerners were the French-speaking white Creoles of Louisiana. The general motivation for them enlisting after Louisiana seceded was "the American-born French were fighting for their freedom from oppression and the French-born residents were helping them; together,"Liberate" in the sense of 1789 was again ringing in the ears of the American Gaul".16 Therefore, the defense of liberty seems to be the primary motivation here, but definitely not necessarily the rule. For those French immigrants who enlisted to fight for the Confederacy, it must be stated that many were motivated by the "defense of the South, as holy a task as the American Revolution, and the enlistees vowed to bear hardships as great as Washington's before they would fail".17 The French were not alone with this show of patriotism, but other foreigners followed their own motivations. Those immigrants who fought for the Confederacy were an interesting and diverse group. They came from many nationalities, like the French, the Irish, the Germans, the Scottish, and the English being the most prominent. The two largest of these groups were the Germans and the Irish.
Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia did not secede until after Lincoln announced the invasion to subdue the Confederacy and ordered them to provide troops.
Arkansas' ordinance of secession is quite clear that the reason it left were Lincoln's illegal actions of invading sovereign states. Arkansas had already had a secession convention and decided to stay in the Union deciding that slavery and the other issues were not enough reason to leave.
I've seen you pull this schit time and again; trying to rewrite people's familial history of which you haven't a clue.
You want to see the proof? Hop on your wee bike and go find it. It's there, and in publicly accessible places.
Let us speak plainly.
The real problem is, when asked to put up or shut up on this specific issue you got nothing.
Truth is important, and the people back them spoke it and wrote it as they knew it. Much as we might fervently wish people back then lived in our same reality, it weren't so.
On the 4th I'll be at the Alamo dressed out 1836. Travis of course famously brung his slave Joe and Bowie among other things had previously tried to make his fortune buying, selling and illegally smuggling them. Crockett AFAIK was largely silent on the topic tho his principled stance against Indian Removal whatever the cost to his career is but one of the things that makes him so admirable.
ALL of these guys were justly respected by those who knew them as good and honorable men regardless of their own degree of involvement in what to us today was a morally reprehensible institution, an actual atrocity.
Its like Noah Smithwick (who, tho pro-Union, owned two slaves in 1861) said; times were different back then.
Quote
As for quoting it for you; F'k that. Earn it and learn it.
Aye, there's the rub.... you yourself ain't ever hardly looked at all, else you'd be all over it <shrug>
Birdwatcher
On a "state" level, as Joe Bob is speaking of, Missouri didn't secede until attacked by the Federal Government of Lincoln. Missouri's executive branch wanted to secede but the legislative would not provide the needed 2/3 majority. The majority of the populace seemed to be southern in origin but with many strong business ties to the emerging industrial revolution of the North. Lincoln's military leaders in Missouri and Kansas were abolitionists and provocateurs. Lincoln demanded 50,000 troops from Missouri to assist in quelling the rebellion. Missouri, while not wanting to leave the Union also did not want to fight against their relatives and friends from Virginia and Kentucky so they adopted armed neutrality as a policy with General Sterling Price, a hero of the Mexican War and former governor, as the commander. Federal troops attacked the Missouri troops! The heavy-handedness of the Federal government caused Missouri to then secede from the Union after the Federal government attacked Jefferson City and forced its evacuation. The Missouri State Guard was not mustered into the Confederate Army until 1862, meaning that the state of Missouri fought the Union until that time.
Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia did not secede until after Lincoln announced the invasion to subdue the Confederacy and ordered them to provide troops.
Arkansas' ordinance of secession is quite clear that the reason it left were Lincoln's illegal actions of invading sovereign states. Arkansas had already had a secession convention and decided to stay in the Union deciding that slavery and the other issues were not enough reason to leave.
Thank you for providing actual history to counter the revisionism of other members.
War Department, Washington, April 15, 1861. To His Excellency the Governor of Virginia: Sir: Under the act of Congress for calling forth "militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions, etc.," approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor to request your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table below, to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged. Your Excellency will please communicate to me the time, at or about, which your quota will be expected at its rendezvous, as it will be met as soon as practicable by an officer to muster it into the service and pay of the United States.
— Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.
Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.
Further, if you want to take "their" words at face value, read Georgia' articles of secession. It goes into a long historical explanation of the roots of the problem.
Georgia was clear that the preservation of slavery, but more importantly the extension of slavery and the possible addition of slave states was important to it and the reason it was seceding. Georgia's wealth, like most of the wealth of the South was tied to slavery and it could not get out of the trap easily.
However, Georgia traced the roots of the crisis in 1860 to tariffs and government subsidies for Northern manufacturing and trading interests. These interests had always gotten what they wanted until the South and the North West stood up to them and finally settled the issue in 1846. There would be no more mercantilism and subsidies for those industries. IT WAS THEN AND ONLY THEN, that these interests threw their money behind the still relatively small abolitionist movement in order to break the power of the South and thus, take control of the government.
Those manufacturing and trade interests knew that if they could break the power of the South, the federal government would pour money into them hand over fists. And if you look at it, that is exactly what happened. Before the Civil War was even over, the biggest government subsidized boondoggle in our history started with the funding of the multiple transcontinental railroads. Sure, they were a boon to commerce, but the graft and corruption in their building has never been equaled. They were making millions per mile in federal funds.
Those pursuits would have had to be privately funded had the South retained its pre-war position in the Union.
No matter that the histories of the war were written either by Northerners or Southerners sympathetic to Northern interests/causes. So IOW, it was all about slavery...lol
Ample evidence of the Tariff being the main reason for the war to anybody who wants to actually look at what the northern politicos were saying in the 1840's and 50's. They could have given a rat's ass about the plight of the black man.
The causes of the Civil War are very much like the turmoil we see today, and there is no way to remove race, liberalism and tradition from the equation. Just as Ferguson, Baltimore, McKinney and Charlotte are combined to reveal a broad rift between factions, so did actions prior to the War. For instance, Northern abolitionists, and slaves, burned almost the entire City of Dallas to the ground on July, 8th 1860 leaving many homeless and destitute...none of which were slave owners. This "protest" was an incentive for every Texan to be pissed, regardless of how they felt about slavery.
The causes of the Civil War are very much like the turmoil we see today, and there is no way to remove race, liberalism and tradition from the equation. Just as Ferguson, Baltimore, McKinney and Charlotte are combined to reveal a broad rift between factions, so did actions prior to the War. For instance, Northern abolitionists, and slaves, burned almost the entire City of Dallas to the ground on July, 8th 1860 leaving many homeless and destitute...none of which were slave owners. This "protest" was an incentive for every Texan to be pissed, regardless of how they felt about slavery.
It really wasn't very complicated.
Well, damn Pat... You're bringing up things that aren't (can't/won't) be taught in HS history class. Why'd you go do a thing like that?
Same with all those other folks quoting stuff that goes against the fed mandated "educational system"; it can't be true, if it ain't taught in HS history.
Seems rather apparent that there is plenty out there to debunk the "it was only about slavery myth", if one is inclined enough to look, or actually desired the truth. Might be a point there...
The government today and the ideas of ordinary Americans are so different today from before the war that it is very difficult for us to even relate to it.
One simple but telling example is that before the Civil War no one ever said that the United States "is", the term was always the United States "are". Obviously, before the war, it was recognized that it wasn't a giant centralized stated, but a collection of equal states.
Before the war, political parties were much less important than the states. The states and their interests formed voting blocks much more than the parties did. Sure, parties had platforms, but those parties were usually regionalized and sectionalized. Today, a Texas Democrat is apt to vote the same as a New York Democrat because of loyalty to party and because they were whipped by that party to vote a certain way. In those days, that wasn't the case. Or rather, it wouldn't have happened that way because a guy from New York and one from Texas were unlikely to share the same party platform because of where they were from.
Thus, slave verses non-slave became the predominant way to separate the voting blocks in the country. So, adding slave or non-slave states without adding one from the other side, altered the balance of power. Once the South figured that slavery was to be excluded from the territories, they understood that they were to be out voted on everything. There was little fear that slavery would be immediately abolished, but like gun owners today, southerners could see the future. When the Democrats of today get an unassailable majority because of demographics, we will have one party rule. Gun control and many other things will become a reality because they will control all the branches of government. There will be no check on their power. The South simply decided to get out of that losing bargain while they still had power to have a fighting chance.
And if you want proof that the war was about much more than slavery, just look at voting patterns today. The South still votes almost uniformly as a block as does New England. And they are almost always on opposite sides of the issue, whatever it is.
National unity has ALWAYS been a myth imposed at the muzzle of a gun.
I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?
Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me
Or, the same unconstitutional authority to "free" private property lawfully owned by American citizens without due compensation...
Or, the unconstitutional authority to have the Maryland legislature and Governor arrested and replaced, and order the guns at Ft. McHenry turned on the CIVILIAN population of Baltimore, essentially placing the entire city under arrest without charge and under threat of death if they were to exercise their First, Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights...
I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?
Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me
Or, the same unconstitutional authority to "free" private property lawfully owned by American citizens without due compensation...
Or, the unconstitutional authority to have the Maryland legislature and Governor arrested and replaced, and order the guns at Ft. McHenry turned on the CIVILIAN population of Baltimore, essentially placing the entire city under arrest without charge and under threat of death if they were to exercise their First, Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights...
Hey, whatever it takes to end slavery...
Originally Posted by Abe
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
The men who enlisted to fight for the Confederate States of America were more varied in motivations and backgrounds than what is commonly realized or known... etc, etc...
Well done
Now, the next questions:
What happened to those that were pro-Union in the South?
What happened to those that refused to enlist, on principle?
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
If I were you I woulda had the grace to acknowledge where I got that, but hey, yer welcome anyway....
Quote
Gee, sorry you got the strap in school. But that does foist your CV into some sort of savant status....
Never said it did of course, that being "twisting, spinning, miscasting" (or whatever it was you said) on your part.
Anyways here we was in our (literally) unwashed glory
Ya know, we got the strap for EVERYTHING.... sleeping, fidgeting, not having homework done, and like I said it HURT. But in that all-male setting ya learned early on that crying about it would get you no sympathy at all...
I dunno that I'd ever countenance my own son to be schooled in such a manner, but when you consider that close to one in five boys are nowadays diagnosed with some sort of acronym, for the apparent crime of being nothing more than a normal male, I'd choose the strap over medication for him in a heartbeat.
Quote
Glad that the Irish folks were so thorough in your history studies.
Lord knows they never dabbled in revisionism..
Well, at least ya got away from labeling me a "Brit"
But, having so gratuitously insulted the integrity of an entire people as you just did, I seriously doubt you yourself have the integrity to back it up with actual examples.
Hey, start a new thread on it if ya want, you can call it "Irish Catholic Revisionism".
Mike, in the 50's arizona was short of priests, so they imported a bunch of irish priest for the local parish's scattered around the state. Most are now deceased, or on retiring they went back to ireland. I have fond memories of them with grade school Sacred Heart, and two years of a catholic high school. Those nuns were wonderful people and a first class education, but they were tough. When the local priest couldn't handle it, there were always the jesuits at brophy Prep in phoenix that could be called in. Now they WERE tuff.
Thank you for providing actual history to counter the revisionism of other members.
You could best illustrate that by pointing out anything I have written that was untrue or out of context.
What I find interesting in all of this is that before the war, Lincoln was all about limiting the power of the Federal Government re: the Corwin Amendment.
The sad truth is, if Lincoln had not been assassinated by that miserable little cabal immediately after the war, life in the post-war South would likely have been quite different, and memories less bitter.
The sad truth is, if Lincoln had not been assassinated by that miserable little cabal immediately after the war, life in the post-war South would likely have been quite different, and memories less bitter.
Birdwatcher
Good point. America has not done well with the residual slime of assassinated presidents. LBJ come to mind.
Lincoln still gets a pass in modern history on his desire to deport blacks and start a colonization elsewhere....
he gets alot of passes because he had an epiphany and played politics with the "EP", he was ofr an amendment what wouldve made slavery the 13th amendment, yet that stil ldidnt pacify the south
no one is taught any of this because its not politically correct
Mike, in the 50's arizona was short of priests, so they imported a bunch of irish priest for the local parish's scattered around the state. Most are now deceased, or on retiring they went back to ireland. I have fond memories of them with grade school Sacred Heart, and two years of a catholic high school. Those nuns were wonderful people and a first class education, but they were tough. When the local priest couldn't handle it, there were always the jesuits at brophy Prep in phoenix that could be called in. Now they WERE tuff.
Ya know, there's a fierce integrity to the Native Irish, that may be part pure stubbornness I dunno To that end I'm regarding the stand of the 69th New York before the Bloody Lane at Antietam as typical of the genre; standing in line, in the open, pouring buck and ball at close range from smoothbore muskets into rifle-armed opponents hidden behind cover, the few survivors then retiring in good order, colors and honor intact.
And speaking of the Irish Brigade, here's their monument at Gettysburg, truly remarkable not only for its day but even today, and created by an Irish sculptor who served in a Virginian (CSA) artillery unit from Bull Run clear to Appomattox, and who also fought at Gettysburg, on Seminary Ridge
And speaking of the Irish Brigade, here's their monument at Gettysburg, truly remarkable not only for its day but even today, and created by an Irish sculptor who served in a Virginian (CSA) artillery unit from Bull Run clear to Appomattox, and who fought at Gettysburg
Birdwatcher
I admit to being a bit of a softie with it comes to dogs, but damn -- that is a touching monument!
During the first half of the 20th century the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS Columbia (CL-56) flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of the ship's namesake, the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate General Simon Buckner), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the flag of the United States.[15]
The use of the flag by soldiers came under investigation after some African-American soldiers filed complaints.[citation needed]. By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare.[16] However, the Confederate flag continues to be flown in an unofficial manner by many soldiers. It was seen many times in Korea, Vietnam, and in the Middle East.
Once the South figured that slavery was to be excluded from the territories, they understood that they were to be out voted on everything.
Yep, and AFAIK Lincoln never budged off of that position, even if it meant war, which he was jumping through hoops to avoid.
The most telling thing is though, Southerners themselves were NOT excluded from the territories and hence the future of the United States at all, they just couldn't bring their slaves there is all.
Was it because they couldn't imagine a South without slavery?
Was it because they couldn't imagine a South without slavery?
No, as I explained it was because the South then as today, had a fundamentally different idea on what government was supposed to be and do. The South was opposed to mercantilism. Abraham Lincoln, a wealthy railroad lawyer intended to see his employers well looked after.
why did the EP not apply to all states? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our symapthy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.
The proclamation allowed black soldiers to fight for the Union -- soldiers that were desperately needed. It also tied the issue of slavery directly to the war.
Was it because they couldn't imagine a South without slavery?
You might ask instead if it was because they couldn't imagine a future where they were impoverished, powerless, and at the mercy of Northern financial and manufacturing interests because they had been stripped of their entire economic system. THAT is what an end to slavery meant to the South in 1860.
And indeed, that was absolutely the case right up until the 1960s in most areas of the South. Impoverished and powerless for a hundred years after the end of the war.
I admit to being a bit of a softie with it comes to dogs, but damn -- that is a touching monument!
John
And the sculptor was a stickler for accuracy, especially with regards to a breed so important in Irish legend....
"This, in the matter of size and structure, truthfully represents the Irish wolf-hound, a dog which has been extinct for more than a hundred years. – William Rudolph O’Donovan"
Abraham Lincoln, a wealthy railroad lawyer intended to see his employers well looked after.
So, his whole deal about "Saving the Union", about which he was quite open and forthcoming throughout, to the extent of publishing it plainly stated in a major newspaper for the whole World to read, during that war, was all a front?
He didn't care about saving the Union at all, only his personal profits from the railroad?
Well, fortunately for him, there was about a half-million OTHER guys, with no stake in the railroad, who DID want to save the Union, and who were prepared to die for that belief.
Quote
....at the mercy of Northern financial and manufacturing interests because they had been stripped of their entire economic system. THAT is what an end to slavery meant to the South in 1860.
You're lucky. When I say that slavery was essential to the Southern economy in 1860 I get labelled a "revisionist", and worse, a "Brit"
Same thing when I point out that the entire Southern leadership derived their own personal fortunes from the labor of other men, women and children confined in chains (literal or figurative as necessary) and condemned to a life of imprisonment and hard labor.
In fact they even wrote a Constitution specifically designed to protect and preserve that practice ergo their own fortunes. I dunno if every Confederate soldier was sworn to uphold it, it being a sort of Confederate Federal document after all, but they were all in service to states that had ratified said constitution and must have been aware of it.
You're lucky. When I say that slavery was essential to the Southern economy in 1860 I get labelled a "revisionist", and worse, a "Brit"
That's because you always leave out the fact that the war was about the economy, of which slavery was an element. It's like saying WWII was about killing Jews.
You're lucky. When I say that slavery was essential to the Southern economy in 1860 I get labelled a "revisionist", and worse, a "Brit"
That's because you always leave out the fact that the war was about the economy, of which slavery was an element. It's like saying WWII was about killing Jews.
So Bleeding Kansas et al. before the war was really about the economy, people caring naught for actual principles at all?
And I've oft pointed out that in Southern perception, slavery WAS the economy, by that point they had hopelessly sold themselves out to "Big Cotton", ergo slavery, a process that had been continuing unabated for the previous fifty years.
So much so they believed going into it that they could actually use a cotton export embargo as a club to extort recognition from the Brits.
Considerable irony in the fact that the interrupted exports of Southern cotton, either purposefully by the Confederacy in the beginning, or involuntarily as a result of the subsequent Northern blockade, prompted rapid increases in production elsewhere in the World.
Heck this would have eventually happened anyway even without a war, and the subsequent collapse in cotton prices could have been equally ruinous to the South.
Well, fortunately for him, there was about a half-million OTHER guys, with no stake in the railroad, who DID want to save the Union, and who were prepared to die for that belief.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Useful idiots are always easy enough to find in huge numbers.
It was much more personal than that in the south. People, the majority who never saw a slave, much less owned one, were threatened by an invading force. In Washington it was all about business. (As usual.)
As a point of fact, they didn't. The war destroyed the "Union" as it was known before the war and replaced it with a centralized empire.
...which went on to save the World, twice, and provide for its citizens (including you and me) and the Free World a higher degree of freedom and material prosperity than humanity has ever known.
Call me a proud Citizen
I know you would call prob'ly call me a "Dupe", 'mongst other things...
As a point of fact, they didn't. The war destroyed the "Union" as it was known before the war and replaced it with a centralized empire.
...which went on to save the World, twice, and provide for its citizens (including you and me) and the Free World a higher degree of freedom and material prosperity than humanity has ever known.
Call me a proud Citizen
I know you would call prob'ly call me a "Dupe", 'mongst other things...
Not as high a degree of freedom as was enjoyed BEFORE the Civil War.
And, no, America did not save the world twice. Our unnecessary entry into WW I took a European conflict that was more or less at a stalemate and tipped the balance away from the Germans. Our entry prompted the Germans to send Lenin to Russia in hopes of ending the war there and freeing those troops to end the war in the West before the Americans arrived in force. Our troops provided the margin for victory in the west and our subsequent withdrawal from the peace process set the stage for the monstrously unfair treaty that directly lead to Hitler and the NAZIs.
Lots to be proud of as an American, but no, we didn't save the world. Our abandonment of our principles of nonintervention in order to go to Europe in 1917 damned near ended it.
People, the majority who never saw a slave, much less owned one, were threatened by an invading force.
The majority of Southerners never saw a Black guy?
None of the 3.5 million slaves scattered throughout the South? Heck, in most of Mississippi and South Carolina you could scarcely throw a rock without hitting a slave. Here in Texas, ONE THIRD of the population was enslaved by the other two thirds, most of 'em in your neck of the woods where their descendants remain today (around here there weren't much cotton and besides, the unfree help had an irritating tendency to hoof it for Mexico, wherein they would be free).
...and likewise secession wasn't front page news in every newspaper in America?
...and there weren't enthusiastic Secession Conventions across the Southern States long before they ever saw a Yankee wherein they were SURE they could whip the Yankees in a month or two?
...and the wording in the Confederate Constitution was irrelevant?
and there weren't enthusiastic Secession Conventions across the Southern States long before they ever saw a Yankee wherein they were SURE they could whip the Yankees in a month or two?
What does secession have to do with invasion? The north was free to let the South go without invading them.
And lincoln is like john kerry "He actually voted for it before he voted against it (slavery)" LOL
You do a profound disservice to the man.
Lincoln, as he so plainly stated, did whatever he could to preserve the Union. If that meant preserving that noxious and entirely toxic institution where it already existed in order to forestall secession he was for that.
After the bullets were flying anyway, as early as 1862 he was moving towards eradicating that divisive vileness everywhere it existed.
One more time: War Department, Washington, April 15, 1861. To His Excellency the Governor of Virginia: Sir: Under the act of Congress for calling forth "militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions, etc.," approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor to request your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table below, to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged. Your Excellency will please communicate to me the time, at or about, which your quota will be expected at its rendezvous, as it will be met as soon as practicable by an officer to muster it into the service and pay of the United States.
— Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.
Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.
— Respectfully, John Letcher
VA, NC, TN, AR left the union after the call for troops.
I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?
Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me
Do you wish the United States had divided in 1861?
Does that matter constitutionally speaking? Are you alleging that for you, like the communists, and any other lawless regime in the history of the world, that the ends justify the means?
And lincoln is like john kerry "He actually voted for it before he voted against it (slavery)" LOL
You do a profound disservice to the man.
Lincoln, as he so plainly stated, did whatever he could to preserve the Union. If that meant preserving that noxious and entirely toxic institution where it already existed in order to forestall secession he was for that.
After the bullets were flying anyway, as early as 1862 he was moving towards eradicating that divisive vileness everywhere it existed.
Birdwatcher
the disservice is the fact that there are memorials and movies that dont actually represent lincoln, they represent the good, not the bad. So if the south had accepted the corwin amendment, i guess lincolns greatness woulve never been known? Slavery wouldve gone on and lincoln wouldnt be known as the great emancipator but the union wouldve stayed in tact.
So this all goes back to the battle flag, some say it stands for slavery, well so did lincoln depending on what year it was
The disservice being done in the south to our flag and monuments currently outweighs anything ive said about lincoln....and thats my point, lincoln wouldnt be near as popular had history taught everything were talking about here.... im not so sure the people wanting our confederate monumnets would love lincoln had he preserved the union by getting the corwin amendment accepted into the 13th amendment
I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?
Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me
Do you wish the United States had divided in 1861?
Does that matter constitutionally speaking? Are you alleging that for you, like the communists, and any other lawless regime in the history of the world, that the ends justify the means?
Quit avoiding the question.
Anyhow, you forgot George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers....
I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?
Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me
Do you wish the United States had divided in 1861?
Does that matter constitutionally speaking? Are you alleging that for you, like the communists, and any other lawless regime in the history of the world, that the ends justify the means?
Quit avoiding the question.
Anyhow, you forgot George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers....
Of course, I wish it had divided. I thought that was clear.
So, now, how does that matter constitutionally speaking?
As for George Washington and the others, your attempts are pretty childish at best. The right of revolution once the consent of the governed is withdrawn is the very basis of America. But then again, if you don't know that...
I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?
Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me
Do you wish the United States had divided in 1861?
Does that matter constitutionally speaking? Are you alleging that for you, like the communists, and any other lawless regime in the history of the world, that the ends justify the means?
Quit avoiding the question.
Anyhow, you forgot George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers....
The men who enlisted to fight for the Confederate States of America were more varied in motivations and backgrounds than what is commonly realized or known... etc, etc...
Well done
Now, the next questions:
What happened to those that were pro-Union in the South?
What happened to those that refused to enlist, on principle?
Birdwatcher
What does that have to do with whether the flag in question represents slavery as opposed to warring against tyranny?
Oh, it's pretty clear where he stands. Lawlessness by those in power is fine and dandy as long as they are in favor of an end that he finds morally good. That is his answer. He has admitted as much with that question.
The American Civil War ended in June 1865, just over 150 years ago.
It's over, done, can't get a mulligan and do it over with 20/20 hindsight.
Why not expend your energy on something that you might actually be able to influence?
It matters because you have to have an understanding of history to get why things are today as they are. You can't worship Lincoln and curse Obama. They are the same. They both see something they think needs done and they are doing it, regardless of the constitution or the law.
And more importantly, the actions of Lincoln directly paved the was for Obama. If Lincoln hadn't settled the issue of states' rights and secession by force of arms, one essential check on the power of the federal government would not be in the dustbin of history.
Lincoln was a tool of the industrialists and the bankers. He delivered this republic gift wrapped into their greedy hands. He enslaved us all, ostensibly to free the slaves.
It matters because you have to have an understanding of history to get why things are today as they are. You can't worship Lincoln and curse Obama. They are the same. They both see something they think needs done and they are doing it, regardless of the constitution or the law.
And more importantly, the actions of Lincoln directly paved the was for Obama. If Lincoln hadn't settled the issue of states' rights and secession by force of arms, one essential check on the power of the federal government would not be in the dustbin of history.
Lincoln was a tool of the industrialists and the bankers. He delivered this republic gift wrapped into their greedy hands. He enslaved us all, ostensibly to free the slaves.
Well said sir. This was exactly how we started down the road to the mess we're in.
I've previously said Lincoln was evil. I should probably back up on that. He probably believed he was doing what was best for the country. That said, if we were to be a nation of laws, then we can't break them in order to achieve even a noble end.
Once Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Republic was over. It mattered not that he didn't intend to end the Republic. It mattered not that he did it to fight corruption in Rome or that his personal survival left him no choice. That single act led to his dictatorship and the eventual ascension of his adopted son, Augustus. And it was under Augustus that every single meaningful power of the Republic was concentrated under the rule of one man.
That is sort of where were are today. Lincoln was Caesar and Obama is his spiritual heir. He grasps power and holds it using the same powers and precedents Lincoln initiated. Would Lincoln approve? I don't know and it doesn't matter. A father might not approve of his child, but he can never completely absolve himself of responsibility for his raising.
You're lucky. When I say that slavery was essential to the Southern economy in 1860 I get labelled a "revisionist", and worse, a "Brit"
That's because you always leave out the fact that the war was about the economy, of which slavery was an element. It's like saying WWII was about killing Jews.
So Bleeding Kansas et al. before the war was really about the economy, people caring naught for actual principles at all?
And I've oft pointed out that in Southern perception, slavery WAS the economy, by that point they had hopelessly sold themselves out to "Big Cotton", ergo slavery, a process that had been continuing unabated for the previous fifty years.
So much so they believed going into it that they could actually use a cotton export embargo as a club to extort recognition from the Brits.
Considerable irony in the fact that the interrupted exports of Southern cotton, either purposefully by the Confederacy in the beginning, or involuntarily as a result of the subsequent Northern blockade, prompted rapid increases in production elsewhere in the World.
Heck this would have eventually happened anyway even without a war, and the subsequent collapse in cotton prices could have been equally ruinous to the South.
Birdwatcher
And throughout the battle fields you could hear the Union soldiers screaming 'Lets go men, so we can free all those black slaves' as they charged 12 pounders.
Just as you could hear the CSA boys screaming 'They may take our lives, but they will never take our slaves'
I think that you're wrong. Lincoln was a great POTUS, IMO the greatest, while BHO2 will likely rank among the least influential.
On March 4, 1861, Lincoln took the Oath of Office; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". I would opine that preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution included defending the Union against armed insurrection.
Of course, I could be biased since my ancestor, Salmon P. Chase, served as the Secretary of the Treasury in Lincoln's Cabinet and later, as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, he administered the Oath of Office to Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant (x2)
I think that you're wrong. Lincoln was a great POTUS, IMO the greatest, while BHO2 will likely rank among the least influential.
On March 4, 1861, Lincoln took the Oath of Office; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". I would opine that preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution included defending the Union against armed insurrection.
Of course, I could be biased since my ancestor, Salmon P. Chase, served as the Secretary of the Treasury in Lincoln's Cabinet and later, as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, he administered the Oath of Office to Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant (x2)
No worse man in history has been venerated more.
And you can't protect and serve the Constitution by wiping your ass with it.
You live about as close to me and any other 24HCF member and you and I can both own any class of firearm we want. If there is any restriction in Nebraska, it is the handgun purchase law that requires a resident to obtain a handgun purchase permit. You go to the county sheriff's office, fill out a form, pay $10 for three years, and if you pass the cursory background check you walk out with your permit. It is a restriction, but hardly an onerous restriction.
I have long thought that a national firearms purchase permit, a Federal version of the Nebraska handgun purchase permit, would make buying a firearm easier for everyone involved, both the buyers and the sellers.
JoeBob, did the South have a constitutional right to secede from the Union? Does the Constitution lay out a process for secession?
There is a difference between an armed revolt and secession.
I been trying to get our learned History teacher Birdy to answer that very question all day but thus far he has ducked and dived like a clay pigeon at a skeet shoot.
I can't speak for the people plowing a 40 acre farm in the back woods of Tennessee. Slave owners weren't the one's manning the cannons.
An oft overlooked fact. Lots of cotton grown on small farms without any slaves. Unless you call the wife and kids slaves. miles
Cotton was the cash crop for small farmers. Corn was for animal feed and whiskey (which was also cash) and a little cotton would allow him to buy the things he couldn't otherwise acquire.
The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, "We the people ...". They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.
Quote
Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution.
Think about this. Abraham Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the Supreme Court when he issued a decision that Lincoln didn't like.
Lincoln sent troops door-to-door to confiscate firearms in Maryland, a union state.
Lincoln, arrested hundreds of newspaper editors in the north who wrote editorials critical of the war or his administration.
Lincoln ordered the arrest and deportation of a US Senator from Ohio.
And I could go on and on about the things our dictator did.
I have heard this debated for decades about if the South, North, Western Civilization, or the planet would have been better off if the South was able to establish a permanent government or not. I have heard all sorts of opinion as to what would have happened or not. The fact is we have no idea. There may or may not have been a war with Spain, there may have been a war with Mexico due to bandit problems, or not. It is unlikely that a northern U.S. would have been involved in either of these situations. Would the northern U.S. and the C.S.A., either one, have been involved in WWI? If England and France had openly supported the C.S.A. during the war, maybe the South would have felt obligated to them during WWI? If there had been peaceful secession, who knows if the northern U.S. or the C.S.A. would have gotten involved? What about U.S. and C.S. involvement with Japan? Who can say if either would have any interest in the western Pacific? After all, the reason for our presence there is due to Spain giving the Philippines to the U.S. as a war concession. If we had not had a presence there, and therefore not a concern of the Japanese, they would not have attacked us. Also, remember that Germany and later Italy declared war in the U.S. a few days after the Japs attacked us (arguably the dumbest thing Hitler did militarily during the entire war). Again, if there had been a separate U.S. and C.S., would either North or South been involved in a second European war? It is a possibility that there may not have even been a second European war if there had been a divided U.S. and C.S. before WWI - if the first war had ended in a stalemate. WWII in Europe being a direct result of the outcome of WWI, enabling Hitler to come to power. Then would there have been the rise of Russia/Soviet Union? What about the exploration of space which was a direct result of the arms race and political competition between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. which former German scientists contributed greatly? If there had not been the Jewish Holocaust committed by the Nazis, would the nation of Israel now exist - this being a major factor in current Mid-East politics? The results of the political issue disputes of the U.S. in 1860 affected the history of the planet in unfathomable ways that no one can imagine then or now. I am a supporter of the principles of self government, state's rights, as the founders intended. No one knows for sure what will be the future ramifications of our actions. We can only do what we believe to be the right course of action under the current circumstances. We can legitimately play "woulda, coulda, shoulda" forever because no one has yet invented a crystal ball. All we know for sure is what did happen. Maybe it was good, maybe not, maybe somewhere in between. Hopefully, we can learn from the past if we look at it honestly, so we can make wise decisions for the future. We have no power to change the past, but we can learn from it. Ignoring certain truths because they do not fit your particular agenda is nothing but intellectually corrupt.
Well, if Emmett "Doc" Brown had actually existed and had actually built a DeLorean that could travel through the space/time continuum, he and Marty McFly could have traveled back in time and fixed things.
As Clarence showed George Bailey in "Its A Wonderful Life", changing history can result in unintended consequences that may not be favorable to your cause.
If the CSA had been successful, our lives today might be better, they might be worse, but they'd almost certainly be different.
That said, I still think that the Confederate Battle Flag should be allowed to fly in honor of all of the men would fought, but it should always fly at a lower height than the American Flag.
Hey SM/SH, since you have me on ignore, I'm surprised that you commented on my post.
And throughout the battle fields you could hear the Union soldiers screaming 'Lets go men, so we can free all those black slaves' as they charged 12 pounders.
Just as you could hear the CSA boys screaming 'They may take our lives, but they will never take our slaves'
That sounds about right.
Egad! Other than generally belittling that photo of actual combat veterans shaking hands over the stone wall where like 50 years before Pickett's Charge had ground to a bloody halt and foundered, have you been following this thread at all?
JoeBob, you've been doing pretty good so far, but I fear you're gonna come tumbling down in flames by telling us "..and the Jews were responsible, for all of it."
As for George Washington and the others, your attempts are pretty childish at best.
I'm not recalling that the question was aimed at you at all.
But re: Geo. Washington et al., what proportion of the population of the Thirteen American Colonies were law-abiding and loyal British Subjects when that revolution broke out?
...and what happened to these people during and after that war?
And not a single thing that is written in this thread is going change a single thing. Totally an academic exercise.
I disagree Jeff. History is being discuss.............pivotal American history..........along with our Constitution, our 16th President, and the motivations that led to the bloodiest domestic conflict in our young nation's history.
As Edmund Burke warns,"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
IMO this has been one of the better threads on the 'Fire in a while.
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me.
What's the matter? The Constitution got you by the tongue?
Naah, I was waiting for you to answer the question....
Do you wish that this nation had divided in 1861?
You avoided that question and countered with another to the effect of do I think the ends justified the means....
Well, I gotta say, having walked the fields and hillsides where the dead lay in windrows a century and a half ago, I wish that the South had not been collectively stupid enough to pour most all their economic eggs into that one evil and divisive basket. Heck, since EVERYONE was talking secession for decades prior to the actual war, I might also wish that the South woulda had the collective smarts to develop their own industrial centers.
But yeah, out of respect for all of those brave young men, in this case I gotta believe the end justified the means.
Anyhow, you forgot George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers....
Of course, I wish it had divided. I thought that was clear.
So, now, how does that matter constitutionally speaking?
As for George Washington and the others, your attempts are pretty childish at best. The right of revolution once the consent of the governed is withdrawn is the very basis of America. But then again, if you don't know that...
i think he answered you BW... do you feel ike the flag shouldnt fly on statehouse grounds at a confederate monument?
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me.
What's the matter? The Constitution got you by the tongue?
Naah, I was waiting for you to answer the question....
Do you wish that this nation had divided in 1861?
You avoided that question and countered with another to the effect of do I think the ends justified the means....
Well, I gotta say, having walked the fields and hillsides where the dead lay in windrows a century and a half ago, I wish that the South had not been collectively stupid enough to pour most all their economic eggs into that one evil and divisive basket. Heck, since EVERYONE was talking secession for decades prior to the actual war, I might also wish that the South woulda had the collective smarts to develop their own industrial centers.
But yeah, out of respect for all of those brave young men, in this case I gotta believe the end justified the means.
Ok, for a third time?
Do you wish the South had won?
Birdwatcher
You didn't answer Hillbillybears question you only posed another. You have no answer. You look like a liberal to me.
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me.
What's the matter? The Constitution got you by the tongue?
Naah, I was waiting for you to answer the question....
Do you wish that this nation had divided in 1861?
You avoided that question and countered with another to the effect of do I think the ends justified the means....
Well, I gotta say, having walked the fields and hillsides where the dead lay in windrows a century and a half ago, I wish that the South had not been collectively stupid enough to pour most all their economic eggs into that one evil and divisive basket. Heck, since EVERYONE was talking secession for decades prior to the actual war, I might also wish that the South woulda had the collective smarts to develop their own industrial centers.
But yeah, out of respect for all of those brave young men, in this case I gotta believe the end justified the means.
Ok, for a third time?
Do you wish the South had won?
Birdwatcher
You didn't answer Hillbillybears question you only posed another. You have no answer. You look like a liberal to me.
He is not a liberal. He is a great guy. He is an academic, but kinda feisty for an Irish guy.
What does that have to do with whether the flag in question represents slavery as opposed to warring against tyranny?
The question pertained directly to the issue of the motivation of the Confederate Soldier. My hypothesis is that in many if not most cases they had no real choice BUT to sign up, the Confederate South was notably intolerant of dissent, between that and slavery among the more UNFREE places in America...
Egad! look how the vote over Secession was handled in Virginia... I gotta say a genuine disappointment (from Wiki)....
Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451.
The referendum was a perfunctory endorsement of the Governor Letcher's decision to join the Confederacy and was not a free and fair election.
The Confederate Congress proclaimed Richmond to be new capital of the Confederacy and Confederate troops moved into northern Virginia before the referendum was held. The actual number of votes for or against secession are unknown since votes in many counties in northwestern and eastern Virginia (where most of Virginia's unionists lived) were "discarded or lost." Governor Letcher "estimated" the vote for these areas.
Many unionists feared retaliation if they voted against secession because it wasn't a secret ballot and Virginia's pro-confederate government would have a record of their votes. Unionists who did attempt to vote were threatened with violence and even death on some occasions.
What does that have to do with whether the flag in question represents slavery as opposed to warring against tyranny?
The question pertained directly to the issue of the motivation of the Confederate Soldier. My hypothesis is that in many if not most cases they had no real choice BUT to sign up, the Confederate South was notably intolerant of dissent, between that and slavery among the more UNFREE places in America...
Egad! look how the vote over Secession was handled in Virginia... I gotta say a genuine disappointment (from Wiki)....
Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451.
The referendum was a perfunctory endorsement of the Governor Letcher's decision to join the Confederacy and was not a free and fair election.
The Confederate Congress proclaimed Richmond to be new capital of the Confederacy and Confederate troops moved into northern Virginia before the referendum was held. The actual number of votes for or against secession are unknown since votes in many counties in northwestern and eastern Virginia (where most of Virginia's unionists lived) were "discarded or lost." Governor Letcher "estimated" the vote for these areas.
Many unionists feared retaliation if they voted against secession because it wasn't a secret ballot and Virginia's pro-confederate government would have a record of their votes. Unionists who did attempt to vote were threatened with violence and even death on some occasions.
I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me.
What's the matter? The Constitution got you by the tongue?
Naah, I was waiting for you to answer the question....
Do you wish that this nation had divided in 1861?
You avoided that question and countered with another to the effect of do I think the ends justified the means....
Well, I gotta say, having walked the fields and hillsides where the dead lay in windrows a century and a half ago, I wish that the South had not been collectively stupid enough to pour most all their economic eggs into that one evil and divisive basket. Heck, since EVERYONE was talking secession for decades prior to the actual war, I might also wish that the South woulda had the collective smarts to develop their own industrial centers.
But yeah, out of respect for all of those brave young men, in this case I gotta believe the end justified the means.
Ok, for a third time?
Do you wish the South had won?
Birdwatcher
You still, as I expected, dodged the question but I will humor you with an answer. There should have been no war. Nobody wins a civil war.
Had Lincoln restricted himself to his constitutional authority there would have been no war. But, much as Obama is currently doing, Lincoln did what was politically advantageous to him and his political backers/financiers and fellow political ideologues. Rule by fiat and dictate not rule by law and constitutional authority.
The Southern states willingly voted to join the Union and there is nothing within the Constitution that says they were not allowed to likewise vote willingly to leave the Union.
If they did so vote there was no provision to legally force the South to remain by armed invasion.
Since Lincoln chose to totally ignore the Constitution, the Southern states should have most definitely left the Union.
As to the development of an industrial base, the advancing industrial revolution would have forced the South to convert from manual labor to industrial production in order to survive.
Most likely by 1870-1875 economic realities would have addressed the slavery question. Unfortunately, Lincoln and his fellow radicals preferred to resort to force of arms.
Then the thirst for revenge during during the Reconstruction period just exacerbated the effects of a long bloody war and sowed the seeds that allowed the rise of Jim Crow.
i think he answered you BW... do you feel ike the flag shouldnt fly on statehouse grounds at a confederate monument?
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that people fly that grand old flag out of "racism". I think it is also ludicrous to suggest that flying that flag necessarily implies the owner wishes the South had actually won. That would be about like saying that everyone who wears a kilt and plays the pipes wishes the Celts still lived under the vicious and decidedly UNfree clan system.
OTOH I got a Black co-worker, a retired Military Officer, who says that the people who originally flew that flag enslaved his own ancestors and, more importantly, the ancestors of his children and grandchildren.
Hey, build a Confederate memorial on yer own property and fly what you want.
But on public property? A public referendum and vote is the only lawful way to settle it.
You and I would vote to keep the Stars and Bars in place, my friend would probably vote differently.
Should a free people have the right to peacefully separate from a government?
Indeed they should.
But, I'm still glad that the North won, and I would have fought on the Union side. Abolition alone would be a worthy cause worth dying for.
"But Lincoln weren't an Abolitionist." folks will doubtless chime in... hey, tell that to the South in 1860.... and he sure as heck became one as soon as he was realistically able.
Wikipedia says whatever those who contribute to it says.
It wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
Nor will Wikipedia hold up as source material in any university History Department that is worth a damn but I have seen lots of HS teachers that swear by wiki's.
I have failed more than one student who wrote a paper and cited Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says whatever those who contribute to it says.
It wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
Have you ever really wondered what them tiny little numbers are in Wiki articles?
Turns out they are called "citations", us teachers insist the kids include them all the time, especially when they didn't compose anything but instead just copied a body of pre-existing text entire.
The people who provided the original info are called the "Virginia Historical Society" (http://www.vahistorical.org/), they claim to be a credible source.
Might be infiltrated by Yankees by now though, who knows?
i think he answered you BW... do you feel ike the flag shouldnt fly on statehouse grounds at a confederate monument?
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that people fly that grand old flag out of "racism". I think it is also ludicrous to suggest that flying that flag necessarily implies the owner wishes the South had actually won. That would be about like saying that everyone who wears a kilt and plays the pipes wishes the Celts still lived under the vicious and decidedly UNfree clan system.
OTOH I got a Black co-worker, a retired Military Officer, who says that the people who originally flew that flag enslaved his own ancestors and, more importantly, the ancestors of his children and grandchildren.
Hey, build a Confederate memorial on yer own property and fly what you want.
But on public property? A public referendum and vote is the only lawful way to settle it.
You and I would vote to keep the Stars and Bars in place, my friend would probably vote differently.
Birdwatcher
thank you for your answer
so then after the genocide on the american indian, old glory might offend current indians because their ancestors were butchered at wounded knee, or marched on the trail of tears eradicated from their land with genocide coming for the next 55 years after...should old glory fly since it is offensive as well??
Wikipedia says whatever those who contribute to it says.
It wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
Have you ever really wondered what them tiny little numbers are in Wiki articles?
Turns out they are called "citations", us teachers insist the kids include them all the time, especially when they didn't compose anything but instead just copied a body of pre-existing text entire.
The people who provided the original info are called the "Virginia Historical Society" (http://www.vahistorical.org/), they claim to be a credible source.
Might be infiltrated by Yankees by now though, who knows?
Birdwatcher
Some of those citations you see on wiki are highly suspect too and why nobody who is in search of real source material puts much stock in them.
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." But that was Lincoln's 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, "My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of ... making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
You say, "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.
Why didn't Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
not exactly a glowing endoresement for civil rights here...it wouldve been interesting to see his resolution for the mess reconstruction was since he didnt want or think blacks should have equal rights
1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.
2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites. Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.
Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.
3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery. For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).
Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.
You can only have an honest intellectual discourse with an individual that is intellectually honest. Birdwatcher has proven himself otherwise.
Birdwatcher,
None of the Wikipedia links cite the Virginia Historical Society, and if you want to start quoting them as a source, it'd be best if you tried it when folks opposed to your BS don't have immediate family relatives that work there. However, whilst search (or citing) Richmond VA museums, perhaps you should take a look at the one in town there devoted to War of Northern Aggression history. Just a suggestion.
Oh, and since you haven't the intellectual fortitude to answer hillbillybear's question about Constitutional authority, I'll do it for you. Lincoln had not Constitutional authority to invade any state, nor press any state citizens into service, nor conscript new immigrants into service, not take/free lawfully owned private property without compensation, nor turn the guns of Fort McHenry against a peaceful civilian populace, nor arrest and replace the governance of Maryland, nor blockade Southern seaports in order to enforce any tariff.
My dear friend EvilTwin thinks highly of you. It appears even he can be mistaken as to the worth of an individual.
so then after the genocide on the american indian, old glory might offend current indians because their ancestors were butchered at wounded knee, or marched on the trail of tears eradicated from their land with genocide coming for the next 55 years after...should old glory fly since it is offensive as well??
You go first this time. what do you think?
Anyways, have you EVER been to Lakota Country? Or any powwow anywhere for that matter?
The FIRST thing they do is parade Old Glory, accompanied by an honor guard of Military veterans to the tune of an honoring song, drums, singers, the works
..and I'm still recalling the words of Sammy White Eyes, the late and much lamented and very popular Kiowa Master of Ceremonies, who was also a proud ex-Marine.
Shorty after 9/11 he spoke words at the United San Antonio Powwow to the effect that... many people say that we should not go to war, but the truth is these people have already declared war on us.
so then after the genocide on the american indian, old glory might offend current indians because their ancestors were butchered at wounded knee, or marched on the trail of tears eradicated from their land with genocide coming for the next 55 years after...should old glory fly since it is offensive as well??
You go first this time. what do you think?
Anyways, have you EVER been to Lakota Country? Or any powwow anywhere for that matter?
The FIRST thing they do is parade Old Glory, accompanied by an honor guard of Military veterans to the tune of an honoring song, drums, singers, the works
..and I'm still recalling the words of Sammy White Eyes, the late and much lamented and very popular Kiowa Master of Ceremonies, who was also a proud ex-Marine.
Shorty after 9/11 he spoke words at the United San Antonio Powwow to the effect that... many people say that we should not go to war, but the truth is these people have already declared war on us.
By "us" he meant his fellow Americans of course.
Birdwatcher
and i can find articles where blacks support the battle flag sooooo now what
so then after the genocide on the american indian, old glory might offend current indians because their ancestors were butchered at wounded knee, or marched on the trail of tears eradicated from their land with genocide coming for the next 55 years after...should old glory fly since it is offensive as well??
You go first this time. what do you think?
Anyways, have you EVER been to Lakota Country? Or any powwow anywhere for that matter?
The FIRST thing they do is parade Old Glory, accompanied by an honor guard of Military veterans to the tune of an honoring song, drums, singers, the works
..and I'm still recalling the words of Sammy White Eyes, the late and much lamented and very popular Kiowa Master of Ceremonies, who was also a proud ex-Marine.
Shorty after 9/11 he spoke words at the United San Antonio Powwow to the effect that... many people say that we should not go to war, but the truth is these people have already declared was on us.
By "us" he meant his fellow Americans of course.
Birdwatcher
Oh, how touching...
If he was black, he'd be called an Uncle Tom.
So, cozy right on up to a nation that eradicated up to 100 MILLION Native Americans, obliterated entire tribes, wiped from the face of the earth tens of thousands of years of history, and passed legislation relegating an entire race to subjugation (after breach of hundreds of treaties)...and all that's fine with the HS history "expert" because one Injun says "us" means Americans.
Yippee f'kin' skippee.
You know, I would bet the Brits had similar statements all lined up by Irishmen, too. Or, Indians...or Zulu...or Boers...
None of the Wikipedia links cite the Virginia Historical Society
?? Where do you think I got the URL?
[34] Virginia Historical Society
Quote
...if you want to start quoting them as a source, it'd be best if you tried it when folks opposed to your BS don't have immediate family relatives that work there.
You have access to THEM, egad man! get them to provide the relevant links, for and against.
Quote
You can only have an honest intellectual discourse with an individual that is intellectually honest. Birdwatcher has proven himself otherwise.
Where exactly?
Quote
Oh, and since you haven't the intellectual fortitude to answer hillbillybear's question about Constitutional authority, I'll do it for you.
Others already did.
Lincoln never acted alone, about a half million folks, not all in the North, supported what he did and were willing to die to preserve the Union. I woulda willingly fought on their side.
Quote
My dear friend EvilTwin thinks highly of you.
It means a lot to me to have the high regard of such men
Quote
It appears even he can be mistaken as to the worth of an individual.
You resorted early on in this thread to personal slander, in that case of my origins, as if that affected historical fact No worries, getting insulted is part of what I do for a living.
Best I can put it is this way....
If you were on fire I'd rush across all six lanes of a busy interstate AND vault the concrete wall in the middle to pee on you to put out the flames, because it would be the right thing to do.
Whether you would do the same for me, even across a narrow footpath, is totally irrelevant.
You acknowledged that a free people have the right to peacefully separate from a government, yet you state that you would fight against those free people if they attempted to separate from a government.
So, cozy right on up to a nation that eradicated up to 100 MILLION Native Americans, obliterated entire tribes, wiped from the face of the earth tens of thousands of years of history, and passed legislation relegating an entire race to subjugation (after breach of hundreds of treaties)...and all that's fine with the HS history "expert" because one Injun says "us" means Americans.
Yippee f'kin' skippee.
You know, I would bet the Brits had similar statements all lined up by Irishmen, too. Or, Indians...or Zulu...or Boers...
Two things....
1) Plainly ya ain't ever spent much time in Indian Country to post such gibberish and....
2) Mr. White Eyes was an individual held in high esteem by myself and very many others
None of the Wikipedia links cite the Virginia Historical Society
?? Where do you think I got the URL?
[34] Virginia Historical Society
Quote
...if you want to start quoting them as a source, it'd be best if you tried it when folks opposed to your BS don't have immediate family relatives that work there.
You have access to THEM, egad man! get them to provide the relevant links, for and against.
Quote
You can only have an honest intellectual discourse with an individual that is intellectually honest. Birdwatcher has proven himself otherwise.
Where exactly?
Quote
Oh, and since you haven't the intellectual fortitude to answer hillbillybear's question about Constitutional authority, I'll do it for you.
Others already did.
Lincoln never acted alone, about a half million folks, not all in the North, supported what he did and were willing to die to preserve the Union. I woulda willingly fought on their side.
Quote
My dear friend EvilTwin thinks highly of you.
It means a lot to me to have the high regard of such men
Quote
It appears even he can be mistaken as to the worth of an individual.
You resorted early on in this thread to personal slander, in that case of my origins, as if that affected historical fact No worries, getting insulted is part of what I do for a living.
Best I can put it is this way....
If you were on fire I'd rush across all six lanes of a busy interstate AND vault the concrete wall in the middle to pee on you to put out the flames, because it would be the right thing to do.
Whether you would do the same for me, even across a narrow footpath, is totally irrelevant.
Birdwatcher
I know you both personally and have no doubt that the two of you would pee on each other, and laugh about the fact that neither of you could piss very high.
Anyways, have you EVER been to Lakota Country? Or any powwow anywhere for that matter?
The FIRST thing they do is parade Old Glory, accompanied by an honor guard of Military veterans to the tune of an honoring song, drums, singers, the works
..and I'm still recalling the words of Sammy White Eyes, the late and much lamented and very popular Kiowa Master of Ceremonies, who was also a proud ex-Marine.
Shorty after 9/11 he spoke words at the United San Antonio Powwow to the effect that... many people say that we should not go to war, but the truth is these people have already declared war on us.
By "us" he meant his fellow Americans of course.
Birdwatcher
I have only been closely associated with one reservation. The Confederated Tribes Of Warm Springs open EVERY ceremony, even the by invitation only ceremonies I attended, with the parade of the US stars and stripes. They are extremely proud of their Veterans.
You acknowledged that a free people have the right to peacefully separate from a government, yet you state that you would fight against those free people if they attempted to separate from a government.
What do you have against freedom?
IMHO the best hope for freedom has been an intact United States of America (I'm sure you disagree).
and...
These people actually drew up a Constitution specifically designed to hold more than three million people in chains, not merely stealing their lifelong freedom and the fruits of their labor, but also their rights to association, marriage and even the custody of their own children. Goes without saying too that the women and girls (and heck, prob'ly boys to in some cases) in many cases were subject to actual or defacto rape at the whim or not of their captors (AKA "owners").
Slavery was an abomination and a curse, once it was a given that the shooting had commenced, that alone would be reason enough for taking up a gun on the Union side. I damn sure could never fire a shot in defense of the Confederate Constitution.
..and if all that ain't enough, chattel slavery was the absolute antipathy to Libertarianism
JoeBob, you've been doing pretty good so far, but I fear you're gonna come tumbling down in flames by telling us "..and the Jews were responsible, for all of it."
So, now you resort to character assassination by accusing me of being anti-Semitic?
Of course, during the Civil War a Jew wouldn't have been elected dog catcher in New England while a practicing Jew was secretary of state for the Confederacy. Judah P. Benjamin exiled himself to England after the war where he made a name for himself as one of the better legal minds in the entire country and had a fine career. We've always loved our Jews in the South. The local temple was always a fixture of genteel southern society.
You acknowledged that a free people have the right to peacefully separate from a government, yet you state that you would fight against those free people if they attempted to separate from a government.
What do you have against freedom?
IMHO the best hope for freedom has been an intact United States of America (I'm sure you disagree).
and...
These people actually drew up a Constitution specifically designed to hold more than three million people in chains, not merely stealing their lifelong freedom and the fruits of their labor, but also their rights to association, marriage and even the custody of their own children. Goes without saying too that the women and girls (and heck, prob'ly boys to in some cases) in many cases were subject to actual or defacto rape at the whim or not of their captors (AKA "owners").
Slavery was an abomination and a curse, once it was a given that the shooting had commenced, that alone would be reason enough for taking up a gun on the Union side. I damn sure could never fire a shot in defense of the Confederate Constitution.
..and if all that ain't enough, chattel slavery was the absolute antipathy to Libertarianism
Birdwatcher
So,...you would fight to keep everyone enslaved to the government in order to free a few people from being enslaved by others.
In fact, Lincoln didn't have the best interests of the black slave in mind. He only wanted control over the blacks so he could deport them out of the country.
His main objection to black slavery was that it kept blacks in the country.
So,...you would fight to keep everyone enslaved to the government in order to free a few people from being enslaved by others.
A patently absurd statement.
Quote
In fact, Lincoln didn't have the best wishes of the black slave in mind. He only wanted control over the blacks so he could deport them out of the country.
His main objection to black slaves was that it kept blacks in the country.
No, as he stated clearly, his main objection to slavery was that it threatened the continued existence of the Union. Heck even the Confederates agreed on that point, only that they FAVORED disunion.
What are we to understand by all this? We are to understand, among other things, that words, especially Lincoln's words, are deceiving and that Lincoln announced his first plan as a mask to cover his real plan and his real end. That at any rate is the testimony of another intimate Lincoln friend, Henry Clay Whitney. What was his real end? The Proclamation, Whitney said, was "not the end designed by him, but only the means to the end, the end being the deportation of the slaves and the payment for them to their masters—at least to those who were loyal" (323, italics in original).
There is corroboration on this point from, of all people, Abraham Lincoln, who asked Congress in his second State of the Union Message to approve not the Emancipation Proclamation but an entirely different plan, the real plan he had confided to Judge Davis, a plan that contradicted the Proclamation and called for, among other things, the deportation—his word—of Blacks and the racial cleansing of the United States of America (CW 5:518-37).
"If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost."
Nope, I understand the game well. Even asking a question like that is character assassination.
No game here.
...and what we assume about the motives of others might tell us much about our own... (no games here either, just an observation born of long experience)
More'n a few folks around here blame lots of bad things on the Semites, I would have been genuinely disappointed to number you in that group.
IMHO this has been a great series of exchanges, thanks.
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.
Yet, I would start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people. Forcibly drag people and states who wished nothing more than to be left alone back into the Union. Ruthlessly stifle dissent. Deport and arrest elected representatives. Order the arrest of the chief justice of the supreme court. And so on and so forth.
Yeah, he was Biblical alright. Ahab, comes to mind. Maybe, Herod.
Face it; Birdwatcher worships at the feet of a central gov't, with Lincoln as the Messiah of the same. It's nigh biblical in devotion, and self-blinded all the same.
Lincoln abrogated the Constitution in a manner even Birdwatcher admits, violated the premise of a free people breaking away from a government they no longer can tolerate, and yet, Birdwatcher considers the "great emancipator" as next to God Himself in greatness. All the while contradicting statements Birdwatcher himself has made about the sovereignty of the Constitution and the rights of people to self-govern.
I reiterate my opinion of him as to intellectual honesty.
Can you imagine what it must be like to have one of your children subjected to this schit and beholden to it in a public school?
Lincoln's entire career from his very first political speech revolved around instituting a national bank, a tariff system, and industrial subsidies. It was known as the American System.
Seriously, read up on it. It was his life's work. So, was he genuinely anti-slavery, or was he merely interested in breaking the South so that he could institute his system? His statements on blacks and his intention to deport them to the wilds of Africa seems to indicate that he wasn't altruistically interested in the welfare of the black man.
Lincoln's entire career from his very first political speech revolved around instituting a national bank, a tariff system, and a industrial subsidies. It was known as the American System.
Seriously, read up on it. It was his life's work. So, was he genuinely anti-slavery, or was he merely interested in breaking the South so that he could institute his system? His statements on blacks and his intention to deport them to the wilds of Africa seems to indicate that he wasn't altruistically interested in the welfare of the black man.
That won't be on the gov't mandated HS standards tests for brainwashing future generations, so why would a HS teacher who buys the gov't line of BS want to read such a thing? It might require actually critical thought...
There is corroboration on this point from, of all people, Abraham Lincoln, who asked Congress in his second State of the Union Message to approve not the Emancipation Proclamation but an entirely different plan, the real plan he had confided to Judge Davis, a plan that contradicted the Proclamation and called for, among other things, the deportation—his word—of Blacks and the racial cleansing of the United States of America
What! Lincoln used the term "racial cleansing of the United States of America"???
Heck, not only was he WAY ahead of his time in his terminology, he'd find a place among some right here at the 'Fire....
Meanwhile he was expressing a view common at the time in both the North and South and also held by a significant number of Black folk.
Google on "American Colonization Society 1816"....
and....
"Liberia, West Africa, 1847"...
Heck, I would just Wiki it but I'm afraid you've already burned yer own bridges in that regard
There is corroboration on this point from, of all people, Abraham Lincoln, who asked Congress in his second State of the Union Message to approve not the Emancipation Proclamation but an entirely different plan, the real plan he had confided to Judge Davis, a plan that contradicted the Proclamation and called for, among other things, the deportation—his word—of Blacks and the racial cleansing of the United States of America
What! Lincoln used the term "racial cleansing of the United States of America"???
Heck, not only was he WAY ahead of his time in his terminology, he'd find a place among some right here at the 'Fire....
Meanwhile he was expressing a view common at the time in both the North and South and also held by a significant number of Black folk.
Google on "American Colonization Society 1816"....
and....
Liberia, West Africa, 1847....
Heck, I would just Wiki it but I'm afraid you've already burned yer own bridges in that regard
Birdwatcher
So, your savior was flawed...go figure. Seems you're proving the oppositions point without even trying.
Congratulations. Now, perhaps you'll start learning along the way, though I doubt it.
That won't be on the gov't mandated HS standards tests for brainwashing future generations, so why would a HS teacher who buys the gov't line of BS want to read such a thing? It might require actually critical thought..
Kemosabe. Does it matter at all that I don't teach history?
That won't be on the gov't mandated HS standards tests for brainwashing future generations, so why would a HS teacher who buys the gov't line of BS want to read such a thing? It might require actually critical thought..
Kemosabe. Does it matter at all that I don't teach history?
Likely not any more to you as it does to the students.
Consider one of the people you're arguing with here (not me) has a fuggin' PhD in History, concentrating on this era and subject. Of course, I'm sure your biased, admittedly limited research on the matter is far more comprehensive and compelling. Not.
There is corroboration on this point from, of all people, Abraham Lincoln, who asked Congress in his second State of the Union Message to approve not the Emancipation Proclamation but an entirely different plan, the real plan he had confided to Judge Davis, a plan that contradicted the Proclamation and called for, among other things, the deportation—his word—of Blacks and the racial cleansing of the United States of America
What! Lincoln used the term "racial cleansing of the United States of America"???
Heck, not only was he WAY ahead of his time in his terminology, he'd find a place among some right here at the 'Fire....
Meanwhile he was expressing a view common at the time in both the North and South and also held by a significant number of Black folk.
Google on "American Colonization Society 1816"....
and....
"Liberia, West Africa, 1847"...
Heck, I would just Wiki it but I'm afraid you've already burned yer own bridges in that regard
Birdwatcher
So you were already aware of Lincoln's intentions to deport the blacks from America?
Lincoln's entire career from his very first political speech revolved around instituting a national bank, a tariff system, and industrial subsidies. It was known as the American System.
Seriously, read up on it.
I will, thanks, tho it would prob'ly be boring as all get out.
Quote
So, was he genuinely anti-slavery, or was he merely interested in breaking the South so that he could institute his system? His statements on blacks and his intention to deport them to the wilds of Africa seems to indicate t hat he wasn't altruistically interested in the welfare of the black man.
More'n a few people of all intentions had long believed Blacks and Whites could never coexist, so Lincoln's intended deportations don't tell us much.
Even if that had been his stated intention all along I'd STILL take up arms on the Union side. Chattel slavery alone was toxic, and poisoned all it touched.
Consider one of the people you're arguing with here (not me) has a fuggin' PhD in History, concentrating on this era and subject.
..and he'd prob'ly be the first to agree with me that anyone who actually brags on their own University degrees is necessarily an idiot
But I do appreciate his presence.
Quote
Of course, I'm sure your biased, admittedly limited research on the matter is far more comprehensive and compelling. Not.
Um.. this is more like being a musician going to jam on a Sunday afternoon out under the oak trees in back of the bar at Luckenbach.
Nobody could GAS how long you studied music, all that matters is how well you play.
Specific to the War Between the States there's some damned fine amateur Historians out there. Heck just go to any reenactment, the conversations to be had there rock
Lincoln's entire career from his very first political speech revolved around instituting a national bank, a tariff system, and industrial subsidies. It was known as the American System.
Seriously, read up on it.
I will, thanks, tho it would prob'ly be boring as all get out.
Quote
So, was he genuinely anti-slavery, or was he merely interested in breaking the South so that he could institute his system? His statements on blacks and his intention to deport them to the wilds of Africa seems to indicate t hat he wasn't altruistically interested in the welfare of the black man.
More'n a few people of all intentions had long believed Blacks and Whites could never coexist, so Lincoln's intended deportations don't tell us much.
Even if that had been his stated intention all along I'd STILL take up arms on the Union side. Chattel slavery alone was toxic, and poisoned all it touched.
Birdwatcher
A fool's errand. More slaves were imported to Brazil than the US. Slavery was even more entrenched there than in the US and conditions were far harsher. And slaves were imported there until 1856. Yet, by 1888 slavery was dead in Brazil where an ordered system of compensated emancipation was put into place.
There was no hugely bloody war. No history of recriminations and resentments. Today, Brazil is immensely racially integrated with there being few purely white or black persons in the whole country.
But, of course, that could have never happened here. But, then again, in 1800 slavery was legal in practically every country in the western world and hugely entrenched in all of the Americas. By 1900 is was legal practically nowhere in the western world and in only one country was a war "necessary" to accomplish that end.
More'n a few people of all intentions had long believed Blacks and Whites could never coexist, so Lincoln's intended deportations don't tell us much.
Well,...they tell us that he should have been known as "The Great Deporter" instead of "The Great Emancipator".
Lincoln, June 26, 1857.
I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation.
Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization.
So Brazil's society was just like ours? Based upon similar principles? Just when exactly did they start such widespread miscegenation between the races anyhow and when would that have happened here?
Specific to our own case, chattel slavery had divided this nation in two since its very inception and OF COURSE it was a rank violation of American principle (which is exactly why anyone who came out in favor of it today would be regarded as a moron at best).
Slavery very nearly destroyed this nation, and in your view actually DID destroy it.
Once secession came I would have taken up arms to defend the Union, and damned sure could have never defended the Confederate Constitution.
Lots of the Southerners here go on and on about how they are so different from "Yankees". I'd tell 'em this; go visit rural folks all over the North, and then tell me how different these Yankees are from themselves.
On my epic bike trip last summer I'd guess I saw about as many rebel flags up north as I did in the South.
The Scots-Irish South without slavery? Maybe about like Vermont or New Hampshire in character. Without slavery, there most likely never would have been a war to begin with.
As for George Washington and the others, your attempts are pretty childish at best.
I'm not recalling that the question was aimed at you at all.
But re: Geo. Washington et al., what proportion of the population of the Thirteen American Colonies were law-abiding and loyal British Subjects when that revolution broke out?
...and what happened to these people during and after that war?
Some of my ancestors, on my Father's side, were farmers on Long Island before the Revolution. As Crown Loyalists, they chose to remain English subjects, even though they had to pull up stakes and relocate to New Brunswick, rather than stay in New York as American citizens.
Lots of the Southerners here go on and on about how they are so different from "Yankees". I'd tell 'em this; go visit rural folks all over the North, and then tell me how different these Yankees are from themselves.
Those aren't Yankees. Yankees are and are the descendants of New England Congregationalists and they almost hailed from the east of England. The same groups fought a Civil War in England as well.
You should read a book or two. I recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" for starters. Another good would be "The Cousin's Wars".
Lots of the Southerners here go on and on about how they are so different from "Yankees". I'd tell 'em this; go visit rural folks all over the North, and then tell me how different these Yankees are from themselves.
Those aren't Yankees. Yankees are and are the descendants of New England Congregationalists and they almost hailed from the east of England. The same groups fought a Civil War in England as well.
You should read a book or two. I recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" for starters. Another good would be "The Cousin's Wars".
So you were already aware of Lincoln's intentions to deport the blacks from America?
LOTS of people felt that way, I'll bet I could even find actual Quakers in there somewhere.
Quote
Tell me again how "biblical" his words are.
OK, here ya go...
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."
Birdwatcher
The part about Lincoln getting blacks gone , Is true I mentioned that early in his thread . problem with this country is so many " smart" minds in law and government . and here you stupid SOB's can't get [bleep] together, so now phaggs can get married . ni##ers can rob, loot stores when black thug gets shot by LEO and it's all good WTF
Sorry it looks like BW has gone to sleep..... wanted to introduce a little Texas history ....I always thought that if you won the last battle, you won the war :):):) Attached a link to The Battle of Palmito Ranch, by the looks of it, Lincoln's boys should have just headed home instead of attacking those poor Texans !! Not much interest is given to this battle, and I thought it would be an interesting tidbit.
Have to also disagree with BW on this...... if he had been born in Texas before the CW, he would have fought for the South. Not a doubt in my mind.
Attached a link to The Battle of Palmito Ranch, by the looks of it, Lincoln's boys should have just headed
A GREAT read is the collected memoirs of the Commander of the Southern Forces (actually composed largely of Border Hispanics) in that fight; John Salmon RIP Ford;
As a Ranger Captain, RIP Ford likely saw more mounted combat against Comanches and Mexican bandits than any other White man who lived to tell about it
Quote
Have to also disagree with BW on this...... if he had been born in Texas before the CW, he would have fought for the South. Not a doubt in my mind.
What if I had come to Texas before the Texas Revolution at age nineteen from Tennessee? Had been one of the small minority of Texian men that actually rode out to fight Indians with a Ranging Company? How about if I had made a knife for Jim Bowie, fought against Mexico under Jim Bowie and Stephen F. Austin, and had met Davy Crockett?
Noah Smithwick did all that and more, and yet when war came he could not bring hisself to support a fight against the nation his own father had fought the British to create.
Knowing that as a pro-Union man he would be murdered if he stayed, he sold his two slaves, his smithy and his mill, pulled up and headed out for California. In the Southwest he met none other than Albert Sydney Johnson hurrying east...
It was so hot during the day that we had to keep up our night travels, during which every cactus was regarded with suspicion. Somewhere out in that desolate region we met A. Sidney Johnston and party hastening to join the Confederate army. Upon learning that we were from Texas he said with some asperity:
"I think you are doing very little for your country."
"Well," I retorted, "it seems to me you are doing equally as little for yours." Johnston had just resigned his position as commander of the Pacific Coast Division of the United States army.
Likely the two were old acquaintances, Johnson likewise had fought in the Texas Revolution twenty-five years earlier. They both knew Sam Houston personally.
I found a number of my old Mormon friends in California, and without an exception found them secessionists, not from any partiality for the Southern people, who were even more intolerant of Mormonism than the Northern people, nor yet because of any sympathy with the peculiar institutions of the South. They wanted to see the South succeed in its purpose to withdraw from the Union, thereby establishing a precedent - which Brigham Young would have made haste to follow.
Had there been no other reason for opposing secession, that dangerous precedent, which would have been a constant menace to the South as well as to the North, would have been sufficient ground.
I for one wish slavery had been outlawed when we won independence from Britain, but it wasn't.
In the late 20th century and now 21st century America the decedents of slaves have every opportunity and advantage in education and job preference. Very few capitalize on the opportunities they have.
If the men who actually fought to free them could look at the intercity today what would they think? Would they think it was all worth it?
Its now been 150 years and we are still dealing with the fallout of slavery and it can still sink us as a nation.
Lots of the Southerners here go on and on about how they are so different from "Yankees". I'd tell 'em this; go visit rural folks all over the North, and then tell me how different these Yankees are from themselves.
Those aren't Yankees. Yankees are and are the descendants of New England Congregationalists and they almost hailed from the east of England. The same groups fought a Civil War in England as well.
You should read a book or two. I recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" for starters. Another good would be "The Cousin's Wars".
Nope, we are a different people.
So New England Congregationalists were a majority of the population in the North in '61???
They answered Lincoln's call and did a majority of the fighting?
LINCOLN was a New England Congregationalist?
A while back I asked you why the South couldn't imagine themselves without slavery......
(I mean if our Constitution defines who we are, they wrote theirs ABOUT slavery).
You answered in effect "No, that weren't it, they had a different interpretation of what government was supposed to do and they opposed mercantilism."
Maybe the same reason that Lincoln did not mention freeing the slaves at the beginning. miles
Cogent to give here definition of mercantilism...
the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism.
Miles, in those very carefully deliberated and composed statements of reasons for secession all they woulda had to say is, "it ain't about slavery, its about tariffs and whatnot."
With hind site we can parse this a lot better than the ones living it at the time, but my thinking that the reason the South was giving slavery so much importance in the beginning was the fact that they wanted to make sure that the Status Quo was maintained. You have to remember that that that time Slavery was legal. Abolitionist were trying to end it but Lincoln was not. New States coming in that were not slave states, nor given the choice themselves was a danger in the power struggle as the South saw it. The was was about States Rights with Slavery being one of those rights, maybe the most important one, because New States were being denied the choice. The big plantation owners had the money and time to be involved in politics, so their ideas are the ones that were immortalized in history, but the poorer, common man that owned no slaves fought the war. This shows that important as it was, it was not all about slavery. At least to me. miles
I reiterate the point about intellectual honesty and having an honest intellectual conversation with someone who lacks said trait.
...and I still await an example of the same
Dude, its all still here, what are you referring to?
You. You haven't the intellectual honesty to admit that the ONLY sources you believe are the ones that support your erroneous position that the entire war was only all about slavery, especially in the face of facts to the contrary.
The hypocrisy of your position that a people ought to be able to break away from a government that no longer represents them and seek independence, whilst simultaneously supporting the unconstitutional actions of Lincoln to subjugate people and states that were seeking that freedom, is staggering.
With all the available info on this thread, I conclude that the indifference displayed by SOME of the southerners towards black folks was equaled or surpassed by SOME of the northerners when invading the south.
Shows that people are just people, I guess, and that politicians are, well, politicians.
But frankly, for anyone to express, multiple times, that they would have fought for the union to eradicate slavery, without acknowledging that not all the people being killed believed in the institution, nor that their respective reasons for fighting were anything other than a states rights issue, is very telling.
Maybe that's why the south is pigeon-holed as one big slave owning pit of Hellbent [bleep]. It makes the warmonging pallatable.
You haven't the intellectual honesty to admit that the ONLY sources you believe are the ones that support your erroneous position that the entire war was only all about slavery, especially in the face of facts to the contrary.
Nope, just going by what folks actually said at the time. A near-universal theme among folks from the South here is to MINIMIZE the role of slavery when in reality our entire friggin' nation had been wrestling with the issue ever since '76.
Quote
The hypocrisy of your position that a people ought to be able to break away from a government that no longer represents them and seek independence, whilst simultaneously supporting the unconstitutional actions of Lincoln to subjugate people and states that were seeking that freedom, is staggering.
Ya, buts the contradiction is acknowledged and openly stated, and said contradictions were certainly also obvious to those actually fighting and dying for the Union '61 to '65.
A LOT of good and intelligent men thought the Union was worth dying to preserve, including more'n a few Southerners.
JobBob would have us believe they were mostly dupes, useful idiots.
Nope, just going by what folks actually said at the time. A near-universal theme among folks from the South here is to MINIMIZE the role of slavery when in reality our entire friggin' nation had been wrestling with the issue ever since '76.
I suppose you have never read any of C. Van Woodward's work on the Civil War and the South have you? Particularly his chapter on the North and their war aims.
Of course he is not widely available on Wikipedia.
But frankly, for anyone to express, multiple times, that they would have fought for the union to eradicate slavery, without acknowledging that not all the people being killed believed in the institution, nor that their respective reasons for fighting were anything other than a states rights issue, is very telling.
"Twisting, miscasting, spinning".... How did you put it?
IIRC I think it was the excellent and worthy Irishman and Confederate General Patrick Cleburne who's family were actually abolistionists before the war, and I've already stated that General Lee hisself had freed his slaves.
As for the rest, I'm just going by what the Southerners involved at the time actually wrote.
I suppose you have never read any of C. Van Woodward's work on the civil war and the South have you? Particularly his chapter on the North and their war aims.
Of course he is not widely available on Wikipedia.
If I were you, I woulda just presented Mr. Van Woodward's interpretations and given an Amazon link.
You haven't the intellectual honesty to admit that the ONLY sources you believe are the ones that support your erroneous position that the entire war was only all about slavery, especially in the face of facts to the contrary.
Nope, just going by what folks actually said at the time. A near-universal theme among folks from the South here is to MINIMIZE the role of slavery when in reality our entire friggin' nation had been wrestling with the issue ever since '76.
Actually, the near-universal theme is to contradict the unadulterated "it was all only about slavery" lies that you and others gleefully espouse. Therein lies the rub.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
The hypocrisy of your position that a people ought to be able to break away from a government that no longer represents them and seek independence, whilst simultaneously supporting the unconstitutional actions of Lincoln to subjugate people and states that were seeking that freedom, is staggering.
Ya, buts the contradiction is acknowledged and openly stated, and said contradictions were certainly also obvious to those actually fighting and dying for the Union '61 to '65.
A LOT of good and intelligent men thought the Union was worth dying to preserve, including more'n a few Southerners.
A LOT of good intelligent men thought that freedom and self-determination, as well as defense of their homes and states against armed invasion, were worth fighting for as well; including more'n a few Yankees. You continually leave out that part because it doesn't support the propaganda lie you're pushing.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
JobBob would have us believe they were mostly dupes, useful idiots.
Birdwatcher
He has valid points that you refuse to consider or accept. Telling, actually.
Lots of the Southerners here go on and on about how they are so different from "Yankees". I'd tell 'em this; go visit rural folks all over the North, and then tell me how different these Yankees are from themselves.
Those aren't Yankees. Yankees are and are the descendants of New England Congregationalists and they almost hailed from the east of England. The same groups fought a Civil War in England as well.
You should read a book or two. I recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" for starters. Another good would be "The Cousin's Wars".
Nope, we are a different people.
So New England Congregationalists were a majority of the population in the North in '61???
They answered Lincoln's call and did a majority of the fighting?
LINCOLN was a New England Congregationalist?
A while back I asked you why the South couldn't imagine themselves without slavery......
(I mean if our Constitution defines who we are, they wrote theirs ABOUT slavery).
You answered in effect "No, that weren't it, they had a different interpretation of what government was supposed to do and they opposed mercantilism."
Why didn't THEY say that?
Birdwatcher
Since when do you have to be a majority to dominate public discourse? It would seem that we just changed our most basic institution and quite possibly the very fabric of our society for two percent of the population.
And, yes, Lincoln's ancestry was as Yankee as they come. He was descended from Samuel Lincoln who was born in Norfolk and a founding member of the Old Ship Church in New England.
They did say it OVER AND OVER. Like I said, just read Georgia's declaration of secession. They set he historical stage quite well.
But hey, you're not interested in actually learning anything other than what you think you know.
I suppose you have never read any of C. Van Woodward's work on the civil war and the South have you? Particularly his chapter on the North and their war aims.
Of course he is not widely available on Wikipedia.
If I were you, I woulda just presented Mr. Van Woodward's interpretations and given an Amazon link.
History actually ain't Rocket Science after all.
Bidwatcher
So, that's a half-assed way of saying that you haven't read it, correct? Go figure.
While secession to maintain/preserve "State's Rights" is a true/accurate reason, the primary "State's Right" that the states that seceded to form the CSA wanted to preserve was the institution of slavery. So it is a circular, "chicken/egg", argument, about which is the primary driver, "State's Rights" or "Slavery"? Without the preservation of "State's Rights", there wouldn't be any slavery. Without the desire to preserve slavery, there wouldn't be any reason to invoke "State's Rights" as the justification for secession.
From a socioeconomic perspective, the majority of people who serve in the military today, and who have served in the military throughout our history, have come from the middle and lower class, probably because we are more numerous, wealth distribution isn't a Bell Curve, and because the upper class can more easily afford to buy direct or indirect exemptions.
But frankly, for anyone to express, multiple times, that they would have fought for the union to eradicate slavery, without acknowledging that not all the people being killed believed in the institution, nor that their respective reasons for fighting were anything other than a states rights issue, is very telling.
"Twisting, miscasting, spinning".... How did you put it?
IIRC I think it was the excellent and worthy Irishman and Confederate General Patrick Cleburne who's family were actually abolistionists before the war, and I've already stated that General Lee hisself had freed his slaves.
As for the rest, I'm just going by what the Southerners involved at the time actually wrote.
Where have I deviated from that?
Birdwatcher
By refusing to acknowledge the rationale given, as written, by various states as to why they seceded; by failing to acknowledge the same as to why many of the leading generals joined the South; by failing to even look for words written by actual Southerners as to why they fought.
You look for only that which supports you position and refuse any other evidence; rather intellectually dishonest.
No reason to preserve state's rights? Have you kept up with the last 150 years since they were destroyed?
There would have been secession sooner or later with or without slavery. The federal government has done nothing but overreach since its inception and secession would have been tried for any number of reasons.
But frankly, for anyone to express, multiple times, that they would have fought for the union to eradicate slavery, without acknowledging that not all the people being killed believed in the institution, nor that their respective reasons for fighting were anything other than a states rights issue, is very telling.
"Twisting, miscasting, spinning".... How did you put it?
IIRC I think it was the excellent and worthy Irishman and Confederate General Patrick Cleburne who's family were actually abolistionists before the war, and I've already stated that General Lee hisself had freed his slaves.
As for the rest, I'm just going by what the Southerners involved at the time actually wrote.
Where have I deviated from that?
Birdwatcher
Because, sir, you sure make it sound that a select few pious folks freed their slaves, but everyone else is a reflection of the other literate slave holders you aspire to vanquish.
The twisting comment was taken from you, initially, and I think applies equally if not more to the information you use and promote.
Some literate smooth talkers may have said it was about slavery, and contrary to your premise that the 90% that didn't own slaves were afraid of free range negros, I believe the majority of the people that fought willingly did so because they just don't like to be governed oppressively, something you seem to be more than willing to be a party to.
Again back to the battle flag. The monuments,.....
Bw has some black friends offended by battle flag so it shouldnt be flown at a monument....sounds like orwell had a crystal ball
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984"
A LOT of good intelligent men thought that freedom and self-determination, as well as defense of their homes and states against armed invasion, were worth fighting for as well; including more'n a few Yankees. You continually leave out that part because it doesn't support the propaganda lie you're pushing.
I woulda thought the virtue of the men fighting and dying on both sides was self-evident, and have oft referred to the same in previous threads.
What I THINK is that it is a characteristic of Evil to pervert all it touches, slavery being a prime example. Pro-slavery folks in general, and the Southern leadership in particular, had to do moral handsprings in order to sleep at night.
The real tragedy is IMHO is that all those good and brave men in the South were fighting to defend a Constitution that was built upon African slavery.
Their vision of America was, at the time, obviously quite different than ours.
Quote
He has valid points that you refuse to consider or accept. Telling, actually.
Not at all, questioning is not "refusing to accept", thus far he has defended his interpretations quite well.
Gee, I missed that Birdy had referred to Patrick Cleburne and referred to him as excellent, here are some quotes from that fine man:
I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a negro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of the government...We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be let alone.
my favorite and Birdy is a living example of it:
"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
There you go Birdy, words from a prominent Confederate denying that slavery was the sole issue for the war.
I suppose you have never read any of C. Van Woodward's work on the civil war and the South have you? Particularly his chapter on the North and their war aims.
Of course he is not widely available on Wikipedia.
If I were you, I woulda just presented Mr. Van Woodward's interpretations and given an Amazon link.
History actually ain't Rocket Science after all.
Bidwatcher
About what I expected from you. Were you a real professional scholar and historical researcher you wouldn't need a link to Woodward. You would have his volumes readily at hand on your book shelf.
A LOT of good intelligent men thought that freedom and self-determination, as well as defense of their homes and states against armed invasion, were worth fighting for as well; including more'n a few Yankees. You continually leave out that part because it doesn't support the propaganda lie you're pushing.
I woulda thought the virtue of the men fighting and dying on both sides was self-evident, and have oft referred to the same in previous threads.
What I THINK is that it is a characteristic of Evil to pervert all it touches, slavery being a prime example. Pro-slavery folks in general, and the Southern leadership in particular, had to do moral handsprings in order to sleep at night.
The real tragedy is IMHO is that all those good and brave men in the South were fighting to defend a Constitution that was built upon African slavery.
Their vision of America was, at the time, obviously quite different than ours.
Quote
He has valid points that you refuse to consider or accept. Telling, actually.
Not at all, questioning is not "refusing to accept", thus far he has defended his interpretations quite well.
Birdwatcher
So, you question the morality of any Southern leaders, but have no problems with Grant owning slaves or Sherman wanting to commit genocide against a civilian population.
Quite telling.
Marx, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would be proud. Hell, given that Marx was a BFF and pen pal of your messianic Lincoln, perhaps that is truly appropriate.
There would have been secession sooner or later with or without slavery. The federal government has done nothing but overreach since its inception and secession would have been tried for any number of reasons.
What were the prevalent Southern views on the Whiskey Rebellion?
Quote
Since when do you have to be a majority to dominate public discourse? It would seem that we just changed our most basic institution and quite possibly the very fabric of our society for two percent of the population.
This would be true if those fighting and dying to preserve the Union did not actually believe in what they were fighting for.
You have stated these men were "dupes" and "useful idiots". I submit that description might better apply to the Confederate soldier, who among other things was fighting to preserve the slave-holding rights of a small but wealthy fraction of Southern society.
I will clarify here that you yourself introduced those terms to describe the 500,000 plus that fought for the Union, I myself have too much respect for the brave men on both sides to describe them in anything like those terms.
Quote
And, yes, Lincoln's ancestry was as Yankee as they come. He was descended from Samuel Lincoln who was born in Norfolk and a founding member of the Old Ship Church in New England.
Interesting, thanks.
Quote
They did say it OVER AND OVER. Like I said, just read Georgia's declaration of secession. They set he historical stage quite well.
???
I'm wondering why you picked GEORGIA to make this point.
When they all sat down to declare for posterity WHY they were leaving they opened with this....
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
OF COURSE all the Confedrate States also mentioned taxes, tariffs and whatnot, their OWN FATHERS ANd GRANDFATHERS had fought a war to establish the United States of America over those very issues
Quote
But hey, you're not interested in actually learning anything other than what you think you know.
Sir, all I have asked you to do is defend your views.
Be careful before you point a finger, when you do theirs always three more of your own pointing back at you.
No reason to preserve state's rights? Have you kept up with the last 150 years since they were destroyed?
There would have been secession sooner or later with or without slavery. The federal government has done nothing but overreach since its inception and secession would have been tried for any number of reasons.
There hasn't been any serious drive for secession other than in support of slavery during all of U.S. history.
I'm wondering why you picked GEORGIA to make this point.
You don't even bother to read the posts in the thread. I already posted in this thread a lengthy excerpt from Georgia's declaration of secession in which they explained that in their view, sectionalism revolved around northern financial interest who had hijacked and supported the abolitionist movement in order to weaken the south and render it powerless so that they could then centralize government and instituted a mercantilist system.
So, you question the morality of any Southern leaders, but have no problems with Grant owning slaves or Sherman wanting to commit genocide against a civilian population.
*SIGH*... where did I defend Grant's wife Julia owning slaves....
About what I expected from you. Were you a real professional scholar and historical researcher you wouldn't need a link to Woodward. You would have his volumes readily at hand on your book shelf.
No reason to preserve state's rights? Have you kept up with the last 150 years since they were destroyed?
There would have been secession sooner or later with or without slavery. The federal government has done nothing but overreach since its inception and secession would have been tried for any number of reasons.
There hasn't been any serious drive for secession other than in support of slavery during all of U.S. history.
Well, of course, there hasn't been a serious drive for secession since 1865. Duh...people don't want to be invaded, raped, maimed, and pillaged by federal troops.
But, still you are wrong. There was a serious drive for secession in New England that culminated in a convention where their grievances were discussed and secession was narrowly avoided. Andrew Jackson's victory at New Orleans nipped it in the bud by ending the War of 1812, their opposition to that being their most immediate reason for wanting secession.
About what I expected from you. Were you a real professional scholar and historical researcher you wouldn't need a link to Woodward. You would have his volumes readily at hand on your book shelf.
Do you have a PhD in "snide." ?
Just advanced degrees and actual research and university level teaching experience in History.
"The real tragedy is IMHO is that all those good and brave men in the South were fighting to defend a Constitution that was built upon African slavery."
Dammit, Mike.......... The guys fighting on the Southern sides are just like the guys that have done the fighting in ALL Civil Wars. They joined the battle to protect "hearth and home" and then fought for the guy standing beside them.
Abstract ideas, such as "saving the Union", or "States rights" have no place on a battlefield, so your comment about " defending a constitution" is ludicrous.
So, you question the morality of any Southern leaders, but have no problems with Grant owning slaves or Sherman wanting to commit genocide against a civilian population.
*SIGH*... where did I defend Grant's wife Julia owning slaves....
"The real tragedy is IMHO is that all those good and brave men in the South were fighting to defend a Constitution that was built upon African slavery."
Dammit, Mike.......... The guys fighting on the Southern sides are just like the guys that have done the fighting in ALL Civil Wars. They joined the battle to protect "hearth and home" and then fought for the guy standing beside them.
Abstract ideas, such as "saving the Union", or "States rights" have no place on a battlefield, so your comment about " defending a constitution" is ludicrous.
Take it back.
Can't be; Birdwatcher has told us time and again that it was all only about slavery and any other points or evidence is disregarded out of hand.
The Orwellian level of the propaganda he spouts is very high. Ol' George was a prophet, not a novelist.
Frankly, a little more acknowledgement that men would actually take up arms in defense of their own freedom rather than a majority view a slavery or fear of free range negroes would have shortened the thread a lot and been more productive in gaining perspective on current events.
If Sherman was a War Criminal for his March to the Sea, so was Nathan Bedford Forrest for his role in the Fort Pillow massacre. Neither man was ever held accountable for his actions by his peers, who given their access to first-hand testimony, would have been in a better position to judge them than any of us who are so far removed from the situation.
Frankly, a little more acknowledgement that men would actually take up arms in defense of their own freedom rather than a majority view a slavery or fear of free range negroes would have shortened the thread a lot and been more productive in gaining perspective on current events.
That's counter to the .gov propaganda machine, RWE. What the Hell do you expect a public HS (damn, does that start meaning horseschit more every day) teacher to support?
Can't be; Birdwatcher has told us time and again that it was all only about slavery...
???
Where did I do that?
I have stated truthfully that...
1) The Southern Constitution, their very self-declared identity as a people, was specifically written to enshrine and perpetuate slavery.
and....
2) In all five cases where the leaders of a Confederate State actually sat down and enumerated causes for posterity, slavery was listed front and center.
There was a serious drive for secession in New England that culminated in a convention where their grievances were discussed and secession was narrowly avoided.
Thanks for yet more info...
..but you must be aware that "almost" doesn't count, 'cept in horseshoes.
There you go Birdy, words from a prominent Confederate denying that slavery was the sole issue for the war.
That Sir, is a brilliant post
We should all bookmark it.
...and thank you for increasing my knowledge of this man, so sadly wasted at Franklin.
Birdwatcher
You'll also note from the quote that it was a reference to a common sentiment OF THE TIME. Even then, Confederates were responding to the charge that it was all about slavery and denying it.
Really, it boggles the mind. You made mention of some traitorous scum in Texas who abandoned his friends and neighbors and left them to the scourges of the Yankee invaders because he could not bear to fight against the country his father fought for in the American Revolution.
Well, if you want a list of prominent Confederates who had fathers, grandfathers, and uncles who were prominent men in the Revolution the list would surely run into the high dozens. If you include common men, it would be in the tens of thousands. So these men with DIRECT familial connection to the Revolution and an understanding of its principles learned not from books, but from words of their fathers and grandfathers at the fireside, chose to fight for the Confederacy as their fathers had fought for the colonies before them. Do you accuse them of being illiterate? Do you accuse them of abandoning their much beloved country for insufficient reason? Do you accuse them of betraying their fathers and grandfathers? Or does it make more sense that they believed, as it was in their understanding, that their fundamental rights and liberties were at stake and that steeped in the spirit of their revolutionary fathers, they chose to fight for them rather than see them lost without a whimper?
There was a serious drive for secession in New England that culminated in a convention where their grievances were discussed and secession was narrowly avoided.
Thanks for yet more info...
..but you must be aware that "almost" doesn't count, 'cept in horseshoes.
How are even engaged in these discussions if you didn't know that? The Hartford Convention is basic American history.
Can't be; Birdwatcher has told us time and again that it was all only about slavery...
???
Where did I do that?
I have stated truthfully that...
1) The Southern Constitution, their very self-declared identity as a people, was specifically written to enshrine and perpetuate slavery.
and....
2) In all five cases where the leaders of a Confederate State actually sat down and enumerated causes for posterity, slavery was listed front and center.
Birdwatcher
Even if this BS is accepted at face value, so what? You've already acknowledged that a people should be free to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled slavery legal less than a decade prior. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it prevent a state or states from seceding. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the POTUS the authority to do what Lincoln did against the South.
Thus, you have a free people declaring independence from a gov't that no longer represents them and giving their legal, Constitutional rationale for the same. Conversely, you have a federal government listing its unconstitutional, illegal rationale for preventing said independence; and not once listing slavery as the reason behind the invasion.
Therefore, you're continually supporting an illegal, unconstitutional subjugation of an otherwise Constitutionally permitted secession based upon a revisionist agenda and rationale. Basically, you're contradicting that which you say a free people can and should be able to do because you "feel" that one of their rationales for such action is immoral.
That's a damned slippery, and damned dangerous slope you've put yourself on. Be prepared to slide down it to your own demise whenever the gov't decides that it "feels" some of your freedoms are immoral.
If Sherman was a War Criminal for his March to the Sea, so was Nathan Bedford Forrest for his role in the Fort Pillow massacre. Neither man was ever held accountable for his actions by his peers, who given their access to first-hand testimony, would have been in a better position to judge them than any of us who are so far removed from the situation.
sherman did it to civilians, stole their livelihood or leveled it, burned it, pillaged families, old people, etc... was fort pillow not strictly a military engagement? Severe yes, but NBF didnt go out and kill yankee families
Frankly, a little more acknowledgement that men would actually take up arms in defense of their own freedom rather than a majority view a slavery or fear of free range negroes would have shortened the thread a lot and been more productive in gaining perspective on current events.
THIS. Very good, sir. States' Rights and freedom. Was slavery a component? I think so and an important one too, but frankly I believe it was also a culture war of sorts against the Southern way of life of less government control and freedom. Lincoln was a hypocrite, but sadly as many of you have posted, what they teach in our schools is written by the victors and if you ask the majority of ALL Americans, they all parrot "slavery" as the root cause of the war, which is of course patently false. It was and remains a national tragedy, but it speaks volumes as to the righteousness of the Southern cause that even after 150 years, their real causes have not been forgotten and my hope is that it never will.
And for what is worth, my dad (still around at 93 and a Civil War expert in his own right) always instilled in me the Southern cause was a just and honorable one, whilst acknowledging slavery was equally wrong, and had Lincoln's actions (fueled also by the Money in the North) been more tempered, slavery would have eventually been abolished without the need for that war. Curdog, like your post as well sir. Edited to add: I have learned a lot here as well.
Really, it boggles the mind. You made mention of some traitorous scum in Texas who abandoned his friends and neighbors and left them to the scourges of the Yankee invaders because he could not bear to fight against the country his father fought for in the American Revolution.
Smithwick requires no defense from me, disappointing though and very telling that you would actually describe the man as "traitorous scum", about like your dismissal of all those fine Union men as "useful idiots".
Quote
...who abandoned his friends and neighbors and left them to the scourges of the Yankee invaders because he could not bear to fight against the country his father fought for in the American Revolution.
Smithwick left because he was sure he would be murdered simply for being pro-Union.
As events turned out he was exactly right, several of his friends WERE murdered, lingering anger over the same being his own stated reason why he never returned to Texas.
Quote
Do you accuse them of being illiterate?
Far from it, I have been insisting all along their very literacy meant they MUST have known the causes they were fighting for also included front and center a Constitution based upon the perpetuation of slavery.
Quote
if you want a list of prominent Confederates who had fathers, grandfathers, and uncles who were prominent men in the Revolution the list would surely run into the high dozens. If you include common men, it would be in the tens of thousands. So these men with DIRECT familial connection to the Revolution and an understanding of its principles learned not from books, but from words of their fathers and grandfathers at the fireside, chose to fight for the Confederacy as their fathers had fought for the colonies before them.
This is all very dramatic.
OK, its a given that the Union side contained a larger proportion of recent immigrants....
...but, were there not also "tens of thousands" of Union men, children and grandchildren of Rev War vets who, like Smithwick, took the Union side?
Of course these would be the guys you have dismissed as "dupes" and "useful idiots"....
NO SO FAST BW, trying to pawn it off on Grant's wife...
Julia Dent Grant came from a slave-owning family and was an apologist for slavery throughout her life and the Civil War. The Grants owned slaves that came from Julia's father and Grant himself was responsible for supervising them. These slaves were not freed until 1865 when Missouri officially abolished slavery.
Grant actually owned one slave himself as well: Grant himself owned a slave named William Jones, acquired from his father-in-law. At a time when he could have desperately used the money from the sale of Jones, Grant signed a document that gave him his freedom. Grant freed this slave in 1859.
Robert E. Lee came from a slave-owning family, but upon his father-in-law's death, all those slaves were freed (this was 1862 before the Emancipation Proclamation). In a letter to President Pierce, Lee wrote that "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
So what is comes down to is the Grant family owned slaves longer than the Lee as the slaves in question were from Julia's family, not Grant's personal slaves.That being said, of course, in that day and age, that meant Grant was in control of them. It is interesting to see that both of these men - the two opposing Civil War generals - were slave owners at one point or another in their lives.
I have learned alot from all sides here and in doing more research.... battle flag will fly on my property and my kids will know it isnt racist
NO SO FAST BW, trying to pawn it off on Grant's wife...
Thank you for this info.
I had not known that Grant had previously freed his own slave despite a strong economic incentive to sell the man. I suspect that, as seemingly often happened among slave-holding families, Grant had developed a strong personal regard for the man, almost equivalent to family.
As for the rest about Julia's slaves.... Egad man! Have you never been married?....
Smithwick requires no defense from me, disappointing though and very telling that you would actually describe the man as "traitorous scum", about like your dismissal of all those fine Union men as "useful idiots".
A man who abandons his friends and neighbors in time of need, well, there isn't really too much that can be said about him nicely.
How are even engaged in these discussions if you didn't know that? The Hartford Convention is basic American history.
My takeaway from it is Secession didn't happen, ergo undermining your position that secession would have been inevitable even without slavery.
Will you deny that the Confederate Constitution was profoundly different from the original?
And my position is that it almost happened without slavery as an issue supporting my position that it most certainly would have happened at some point without slavery.
Yes, the Confederate Constitution was BETTER than our Constitution and attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses of the original that had become apparent by 1861.
But regardless of what it was or wasn't, it was the lawful, democratic expression of a free people who desired nothing more than to live under a government of their choosing.
I'm late to the party and probably way under gunned to wade into this, but what the Hell.
It would seem to me that all the efforts made to show slavery as a primary cause for the secession of the CSA should be moot due to the fact that at the time of secession, slavery was still legal and was in fact, still in practice in various parts of the world.
I'm not as knowledgeable as many here on this thread about the full reasoning behind the secession of the CSA. Being born in the North, I'm not steeped in the history like many of of my Southern brothers likely are/were. I simply learned what was fed to me during my education, which was thankfully started long enough ago to have escaped the last 3 decades of revisionism and still contain some truths. With an open mind and a pair of willing ears, I've added a bit more knowledge over time.
Again, slavery was legal at the time. Was it immoral? Yes, but since it was legal, I have no problem with it being included in the list of freedoms that the South was trying to preserve.
As to the issue of States' Rights, what we're seeing happen in our Federal courts is a result of the loss of States' Rights and being ruled by a more local government.
edit to add-
After re-reading my post, I realize that as usual, I failed to make my point, which is-
When slavery is pointed to as one of the reasons behind the South's secession, it's meant to be looked at as a smear. Something ugly to make the South appear to be on the wrong side of things. My take is that since it was legal at the time and in fact, common throughout the world, it's moot point and simply an attempt at smearing the South by looking at it with modern emotions that are often confused with reason.
Again back to the battle flag. The monuments,.....
Bw has some black friends offended by battle flag so it shouldnt be flown at a monument....sounds like orwell had a crystal ball
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984"
My First National is supposed to arrive today. Have never flown any Confederate flag before, but since a certain faction of our country has made this an issue, I will fly it till the day I die.
My family has shed blood in every War this nation has ever had, to provide me with the many rights I hold today, and now I feel as though all they fought for is coming under attack bit by bit.
It's a shame our teachers don't have the balls to teach the entire truth about the Civil War, Reconstruction and Gov Davis' Black Police force here in Texas. If you teach our children only partial truths they have lost their heritage.
Again back to the battle flag. The monuments,.....
Bw has some black friends offended by battle flag so it shouldnt be flown at a monument....sounds like orwell had a crystal ball
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984"
WOW! He nailed it..........66yrs ago.
SAKO, if you are the sort of man who knowingly and unapologetically repeats a lie, there is really nothing I can do for you.
Sako and 222Rem, my Black friend is a retired Military Noncom, I dunno how long he served exactly but obviously long enough for a comfortable retirement income.
At present he is employed by choice as an JROTC instructor at a large, lower-income urban high school, instilling values of honor, love of country and integrity into youth who sorely need such a role model. They love him, he loves them, over the years he has turned several lives around.
His position on the flag, as stated to me is, that flag flew over the enslaved ancestors of his wife, children and grandchildren. While he doesn't believe it is synonymous with hate, neither does he want it flown in state-supported locations.
You can ridicule his position if ya want, but I doubt you'd be crass enough to do it to his face.
My own position on the flag, as previously stated, was that re: flying it in public places it oughta be put to a vote, I would vote for it, my friend would probably vote against it, majority wins.
SAKO, if you are the sort of man who knowingly and unapologetically repeats a lie, there is really nothing I can do for you.
Sako and 222Rem, my Black friend is a retired Military Noncom, I dunno how long he served exactly but obviously long enough for a comfortable retirement income.
At present he is employed by choice as an JROTC instructor at a large, lower-income urban high school, instilling values of honor, love of country and integrity into youth who sorely need such a role model. They love him, he loves them, over the years he has turned several lives around.
His position on the flag, as stated to me is, that flag flew over the enslaved ancestors of his wife, children and grandchildren. While he doesn't believe it is synonymous with hate, neither does he want it flown in state-supported locations.
You can ridicule his position if ya want, but I doubt you'd be crass enough to do it to his face.
My own position on the flag, as previously stated, was that re: flying it in public places it oughta be put to a vote, I would vote for it, my friend would probably vote against it, majority wins.
Birdwatcher
Fortunately for all of us we do not live in a democracy
Smithwick requires no defense from me, disappointing though and very telling that you would actually describe the man as "traitorous scum", about like your dismissal of all those fine Union men as "useful idiots".
A man who abandons his friends and neighbors in time of need, well, there isn't really too much that can be said about him nicely.
Ya know, its a popular fallacy that, when Santa Anna invaded Texas in '36, that all the Texians here rallied to fight him. Most actually avoided combat, a thing noted with complaint by those Americans pouring in to fight, and who would actually end up doing most of it.
Smithwick was one of a small minority of Texians that repeatedly ran towards the sound of gunfire. He was involved under Bowie in driving the Mexicans out of San Antone in December of '35, and would very probably have fallen at the Alamo except for a bout of malaria that had him laid up in Bastrop. He did go on to serve as a Texian scout at the time of San Jacinto.
If few Texians actually fought, even less ever joined a Ranging Company. The reasons for that were simple: Loss of one's horse, one's rifle and all one's gear at any given point were probable (a ruinous expense), and one ranger estimated the death rate in this service during those early years ran about 50% per annum.
Smithwick voluntarily served in Ranging Companies several times, at one point pursuing a party of Comanche horse thieves for more than two weeks deep into Comancheria.
When the Comanches requested an agent to live among them, Smithwick was about the only man in his already-select company who dared. During his six months with the Comanches he was marked for death and very nearly killed by a vengeful party of Wacos, and saved when his Comanche hosts communicated to the Wacos that they would have to kill them first.
Besides his considerable military exploits Smithwick likely made the first rifled gun made in Texas, and very possibly made the knife Jim Bowie was carrying during the siege of the Alamo.
He was one of the founders of Weber's Prairie, south of Bastrop, and built the first mill in the area of Marble Falls.
Highly respected in the State, and personally aquainted through his prior service with most of the State's leaders, he even ran for public office in an attempt to stave of secession.
When secession, and his own murder, became inevitable, he sold his possessions and formed a company of like-minded folk, urging all he could to join him. While he believed the South would lose, before the outbreak of hostilities no one had any idea as to the coming scale or duration of that violence, and indeed Texas escaped most of that, being so far West.
Most all of the violence against non-combatant civilians here was perpretrated by Confederate sympathisers.
There is no evidence Smithwick ever took military action against the Confederacy, he did stay out of the state thereafter so as to avoid righteous violence against those who had murdered his friends.
In view of all that, and considering your graceless comments here, it seems a certainty that you are a much lesser man than Smithwick ever was.
Yes, the Confederate Constitution was BETTER than our Constitution and attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses of the original that had become apparent by 1861.
But regardless of what it was or wasn't, it was the lawful, democratic expression of a free people who desired nothing more than to live under a government of their choosing.
We both agree that our Constitution is the very distilled essence of who we are as a people, under God. This is exactly why all of our service members, new citizens, and government hires are sworn to uphold and defend it.
You say the Confederates were a free people. I say the Confederates were a people determined to permanently enslave more than 3.5 million men, women and children living in their midst.
You say Lincoln "wiped his ass" with the US Constitution. I say what the Confederates did to it was possibly worse. They perverted it.
They wrote into it several modifications designed specifically to permanently codify, expand and protect the enslavement of these 3.5 million people for perpetuity.
Words mean things, and THAT how the Confederates defined themselves, and what they swore to uphold.
You avoid the logical progression argument. Lincoln had NO authority to do any of what he did. The Southern states did. Totalitarianism vs freedom, and you choose the former in spite of your own words.
Can't be; Birdwatcher has told us time and again that it was all only about slavery...
???
Where did I do that?
I have stated truthfully that...
1) The Southern Constitution, their very self-declared identity as a people, was specifically written to enshrine and perpetuate slavery.
and....
2) In all five cases where the leaders of a Confederate State actually sat down and enumerated causes for posterity, slavery was listed front and center.
Birdwatcher
Even if this BS is accepted at face value, so what? You've already acknowledged that a people should be free to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled slavery legal less than a decade prior. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it prevent a state or states from seceding. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the POTUS the authority to do what Lincoln did against the South.
Thus, you have a free people declaring independence from a gov't that no longer represents them and giving their legal, Constitutional rationale for the same. Conversely, you have a federal government listing its unconstitutional, illegal rationale for preventing said independence; and not once listing slavery as the reason behind the invasion.
Therefore, you're continually supporting an illegal, unconstitutional subjugation of an otherwise Constitutionally permitted secession based upon a revisionist agenda and rationale. Basically, you're contradicting that which you say a free people can and should be able to do because you "feel" that one of their rationales for such action is immoral.
That's a damned slippery, and damned dangerous slope you've put yourself on. Be prepared to slide down it to your own demise whenever the gov't decides that it "feels" some of your freedoms are immoral.
His position on the flag, as stated to me is, that flag flew over the enslaved ancestors of his wife, children and grandchildren. While he doesn't believe it is synonymous with hate, neither does he want it flown in state-supported locations.
You can ridicule his position if ya want, but I doubt you'd be crass enough to do it to his face.
And what is his position on the Stars and Stripes, that flew over his wife's ancestors for a much longer time? miles
It wasn't in regard to things no longer being here; it was in regard to what you accuse Sako of doing - I.e., the same thing you repeatedly do.
Sako posted for purposes of ridicule, without retraction, that my opinion was that the flag should come down lest it offend people or some such. Whereas I had specifically stated in response to a question that while it didn't offend me, and in private you could do what you like, in public places it should be put to a vote.
OK, now give me an incidence of me posting a deliberate falsehood, or ANY falsehood, ever, on these boards.
His position on the flag, as stated to me is, that flag flew over the enslaved ancestors of his wife, children and grandchildren. While he doesn't believe it is synonymous with hate, neither does he want it flown in state-supported locations.
You can ridicule his position if ya want, but I doubt you'd be crass enough to do it to his face.
And what is his position on the Stars and Stripes, that flew over his wife's ancestors for a much longer time? miles
Don't make sense, miles. It upsets the propaganda machine of Birdwatcher, Obama, and Soros.
It wasn't in regard to things no longer being here; it was in regard to what you accuse Sako of doing - I.e., the same thing you repeatedly do.
Sako posted for purposes of ridicule, without retraction, that my opinion was that the flag should come down lest it offend people or some such. Whereas I had specifically stated in response to a question that while it didn't offend me, and in private you could do what you like, in public places it should be put to a vote.
OK, now give me an incidence of me posting a deliberate falsehood, or ANY falsehood, ever, on these boards.
Birdwatcher
That the War of Northern Aggression was based purely on slavery and all Confederates fought the war for slavery, whilst all Yankees fought to oppose the same.
"Therefore, you're continually supporting an illegal, unconstitutional subjugation of an otherwise Constitutionally permitted secession based upon a revisionist agenda and rationale. Basically, you're contradicting that which you say a free people can and should be able to do because you "feel" that one of their rationales for such action is immoral."
Mike...... this seems to be a correct summation of your position.
That the War of Northern Aggression was based purely on slavery and all Confederates fought the war for slavery, whilst all Yankees fought to oppose the same.
Any SANE, FAIR and well-informed individual would recognize this as a FALSEHOOD!
Lincoln's action (and many that followed, incidentally, the ONLY president to suspend the Constitution (Habeas Corpus) was illegal, whilst the South's was entirely within the scope of the Constitution. But it would be dishonest of me not to admit I'm glad the United States, at least until recently, became the nation it did.
"His position on the flag, as stated to me is, that flag flew over the enslaved ancestors of his wife, children and grandchildren. While he doesn't believe it is synonymous with hate, neither does he want it flown in state-supported locations.
You can ridicule his position if ya want, but I doubt you'd be crass enough to do it to his face."
If your friend complained to me about the Confederate flag on public property, I WOULD be crass enough to tell him that I'm offended by driving on streets in our Texas towns named for a rabble-rousing, adulterous, sham of a christian preacher, but I accept it as blackmail paid by others, not me.
"Therefore, you're continually supporting an illegal, unconstitutional subjugation of an otherwise Constitutionally permitted secession based upon a revisionist agenda and rationale. Basically, you're contradicting that which you say a free people can and should be able to do because you "feel" that one of their rationales for such action is immoral."
Mike...... this seems to be a correct summation of your position.
I concur, but I believe the North was right and I ever fired a shot in support of that abominable Confederate Constitution I'd hang my head in shame.
But hey, my number one voting issue is Pro-Life too.
Gene, I think that you summed it up nicely. I know that you like Mike, and so do I, but I was raised in Arkansas and the schools were still teaching things a little different when I attended. Plus a lot of the old timers remembered a lot of stuff that they saw and was told by people that lived it. Story about a man that lived close to where I now live, and that is buried in the same cemetery that I will be buried, about a former Yank Soldier that stopped by his place years after the war. He would not give the former soldier a drink of water, but would water his horse. Told the former soldier to get his water out of the ditch. Very few slaves around where I live, but quit a few on the other side of White River where the soil was better for cotton. Of course my ancestors moved here from Mississippi after the war. miles
Let's watch Birdwatcher as he once again avoid the logical argument about his fundamentally flawed position.
Hmm.... What was that about intellectual honesty?
Originally Posted by 4ager
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
Can't be; Birdwatcher has told us time and again that it was all only about slavery...
???
Where did I do that?
I have stated truthfully that...
1) The Southern Constitution, their very self-declared identity as a people, was specifically written to enshrine and perpetuate slavery.
and....
2) In all five cases where the leaders of a Confederate State actually sat down and enumerated causes for posterity, slavery was listed front and center.
Birdwatcher
Even if this BS is accepted at face value, so what? You've already acknowledged that a people should be free to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled slavery legal less than a decade prior. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it prevent a state or states from seceding. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the POTUS the authority to do what Lincoln did against the South.
Thus, you have a free people declaring independence from a gov't that no longer represents them and giving their legal, Constitutional rationale for the same. Conversely, you have a federal government listing its unconstitutional, illegal rationale for preventing said independence; and not once listing slavery as the reason behind the invasion.
Therefore, you're continually supporting an illegal, unconstitutional subjugation of an otherwise Constitutionally permitted secession based upon a revisionist agenda and rationale. Basically, you're contradicting that which you say a free people can and should be able to do because you "feel" that one of their rationales for such action is immoral.
That's a damned slippery, and damned dangerous slope you've put yourself on. Be prepared to slide down it to your own demise whenever the gov't decides that it "feels" some of your freedoms are immoral.
Gene, I think that you summed it up nicely. I know that you like Mike, and so do I, but I was raised in Arkansas and the schools were still teaching things a little different when I attended. Plus a lot of the old timers remembered a lot of stuff that they saw and was told by people that lived it. Story about a man that lived close to where I now live, and that is buried in the same cemetery that I will be buried, about a former Yank Soldier that stopped by his place years after the war. He would not give the former soldier a drink of water, but would water his horse. Told the former soldier to get his water out of the ditch. Very few slaves around where I live, but quit a few on the other side of White River where the soil was better for cotton. Of course my ancestors moved here from Mississippi after the war. miles
Mike's only avoided that logical argument three times now; why expect him to change and recognize that his position is logically indefensible?
If your friend complained to me about the Confederate flag on public property, I WOULD be crass enough to tell him that I'm offended by driving on streets in our Texas towns named for a rabble-rousing, adulterous, sham of a christian preacher, but I accept it as blackmail paid by others, not me.
There's more'n a few Black Christian career military around here. Like most vets, most of the ones I've met lean Conservative, including the outspoken Minister of a major local church.
So dunno how he feels about Martin Luther King street, or Cesar Chavez Boulevard for that matter.
Anyways, what does that have to do with the flag issue?
If your friend complained to me about the Confederate flag on public property, I WOULD be crass enough to tell him that I'm offended by driving on streets in our Texas towns named for a rabble-rousing, adulterous, sham of a christian preacher, but I accept it as blackmail paid by others, not me.
There's more'n a few Black Christian career military around here. Like most vets, most of the ones I've met lean Conservative, including the outspoken Minister of a major local church.
So dunno how he feels about Martin Luther King street, or Cesar Chavez Boulevard for that matter.
Anyways, what does that have to do with the flag issue?
Birdwatcher
It's "offensive to some", ergo it's analogous.
You continue to hide from the logical dismemberment of your position.
et's watch Birdwatcher as he once again avoid the logical argument about his fundamentally flawed position.
Hmm.... What was that about intellectual honesty?
I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not freely admit the logical inconsistencies in my position, but I have done so freely, since early on in this thread.
If the South had written into their Constitution several Articles that condoned and enabled child abuse, what would your own position be then?
et's watch Birdwatcher as he once again avoid the logical argument about his fundamentally flawed position.
Hmm.... What was that about intellectual honesty?
I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not freely admit the logical inconsistencies in my position, but I have done so freely, since early on in this thread.
If the South had written into their Constitution several Articles that condoned and enabled child abuse, what would your own position be then?
Give me a straight answer.
BTW - your hypothesis is complete horseschit, but I'm learning to not expect much else from you.
My position on what the Southern states did is well stated. You aren't intellectually, or at this point morally, honest enough to address them on point.
Miles, of course Mike is a good friend... I won't argue with a man I don't like.
As far as the Civil War..... this country where I was born, raised, and still live was THE FRONTIER at the time it took place.
So, with the Union soldiers leaving the forts and going back East, the folks around here had their hands full with the Indians.
There wasn't much Confederate/Union talk when I was a kid, but there was plenty of Yankee hatred because of the Republican Reconstruction years.
It's doubtful that the flag in question was ever carried anywhere around here, but it still is revered because of opposition to a common foe...... Washington, D C.
Again back to the battle flag. The monuments,.....
Bw has some black friends offended by battle flag so it shouldnt be flown at a monument....sounds like orwell had a crystal ball
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984"
WOW! He nailed it..........66yrs ago.
SAKO, if you are the sort of man who knowingly and unapologetically repeats a lie, there is really nothing I can do for you.
Sako and 222Rem, my Black friend is a retired Military Noncom, I dunno how long he served exactly but obviously long enough for a comfortable retirement income.
At present he is employed by choice as an JROTC instructor at a large, lower-income urban high school, instilling values of honor, love of country and integrity into youth who sorely need such a role model. They love him, he loves them, over the years he has turned several lives around.
His position on the flag, as stated to me is, that flag flew over the enslaved ancestors of his wife, children and grandchildren. While he doesn't believe it is synonymous with hate, neither does he want it flown in state-supported locations.
You can ridicule his position if ya want, but I doubt you'd be crass enough to do it to his face.
considering you know nothing about me, im not sure youre qualified to judge what i would/would not do. Either way, it makes no difference to me if he served Or not, it doesnt make his opinion more valid or mine less.im sorry if i misrepresented your prior comments. My point is some people will be offended at some things no matter what. He was never a slave and neither was his mother. He never knew any of the relatives that,were slaves either. what does he think about this pic, the klan at its peak in the early 1900s waved old glory exclusively. Does he care?
Flying a flag at a confederate monument to me you cant have one without the other, take one then take both, and im sure youre friend woukd be ok with that...
Sorry your friend was no robert e lee, NBF, stonewall jackson, etc...those monuments need to stay
There is no evidence Smithwick ever took military action against the Confederacy, he did stay out of the state thereafter so as to avoid righteous violence against those who had murdered his friends.
More likely, he knew what his former neighbors and friends would think of his actions and that they had long memories.
There wasn't much Reconstruction in Texas. Most Freedman's Bureau agents were killed or run off, so there wouldn't have been anyone to protect him from the righteous anger of his betrayed countrymen.
Miles, the guy was career military, and now teaches those same values to high school kids.
What do you suppose his position was?
I figure that He is proud as hell of Old Glory, but that just shows that it is not about the flag flying over slave states. They want to undo or rewrite history and it can't be done successfully. They (blacks) as a whole want to be mad over things that did not happen to them, at people that had nothing to do with it. Now I do not think that slavery was right, but it was the law of the land at the time. Not only here but in lots of other places. They also want us to be ashamed of our heritage, but I will not now nor ever be. miles
If the South had written into their Constitution several Articles that condoned and enabled child abuse, what would your own position be then?
Not addressed at me but I would have condemned it. But it is an apples/oranges question. One was legal, the other not so much, even though it happened a lot. miles
If the South had written into their Constitution several Articles that condoned and enabled child abuse, what would your own position be then?
Give me a straight answer.
Of nigra youfs? To teach them manners and knock out their fondness to be shifless and lazy. Hell yeah! Spare the rod and spoil the nigra... Plenty of evidence of that up here North thanks to the South for sending them to us - NOT
BTW - your hypothesis is complete horseschit, but I'm learning to not expect much else from you.
My position on what the Southern states did is well stated. You aren't intellectually, or at this point morally, honest enough to address them on point.
Speaking of logical inconsistencies....
We have already established that the major State's Right the collective South was concerned about was their freedom to practice African slavery.
So much so they wrote and and adopted perverted (in the non-sexual sense) version of the US Constitution specifically to perpetuate it.
Estimates of the enslaved population of the South in 1860 run as high as 4 million. Let us assume two million children.
Most of these children, in part through the various slave codes, were systematically denied even the most rudimentary education.
All of these children were subject to permanent separation from their mothers and sale to strangers at the whim or financial needs of their masters. This also applies to their fathers too but the role of the father was necessarily limited among slaves beginning with the fact that he was powerless to provide any real authority or protection to his family, neither could he prevent sexual access of his wife or daughter by the Master or a family member of the same. No slave "marriage" had any legal standing.
No enslaved woman or girl, since their bodies were the legal possession of their masters, had any real say in whom they could be coerced into sexual relations with. OF COURSE sexual abuse and rape was not uncommon. At least a few cases of the homosexual rape of boys were likewise reported.
No enslaved woman or girl had any real choice with respect to the number of children she could be forced to bear. After the importation of slaves became illegal, slaves became increasingly expensive and the pressure put upon slave women to bear more children increased.
And I haven't even gotten into the horrors of a lifetime of forcible confinement and stolen labor.
People are gonna say this is not what the South was about. Well it was for one out of every three Southerners in 1860. And the South's own Constitution of 1861 confirms that yep, indeed this WAS what the South was about.
To any American living today the Antebellum South would seem absolutely frickin' unreal.
4ager, despite your obvious reasons for not answering, there is no way in Hell that you or anyone else here could see their way through to defending that.
What does the Klan have to do with the War of Secession?
Actually I'm disappointed that you haven't taken the time to open that guy's book you mentioned and list his main points cogent to this thread.
I think the most likely reason is that the guy didn't actually write the specific points you had in mind. This is a common problem for those who have read very many books.
In the meantime, how does repetitive snideness elevate you personally?
"We have already established that the major State's Right the collective South was concerned about was their freedom to practice African slavery."
No, Mike. What we have established is that the "collective South" had as its vast majority persons that owned no slaves.
The North made slavery an issue because of the new states being admitted. They couldn't allow the new states the freedom to choose something that ALL the existing states had.
That the War of Northern Aggression was based purely on slavery and all Confederates fought the war for slavery, whilst all Yankees fought to oppose the same.
Speaking of falsehoods...
OK, now where did I say these things?
50 pages here is a lot already, so I can save you the time and tell you you won't find it anywhere.
No, Mike. What we have established is that the "collective South" had as its vast majority persons that owned no slaves.
...who accepted and defended a Constitution specifically designed to perpetuate slavery, and all five States where the reasons for secession were formally listed, slavery was front and center.
The other thing is.... every Southerner's nightmare was the prospect of a slave insurrection, especially in those areas (and even whole states) where slaves actually outnumbered free folk.
Nearly as worrisome to everyone, whether they had slaves or not, was the prospect of four million slaves set free by abolition. And they were right, popular revulsion against slavery in the Free States was such that it is possible abolition might have been eventually imposed on the South as the slave-free territories became new states..
Quote
....something that ALL the existing states had.
Are you seriously suggesting that slavery was still legal in all 50 States in 1860?
If so, all our politicians back then had sure wasted a lot of time over the previous 70 years or so painstakingly crafting precarious compromises. And the Supremes coulda just punted on that whole Dredd Scott thing.
If the South had written into their Constitution several Articles that condoned and enabled child abuse, what would your own position be then?
Not addressed at me but I would have condemned it. But it is an apples/oranges question. One was legal, the other not so much, even though it happened a lot. miles
Miles, the body of a slave was also the legal possession of the Master. Slave Codes and laws varied, in at least one state a White guy who raped or otherwise had sex with another man's slave could be charged with something akin to trespassing. If a pregnancy resulted some potential for useful work during the pregnancy would be lost, but this would be offset by the fact that the economically valuable child would also be the property of the Master.
One half of all Southerners in 1860 were either slaves themselves or members of slaveholding families. These elite families shaped the mores and political stance of the South, which reflected their common concerns. Foremost among these were controlling slaves and assuring an adequate supply of slave labor....
The rural nature of antebellum slavery had unintended negative effects on the Southern economy. The investment of so much capital in land and slaves discouraged the growth of cities and diverted funds from factories. This meant that the South lacked the industrial base it needed to counter the North when the Civil War began. Indeed, in 1860, the South had approximately the same number of industrial workers (110,000), as the North had industrial plants.
Other detrimental effects arose from the South's devotion to rural slavery. Wealthy planters liked to claim they were living out the Jeffersonian ideal of an agrarian democracy. In truth, the South was agrarian because slave owners found that the best way to maintain their wealth and contain their slaves.
Moreover, its "democracy" was very limited because the planters had enormous influence over how white yeomen cast their votes. Except in remote areas of the South with few slaves or plantations, it was the needs and beliefs of the planter class that shaped Southern politics on the local, state, and national levels.
The consequences of this planter dominance was seen in many aspects of the society. The South failed to develop a varied economy even within the agricultural realm. All the most fertile land in the South was owned by slaveholders who chose to grow high-profit staple crops--cotton, tobacco, sugar. That left only marginal land for the vast majority of white farmers.
This problem was compounded by the dominance of the planters image as the social ideal. Alternative means of advancement were unavailable, so yeomen farmers aspired to become planters themselves. They used some of their land to grow food for their family's consumption and devoted the rest to cash crops like cotton. Their hope was to produce enough to save, buy a few slaves, produce yet more, and, ultimately, accumulate the wealth that would elevate them to planter status. For most, this was a futile dream, but they remained committed to it, thereby neglecting other possible avenues for economic advancement.
One reason for the yeomen farmers lack of aspirations was ignorance. The antebellum South neglected to provide for the education of its people. Planters controlled the governmental revenues that could have financed public education, but they saw no need to do so. Their slaves were forbidden to learn; their own children were educated by private tutors or in exclusive and expensive private academies.
As a result, most white yeomen were left without access to education. A few lucky ones near towns or cities could sometimes send their children to fee schools or charity schools, but many were too poor or too proud to use either option.
In a similar vein, the dominating slaveholding class saw no need to create the means to produce inexpensive consumer goods for ordinary whites or to build an infrastructure by which such goods could be moved from production sites to markets in the countryside. Wealthy planters acquired what they wanted by importing expensive European or Northern goods. Thus poor whites were left to their own minimal resources and were deprived of goods they might have bought, had they been available.
This lack of consumer production and markets also retarded the growth of Southern transportation. Highways, canals, and railroads were constructed to move crops to ports and bring in luxury items for the planter class. The need of yeomen farmers to transport their crops to local markets was ignored. As a consequence, it was usually cheaper for plantation owners to import food from the North or upper South than to purchase it from white farmers in the same region. This deficiency in the Southern transportation system proved a serious liability for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Slavery in the antebellum South, then, made a minority of white Southerners--owners of large slaveholdings--enormously wealthy. At the same time, it demeaned and exploited Southerners of African descent, left the majority of white Southerners impoverished and uneducated, and retarded the overall economic, cultural, and social growth of the region.
We have already established that the major State's Right the collective South was concerned about was their freedom to practice African slavery.
So much so they wrote and and adopted perverted (in the non-sexual sense) version of the US Constitution specifically to perpetuate it.
See, this is why 4ager heckles you and your intellectual honesty.
You have established it, in your mind, not we.
Basing your epiphany on a few people who were in a position to craft a few documents, (that were not destroyed, revised, or otherwise perverted) and that had a concern about slavery, is a little presumptuous.
By your reasoning, you support Obama dealing with Iran, welfare, non criminality for looting, illegal immigration, reduced sentences for drug dealers, and increased taxes etc because the USA supports it, because politicians have wrote and and adopted perverted laws specifically to perpetuate it.
And maybe not all people do, but you are in the majority of people that do, I'm sure...
What does the Klan have to do with the War of Secession?
Actually I'm disappointed that you haven't taken the time to open that guy's book you mentioned and list his main points cogent to this thread.
I think the most likely reason is that the guy didn't actually write the specific points you had in mind. This is a common problem for those who have read very many books.
In the meantime, how does repetitive snideness elevate you personally?
Birdwatcher
I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like.
I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you.
You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis.
You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current mewlings of the education "professionals" and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens.
What does the Klan have to do with the War of Secession?
Actually I'm disappointed that you haven't taken the time to open that guy's book you mentioned and list his main points cogent to this thread.
I think the most likely reason is that the guy didn't actually write the specific points you had in mind. This is a common problem for those who have read very many books.
In the meantime, how does repetitive snideness elevate you personally?
Birdwatcher
I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like.
I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you.
You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis.
You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current dictates of the education "professionals" and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens.
People are gonna say this [slavery] is not what the South was about. Well it was for one out of every three Southerners in 1860. And the South's own Constitution of 1861 confirms that yep, indeed this WAS what the South was about.
you state that only 1 in 3 southerners in 1860 thought it was about slavery, so that means it was all about slavery?
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children" and "rich people were/are evil".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical", that such actions are driven by "evil rich people", and that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children" and "rich people are evil".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because of "evil rich people" and because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect the children from the evil rich.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save the world's children from the evil rich?
The Federal gov't invaded, waged total war against, and subjugated them, too... "for the children". Therefore, under Birdwatcher "logic", it was completely permissible and in fact the "morally right thing to do".
The preamble to Delaware’s Act of 1767 conveys one prevalent view: “[I]t is found by experience, that freed [N]egroes and mulattoes are idle and slothful, and often prove burdensome to the neighborhood wherein they live, and are of evil examples to slaves.”
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children" and "rich people were/are evil".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical", that such actions are driven by "evil rich people", and that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children" and "rich people are evil".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because of "evil rich people" and because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect the children from the evil rich.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save the world's children from the evil rich?
The Federal gov't invaded, waged total war against, and subjugated them, too... "for the children". Therefore, under Birdwatcher "logic", it was completely permissible and in fact the "morally right thing to do".
The sooner we dive into Mexico to straighten them out, the better.
Better just make that all of Latin America; but we should demand that Texas raise three regiments to invade Mexico first and then we can go through Mexico to all those other countries run by evil rich men in order to save the children.
Basing your epiphany on a few people who were in a position to craft a few documents, (that were not destroyed, revised, or otherwise perverted) and that had a concern about slavery, is a little presumptuous.
Here's the rub. Those "few people" were their elected leaders, who had held a lock grip on Southern policy and politics since before the original Revolution, and in terms of their Constitution defined who they collectively were to a degree far in excess of anything imposed by Presidential decree today.
Quote
By your reasoning, you support Obama dealing with Iran, welfare, non criminality for looting, illegal immigration, reduced sentences for drug dealers, and increased taxes etc because the USA supports it, because politicians have wrote and and adopted perverted laws specifically to perpetuate it.
If Obama and his clique had written all these things into the very Constitution I was called upon to defend, you might have a point.
A lot of Birdwatcher's disconnect with the rest of us on this thread is due to "research". A vantage point decades away from the time certain events occurred lends itself to a lot of fanciful "filling in the gaps".
For instance; In the mid 'nineties,I read a very thoughtful piece describing life in the 'fifties, a span of only forty years. As a youth coming of age in the time period described, I wouldn't have recognized where I was.
One big reason was that the devastating drought we were experiencing here in Texas dominated our collective thoughts and affected everything we did.
The academics who were setting down our history for posterity were immune from its effects and dismissed it with a paragraph or two.
It is presumptuous in the extreme to judge historical figures by the standards in vogue at any particular later time.
And it is egotistical beyond belief to think we would have reacted differently from the ordinary persons living in those times.
Some things , however, transcend time.
Invade my homeplace and I'll damn sure repel you with arms.
And...... if your invasion is successful, I'll expect my decedents to hate you in perpetuity.
It is presumptuous in the extreme to judge historical figures by the standards in vogue at any particular later time.
Spot on. Judging past events/times from the current modern perspective without consideration of the then existing conditions is the fatal flaw that keeps people from ever understanding History and learning from it.
Basing your epiphany on a few people who were in a position to craft a few documents, (that were not destroyed, revised, or otherwise perverted) and that had a concern about slavery, is a little presumptuous.
Here's the rub. Those "few people" were their elected leaders, who had held a lock grip on Southern policy and politics since before the original Revolution, and in terms of their Constitution defined who they collectively were to a degree far in excess of anything imposed by Presidential decree today.
Right, the elected leaders. Always representative of their electorate. Check.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
By your reasoning, you support Obama dealing with Iran, welfare, non criminality for looting, illegal immigration, reduced sentences for drug dealers, and increased taxes etc because the USA supports it, because politicians have wrote and and adopted perverted laws specifically to perpetuate it.
If Obama and his clique had written all these things into the very Constitution I was called upon to defend, you might have a point.
Birdwatcher
So what was exactly written in the US Constitution which allowed Lincoln to invade the south among other things?
The justification for the invasion of the south was spun with no less subterfuge than Øbama and his ilk spin the current state of affairs.
Sorry BW, but the slavery issue, like so many others, should have been dealt with in a societal arena not by force or legislature.
You agreeing with the actions of Lincoln certainly don't make both of you right. In fact, your willingness to superimpose yourself in that fight, given just the info you provide, is down right stupid.
Basing your epiphany on a few people who were in a position to craft a few documents, (that were not destroyed, revised, or otherwise perverted) and that had a concern about slavery, is a little presumptuous.
Here's the rub. Those "few people" were their elected leaders, who had held a lock grip on Southern policy and politics since before the original Revolution, and in terms of their Constitution defined who they collectively were to a degree far in excess of anything imposed by Presidential decree today.
Quote
By your reasoning, you support Obama dealing with Iran, welfare, non criminality for looting, illegal immigration, reduced sentences for drug dealers, and increased taxes etc because the USA supports it, because politicians have wrote and and adopted perverted laws specifically to perpetuate it.
If Obama and his clique had written all these things into the very Constitution I was called upon to defend, you might have a point.
Birdwatcher
You aren't advocating for the defense of the Constitution. You're advocating for the invasion of a sovereign, independent nation.
I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like.
You claim to have all this knowledge, yet you're not willing to contribute anything substantive here beyond a couple of WIKI link????
People, including me, have actually been learning things on this thread. YOu coulda blown this thread out of the water with new info.
Quote
I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you.
My main three voting issues are in order 1) Pro-Life 2) Gun Rights and finally 3) The Environment (no, I don't think Global Warming is necessarily man-made).
I do wish all them mewling education "professionals" were just like me
Quote
You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis.
?? How long have you been reading my posts on these boards??
I figure my own contributions here have been to get people to at least acknowledge the sheer size of the slave establishment and its profound effect on National and Southern politics and events.
For example: How many posters here do you suppose had ever read the Southern Constitution?
Actually the other big one IMHO was the uncovering of those "Declarations of Causes"... Why they secceeded in the words of the actual Southerners themselves, you may have no idea how much these revelatory documents are ignored in debates on this topic.
Taken as a whole, the Antebellum South didn't look much like what we would call American today.
Quote
You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current mewlings of the education "professionals"
The Indians had it exactly right; the worth of a man is not what he owns, but what he has done :cool
Sir, I am exceedingly proud of what I do. I teach in a big urban high school with all of is attendant problems. One of them places where most folks wouldn't go, or live. I do both.
I doubt that your own places of employment or residence are located in such a setting.
In actually do this in part because it has been the closest thing I can get to the Frontier. I'm going into my twenty-seventh year, same school. Prior to that I spent three years in a remote African village, same motivation, living at close to an 1860's technology level.
See, most EVERYBODY, possibly including yourself, runs from these places, and yet b&tch about them endlessly. I do not, because of my emotional drive I guess *shrug*
All of these claims I can back up, in spades
When I leave here, my two proudest possessions will be my thirty-year pin (I don't think I'll be able to make forty) and the written testimonials of former students.
Quote
...and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens.
The irony is that best describes the OTHER posters here.
My main three voting issues are in order 1) Pro-Life 2) Gun Rights and finally 3) The Environment (no, I don't think Global Warming is necessarily man-made).
Birdwatcher
Those, and especially 2), are going to butt up rather harshly against the "for the children" and "rich people are evil" positions you harbor, though consistency has never been your strong suit.
Since the Feds have pushed gun control "for the children" and because firearms companies are run/owned by "evil rich people" who profit on "harm to children", you'd best lead by example and turn all your firearms in, else you'll be even further of a hypocrite to your own espoused beliefs.
I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like.
You claim to have all this knowledge, yet you're not willing to contribute anything substantive here beyond a couple of WIKI link????
People, including me, have actually been learning things on this thread. YOu coulda blown this thread out of the water with new info.
Quote
I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you.
My main three voting issues are in order 1) Pro-Life 2) Gun Rights and finally 3) The Environment (no, I don't think Global Warming is necessarily man-made).
I do wish all them mewling education "professionals" were just like me
You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis.
?? How long have you been reading my posts on these boards??
I figure my own contributions here have been to get people to at least acknowledge the sheer size of the slave establishment and its profound effect on National and Southern politics and events.
Actually the other big one IMHO was the uncovering of those "Declarations of Causes"... Why they secceeded in the words of the actual Southerners themselves, you may have no idea how much these revelatory documents are ignored in documents of this type..
Taken as a whole, the Antebellum South didn't look much like what we would call American today.
You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current mewlings of the education "professionals"
The Indians had it exactly right; the worth of a man is not what he owns, but what he has done :cool
Sir, I am exceedingly proud of what I do. No schidt, I teach in a big urban high school with all of is attendant problems. One of them places where most folks wouldn't go, or live. I do both.
I doubt that your own places of employment or residence are located in such a setting.
In actually do this because it has been the closest thing I can get to the Frontier. I'm going into my twenty-seventh year, same school. Prior to that I spent three years in a remote African village, same motivation, living at close to an 1860's technology level.
See, most EVERYBODY, possibly including yourself, runs from these places, and yet b&tch about them endlessly. I do not, because of my emotional drive I guess *shrug*
All of these claims I can back up, in spades
When I leave here, my two proudest possessions will be my thirty-year pin (I don't think I'll be able to make forty) and the written testimonials of former students.
...and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens.
The irony is that best describes the OTHER posters here.
[b]Simply stated, you are just not worth the effort.
I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like.
You claim to have all this knowledge, yet you're not willing to contribute anything substantive here beyond a couple of WIKI link????
People, including me, have actually been learning things on this thread. YOu coulda blown this thread out of the water with new info.
Quote
I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you.
My main three voting issues are in order 1) Pro-Life 2) Gun Rights and finally 3) The Environment (no, I don't think Global Warming is necessarily man-made).
I do wish all them mewling education "professionals" were just like me
You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis.
?? How long have you been reading my posts on these boards??
I figure my own contributions here have been to get people to at least acknowledge the sheer size of the slave establishment and its profound effect on National and Southern politics and events.
Actually the other big one IMHO was the uncovering of those "Declarations of Causes"... Why they secceeded in the words of the actual Southerners themselves, you may have no idea how much these revelatory documents are ignored in documents of this type..
Taken as a whole, the Antebellum South didn't look much like what we would call American today.
You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current mewlings of the education "professionals"
The Indians had it exactly right; the worth of a man is not what he owns, but what he has done :cool
Sir, I am exceedingly proud of what I do. No schidt, I teach in a big urban high school with all of is attendant problems. One of them places where most folks wouldn't go, or live. I do both.
I doubt that your own places of employment or residence are located in such a setting.
In actually do this because it has been the closest thing I can get to the Frontier. I'm going into my twenty-seventh year, same school. Prior to that I spent three years in a remote African village, same motivation, living at close to an 1860's technology level.
See, most EVERYBODY, possibly including yourself, runs from these places, and yet b&tch about them endlessly. I do not, because of my emotional drive I guess *shrug*
All of these claims I can back up, in spades
When I leave here, my two proudest possessions will be my thirty-year pin (I don't think I'll be able to make forty) and the written testimonials of former students.
...and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens.
The irony is that best describes the OTHER posters here.
[b]Simply stated, you are just not worth the effort.
This sounds familiar. Have we ever dated?
Birdwatcher
More Bovine Scatology I see. [/quote]
Actually, it may be fact. HBB, I know you've screwed some hard left, female "education majors" before. Birdwatcher's personal philosophies and the consistencies thereof are identical to the same.
Those, and especially 2), are going to butt up rather harshly against the "for the children" and "rich people are evil" positions you harbor, though consistency has never been your strong suit.
Ya know, we really need an eye-roll emoticon here.
Where have a I ever said "rich people are evil"?
And OF COURSE its "for the children" you numbskull, most everything should be.
Setting aside slavery for a bit, the Confederate Constitution was MUCH better than our current one and actually addressed most of the problems we have today which were becoming apparent then. That in and of itself shows that slavery was not the end all be all of the war.
Off the top of my head without going back and actually looking at it, the Confederate constitution decreed that someone must actually be a citizen to vote. It provided for a line item veto. It gave state legislatures the power to impeach federal officials and judges who operate solely within the confines of their state. It banned tariffs and governmental subsidies of industries. It limited federal spending on infrastructure to harbors and the like. It provided that the Confederate Post Office must turn a profit and pay for itself. (Here is a biggie)The Confederate Congress could only appropriate money in response to a specific request from the executive branch and only with a two thirds vote. Thus, none of the omnibus bills or any other spending that wasn't specifically detailed and voted on by Congress. Further, the spending was to be for an EXACT amount and could not be changed without another vote of Congress. Every bill before Congress could only relate to ONE subject and the subject had to be reflected in the title. Thus, none of these little riders that Congress loves to sneak into bills as almost an afterthought.
Just think if our constitution today had those provisions. Most of the runaway spending and federal power would be not be possible. That doesn't mean that federal power wouldn't have developed in other ways and that there wouldn't be other problems. But it does show that even by 1860 almost ALL the problems we see today were being seen or foreseen then and that the Confederate constitution sought to address them.
Those, and especially 2), are going to butt up rather harshly against the "for the children" and "rich people are evil" positions you harbor, though consistency has never been your strong suit.
Ya know, we really need an eye-roll emoticon here.
One half of all Southerners in 1860 were either slaves themselves or members of slaveholding families. These elite families shaped the mores and political stance of the South, which reflected their common concerns. Foremost among these were controlling slaves and assuring an adequate supply of slave labor....
The rural nature of antebellum slavery had unintended negative effects on the Southern economy. The investment of so much capital in land and slaves discouraged the growth of cities and diverted funds from factories. This meant that the South lacked the industrial base it needed to counter the North when the Civil War began. Indeed, in 1860, the South had approximately the same number of industrial workers (110,000), as the North had industrial plants.
Other detrimental effects arose from the South's devotion to rural slavery. Wealthy planters liked to claim they were living out the Jeffersonian ideal of an agrarian democracy. In truth, the South was agrarian because slave owners found that the best way to maintain their wealth and contain their slaves.
Moreover, its "democracy" was very limited because the planters had enormous influence over how white yeomen cast their votes. Except in remote areas of the South with few slaves or plantations, it was the needs and beliefs of the planter class that shaped Southern politics on the local, state, and national levels.
The consequences of this planter dominance was seen in many aspects of the society. The South failed to develop a varied economy even within the agricultural realm. All the most fertile land in the South was owned by slaveholders who chose to grow high-profit staple crops--cotton, tobacco, sugar. That left only marginal land for the vast majority of white farmers.
This problem was compounded by the dominance of the planters image as the social ideal. Alternative means of advancement were unavailable, so yeomen farmers aspired to become planters themselves. They used some of their land to grow food for their family's consumption and devoted the rest to cash crops like cotton. Their hope was to produce enough to save, buy a few slaves, produce yet more, and, ultimately, accumulate the wealth that would elevate them to planter status. For most, this was a futile dream, but they remained committed to it, thereby neglecting other possible avenues for economic advancement.
One reason for the yeomen farmers lack of aspirations was ignorance. The antebellum South neglected to provide for the education of its people. Planters controlled the governmental revenues that could have financed public education, but they saw no need to do so. Their slaves were forbidden to learn; their own children were educated by private tutors or in exclusive and expensive private academies.
As a result, most white yeomen were left without access to education. A few lucky ones near towns or cities could sometimes send their children to fee schools or charity schools, but many were too poor or too proud to use either option.
In a similar vein, the dominating slaveholding class saw no need to create the means to produce inexpensive consumer goods for ordinary whites or to build an infrastructure by which such goods could be moved from production sites to markets in the countryside. Wealthy planters acquired what they wanted by importing expensive European or Northern goods. Thus poor whites were left to their own minimal resources and were deprived of goods they might have bought, had they been available.
This lack of consumer production and markets also retarded the growth of Southern transportation. Highways, canals, and railroads were constructed to move crops to ports and bring in luxury items for the planter class. The need of yeomen farmers to transport their crops to local markets was ignored. As a consequence, it was usually cheaper for plantation owners to import food from the North or upper South than to purchase it from white farmers in the same region. This deficiency in the Southern transportation system proved a serious liability for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Slavery in the antebellum South, then, made a minority of white Southerners--owners of large slaveholdings--enormously wealthy. At the same time, it demeaned and exploited Southerners of African descent, left the majority of white Southerners impoverished and uneducated, and retarded the overall economic, cultural, and social growth of the region.
Birdwatcher
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
And OF COURSE its "for the children" you numbskull, most everything should be.
However, if we remove the "rich people are evil" bit from your summarized position, then we are left with the fact that you advocate the subjugation of American citizens, the abrogation of the Constitution, the suppression or elimination of the rights of self-determination and self-governance, and the armed invasion of sovereign nations SOLELY on the bases of "it's for the children".
That sums it up nicely, and thus a revision -
So, let's sum this up...
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical" and that the Federal gov't decide that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect said children; here and abroad.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save all the world's children?
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
Yep.
Quote
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
In their OWN WORDS, the major freedom they were concerned about was the freedom to keep one third of their population in chattel slavery and the freedom to expand that system.
Quote
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
And half a million Americans were willing to die to preserve the Union, even if it meant doing those things. I would have been among that number.
Quote
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children"....
Yet no outrage at all that a small proportion of the Southern population were able to pervert so much, so that all of those Southern soldiers wre dying for a document as foul as the Southern Constitution?
Ya know, there are all sorts of "rich people", heck your average American IS rich compared to most of the World's population.
More power to 'em, rich people provide jobs and can accomplish much good.
More irony here... Implicit in your statement is an assumption that the wealthy plantation society of the Antebellum South typified "rich people" everywhere.
An absurdity of course.
Quote
[Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens etc etc etc
Few "support" these things, not even a Lincoln, the old status quo was restored as soon as possible. Another irony being had not a certain degenerate Southerner assassinated Lincoln, Reconstruction would have been less onerous.
As for the rest, what WE would do today?
Two things would have to happen......
About twenty states would have to initiate a system where one third of their population was held in absolute degradation supported by a specifically rewritten "Constitution" .
and....
They would all have to decide to leave the United States.
Terminally White Guilt Liberal then. Its still BS but maybe it will make you feel better.
I always get this cliche too
I grew up in a still all-White England, lived for three years in an all-Black Africa, and have spent nearly the last thirty in a place where eight out of ten folks (Hispanics) are genetically mostly American Indian.
It has been my experience that one of the things that makes people all alike is the universal conviction that they themselves are somehow different.
I think racial pretensions are among the most pathetic of our vanities, and I'm dead-set against race-based anything; quotas, affirmative action, "hate" crimes legislation, the works....
Just agree to disagree, since no amount of dialog or the citing of data from that long ago time is going to change anyone's mind. And, since the American Civil War was decided over 150 years ago, nothing said or done today will change the out come or all things, both good and bad, that came out of it.
Regardless of what you believe to be the "real" truth, you're right.
Terminally White Guilt Liberal then. Its still BS but maybe it will make you feel better.
I always get this cliche too
I grew up in a still all-White England, lived for three years in an all-Black Africa, and have spent nearly the last thirty in a place where eight out of ten folks (Hispanics) are genetically mostly American Indian.
It has been my experience that one of the things that makes people all alike is the universal conviction that they themselves are somehow different.
I think racial pretensions are among the most pathetic of our vanities, and I'm dead-set against race-based anything; quotas, affirmative action, "hate" crimes legislation, the works....
OK, what else ya got?
Nothing except you are liberal and not worth any more time and consideration on my part.
you state that only 1 in 3 southerners in 1860 thought it was about slavery, so that means it was all about slavery?
What kind of common core mathematics is that?
No, the absolutely appalling stat is that one in three Southerners was enslaved by the other two-thirds.
And the recent link I provided states that HALF of all Southerners were either a slave, or from a slave-owning family.
You find it necessary justification to speak in absolutes when it suits you? But in exception when needed.
1/2 the population were either slaves of from a slave owning family, which, given 1/3 were slaves, that must mean 1/6 of the south were slave owning families.
That leaves a 3 to 1 ratio of whitey's that didn't have slaves, and yet, again, it was all about slavery....
you disparage the south over slavery, yet lincoln, us grant, the northern and the non rebellion states get a pass. You also must think blacks were treated as a whole far worse than indians...
Lets see blacks who were enslaved in africa by blacks, sold to live here vs indians living free here, made to leave their native land and massacred by the thousands...
So which was worse?
Does old glory have any room to throw stones at the battle flag or does it too live in a glass house? And if so, wont the "offended" come calling for it in the future as well....?
The Federal gov't invaded, waged total war against, and subjugated them, too... "for the children". Therefore, under Birdwatcher "logic", it was completely permissible and in fact the "morally right thing to do".
The sooner we dive into Mexico to straighten them out, the better.
I'll answer all three at once.
RWE, Mexico is not the United States. The United States is my country, Mexico is not.
Now for the American Indian versus slave question...
Who was better off?
There are numerous cases of slaves running off to join the Indians, not many of Indians running off to join the slaves (a few IIRC in the Eighteenth Century, back East, but only in the last stages of desperation).
Worth noting is the role of Black Seminoles in the Seminole War. In that conflict at least a few hundred former slaves or descendants of the same actually bore arms against the forces of the United States. Even more remarkable yet, they were allowed to remove to the Indian Territory WHILE STILL BEARING ARMS. The closest thing to a successful slave insurrection in our history.
As to the treatment of "the Indians".... "the Indians" themselves did not see themselves as such, rather on the whole they were members of their own tribe, who's members were not necessarily all "Indians".
If being killed is the ultimate denial of one's rights, the sad truth is that up until the very end of our Frontier period more Indians died at the hands of other Indians then were ever killed by Whites (and disease and starvation offed far more than both those).
As for treaties, the Frontier Period encompasses a very long time, and many disparate locations. A typical pattern was a treaty being initially made in good faith, but rapid demographic changes in the form of an exploding White population changing everything.
Many treaties were made cynically, using a few compliant drunks as signers, but one of the biggest frauds was perpetrated by the Iroquois who, in order to divert White settlement from their own lands, in the Mid-Eighteen Century, sold West Virginia and Kentucky out from under the feet of the tribes who actually lived there.
So, while their ain't much to be proud of in our treatment of the Indians, I'm not recalling they were enslaved en masse on a scale remotely like that of our African slavery.
In fact, lots of Indians even owned slaves, tho not often under the absolute terms of American chattel slavery....
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
Yep.
That's all that matters.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
[quote]It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
In their OWN WORDS, the major freedom they were concerned about was the freedom to keep one third of their population in chattel slavery and the freedom to expand that system.
Irrelevant, as is governed by the first premise.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
And half a million Americans were willing to die to preserve the Union, even if it meant doing those things. I would have been among that number.
Irrelevant. Lincoln had no legal authority to take those measures and the right of a people to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them governs the point.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children"....
Yet no outrage at all that a small proportion of the Southern population were able to pervert so much, so that all of those Southern soldiers wre dying for a document as foul as the Southern Constitution?
Ya know, there are all sorts of "rich people", heck your average American IS rich compared to most of the World's population.
More power to 'em, rich people provide jobs and can accomplish much good.
More irony here... Implicit in your statement is an assumption that the wealthy plantation society of the Antebellum South typified "rich people" everywhere.
An absurdity of course.
Irrelevant and completely off point.
Originally Posted by Birdwatcher
Quote
[Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens etc etc etc
Few "support" these things, not even a Lincoln, the old status quo was restored as soon as possible. Another irony being had not a certain degenerate Southerner assassinated Lincoln, Reconstruction would have been less onerous.
As for the rest, what WE would do today?
Two things would have to happen......
About twenty states would have to initiate a system where one third of their population was held in absolute degradation supported by a specifically rewritten "Constitution" .
and....
They would all have to decide to leave the United States.
Birdwatcher
Irrelevant. The right to self-determination governs; there was no legal authority in existence then to supercede the same.
Where do we invade next, "for the children"?
Your position is logically, factually, and fundamentally unsound; it is indefensible as a matter of consistency or logic and is based entirely upon revisionist justifications and "moral judgment" over the rule of law and the basic freedoms of self-determination.
As stated time and again, you have no intellectual honesty on this position because such a trait requires both consistency and logic.
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical" and that the Federal gov't decide that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect said children; here and abroad.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save all the world's children?
Point of interest; in Africa I lived among the Ashantis, who made a fortune capturing and exporting their neighbors, and once a friend and I crossed ninety miles of roadless bush on foot over Ghana's Afram Plains, an area still depopulated as a result of prior slave raids.
My closest friend in my village was a WWII Veteran who had fought the Japanese in Burma (the British Gold Coast Regiment). His mother had been captured by the Ashantis as a slave.
Look, moral equivalency is irrelevant here.
We are not talking subjugation of the Indians here (tho actually too, lots of Frontier Whites were subsequently displaced as ruthlessly as any Indian), or child labor in Vietnam, or sex -slavery in Thailand.
It has been my experience that one of the things that makes people all alike is the universal conviction that they themselves are somehow different.
I think racial pretensions are among the most pathetic of our vanities, and I'm dead-set against race-based anything; quotas, affirmative action, "hate" crimes legislation, the works....
I have been extremely concise and on point, as well as logically consistent.
You have not, and it shows.
Based upon your premise, what sovereign nation do we invade next "for the children", and how soon do you enlist and support drafting others to effect that total war invasion?
Certainly supported by Faith. See on Judgement Day, the fact that I used to be genetically Irish Celt will be totally irrelevant, for Eternity, and since Eternity is for a very long time, it makes everything here sorta irrelevant in the big picture, or so I believe.
As for the rest, I have met Africans who were decidedly smarter than me (many here will believe that not hard, I know ), and I have met Asians who seemed dumber (so far the Jews are doing pretty good).
Its that whole Bell Curve thing, and overlap, and deciding where one race leaves off and another begins, and the fact that while I have met lots of individuals, I have never yet met a "race".
Pertinent to this thread, the Virginia Planter Thomas Jefferson penned a principle well-worth dying for We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Not surprisingly, he was pressured by his fellow slave-owning Southerners to remove it
Jefferson's phrase to me is America in a nutshell, our founding principle, why you and me were able to come here and enjoy the lives we have had...
Jorge...opinions unsupported by facts..... that is your specialty.
Bricktop who is really Robert Brown who lives at 830 Willment Place in Edmond OK and is also using Miles Massey in his nasty attacks on members who have serious physical illnesses accompanied by 4ager who is Sean Clarkson who is using John Hopkins University computers to post here while he should be working. Brickhead is no bigshot at Oklahoma University, in fact they have never heard of him and 4ager ..... well another member whom he has attacked with lies, slander and threats is letting his misuse of JHU computers slip to the appropriate people there. The net is closing on the lead troll, FOestology aka cat taco man. He really flipped out when it was revealed that yet another group of members have retained a P.I. to run him to ground. When the cold, hard light of truth is shown upon these cowards, they will go to ground faster than a gopher who just had it hair parted by a 22-250. 100s of active user I.D.s in place. You wimps can ban until HE double L freezes over and you still will be outed as fast as the information is acquired. THEN when you make your threats to harm other members (the last refuge of a yellow belly scum sucking dog) you will find actions have consequences. You dolts started this fight but you will not ever finish it. Quick now, run to Mr. Post Count aka Bin and get this user ID banned, You have had so many banned, you have lost track. What you are too stupid to realize is that you have thrown a lot of innocents under the bus in your quest to have absolute control of the site. So instead of a few poed folks you now have a dozen plus linked by email and phone who are cooperating to ensure your miserable lives only become moreso.
We're here, (you think) we're queer, get used to it you racist, homophobic, women hating azzwipes.
Certainly supported by Faith. See on Judgement Day, the fact that I used to be genetically Irish Celt will be totally irrelevant, for Eternity, and since Eternity is for a very long time, it makes everything ere sorta irrelevant in the big picture, or so I believe.
As for the rest, I have met Africans who were decidedly smarter than me (many here will believe that not hard, I know ), and I have met Asians who seemed dumber (so far the Jews are doing pretty good).
Its that whole Bell Curve thing, and overlap, and deciding where one race leaves off and another begins, and the fact that while I have met lots of individuals, I have never yet met a "race".
Pertinent to this thread, the Virginia Planter Thomas Jefferson penned a principle well-worth dying for We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Not surprisingly, he was pressured by his fellow slave-owning Southerners to remove it
Jefferson's phrase to me is America in a nutshell, our founding principle, why you and me were able to come here and enjoy the lives we have had...
..and marry Germans if we want.
Birdwatcher
So, we've added "God told me to", to the "for the children". Yep, we're on a Crusade now.
Which country do we invade next, and drive down those "infidels" all "for the children"?
You can't even follow your own argument any longer; there's no logic, no consistency, and no contemplation of the implications. I'm doing my best to summarize things for you, but be damned if you are perpetually self-blinded.
Jorge...opinions unsupported by facts..... that is your specialty.
Bricktop who is really Robert Brown who lives at 830 Willment Place in Edmond OK and is also using Miles Massey in his nasty attacks on members who have serious physical illnesses accompanied by 4ager who is Sean Clarkson who is using John Hopkins University computers to post here while he should be working. Brickhead is no bigshot at Oklahoma University, in fact they have never heard of him and 4ager ..... well another member whom he has attacked with lies, slander and threats is letting his misuse of JHU computers slip to the appropriate people there. The net is closing on the lead troll, FOestology aka cat taco man. He really flipped out when it was revealed that yet another group of members have retained a P.I. to run him to ground. When the cold, hard light of truth is shown upon these cowards, they will go to ground faster than a gopher who just had it hair parted by a 22-250. 100s of active user I.D.s in place. You wimps can ban until HE double L freezes over and you still will be outed as fast as the information is acquired. THEN when you make your threats to harm other members (the last refuge of a yellow belly scum sucking dog) you will find actions have consequences. You dolts started this fight but you will not ever finish it. Quick now, run to Mr. Post Count aka Bin and get this user ID banned, You have had so many banned, you have lost track. What you are too stupid to realize is that you have thrown a lot of innocents under the bus in your quest to have absolute control of the site. So instead of a few poed folks you now have a dozen plus linked by email and phone who are cooperating to ensure your miserable lives only become moreso.
We're here, (you think) we're queer, get used to it you racist, homophobic, women hating azzwipes.
Jorge...opinions unsupported by facts..... that is your specialty.
Bricktop who is really Robert Brown who lives at 830 Willment Place in Edmond OK and is also using Miles Massey in his nasty attacks on members who have serious physical illnesses accompanied by 4ager who is Sean Clarkson who is using John Hopkins University computers to post here while he should be working. Brickhead is no bigshot at Oklahoma University, in fact they have never heard of him and 4ager ..... well another member whom he has attacked with lies, slander and threats is letting his misuse of JHU computers slip to the appropriate people there. The net is closing on the lead troll, FOestology aka cat taco man. He really flipped out when it was revealed that yet another group of members have retained a P.I. to run him to ground. When the cold, hard light of truth is shown upon these cowards, they will go to ground faster than a gopher who just had it hair parted by a 22-250. 100s of active user I.D.s in place. You wimps can ban until HE double L freezes over and you still will be outed as fast as the information is acquired. THEN when you make your threats to harm other members (the last refuge of a yellow belly scum sucking dog) you will find actions have consequences. You dolts started this fight but you will not ever finish it. Quick now, run to Mr. Post Count aka Bin and get this user ID banned, You have had so many banned, you have lost track. What you are too stupid to realize is that you have thrown a lot of innocents under the bus in your quest to have absolute control of the site. So instead of a few poed folks you now have a dozen plus linked by email and phone who are cooperating to ensure your miserable lives only become moreso.
We're here, (you think) we're queer, get used to it you racist, homophobic, women hating azzwipes.
Sonofabitch! Root is back again. He is worse than an ingrown toenail.
The bottom line is that at the beginning of the War of Northern Aggression, owning slaves was legal. So that makes the United States of America doing illegal things if they fought to free slaves. Another point is that if they made States at gunpoint stay in the Union, that is slavery in its own right. Not talking morals, just laws. miles
But blacks that ended up here, were going to be enslaved in africa or elsewhere
Johnny did something wrong so I did it too? Until recently, few kids got a free pass on that position.
Quote
Also i think black population here has increased in the last 150 years, have the indians?
More Indians were killed by Indians than were ever killed by Whites. Getting killed by either was a minor factor compared to disease, which carried off NINETY PERCENT.
Currently the official American Indian population stands at around two million. This is complicated by the fact that MOST of these people are partly or mostly European by parentage.
The greatest demographic threat to Indians today is voluntary marriage to non-Indians, if present trends continue there will be almost non left in another 100 years. Their many descendants however will presumably be alive and well.
Quote
Which slavemasters treated their slaves worse than the indians at the trail of tears or wounded knee?
Oh geeze, LOTS. Not even in the same ballpark.
The Cherokees were forcibly evicted it true.... ...to take possession of other lands where they have since prospered.
The death toll on the Trail of Tears was around 25%. At this point it would be interesting to know the death toll on ANY long term journey of that era. Here in Texas when Noah Smithwick was forced to move to California he reported death along the Southwest emogrant trail to be a common occurrence.
Twenty years later, when the Cherokees split over the issue of Secession, the death toll during the war years was again around 25%, this time mostly at the hands of other Cherokees.
However, though they were confined at times on the Trail of Tears, none of the Cherokees were ever subject to permanent enslavement by Constitutional Law.
As for Wounded Knee, the real story is, as always, complicated.
Not all of the Lakotas agreed with Big Foot's band of holdouts. The Force that brought them in had no intentions of firing upon them before hand. An Indian fired the first shot and the subsequent slaughter during the panicked reaction was over quickly.
Most tellingly, a few days after that tragedy an American Army Officer went to another band of hold outs, accompanied by his Cheyenne Scouts who thought highly of him.
These Lakotas were anxious to come in and avoid bloodshed and rode out to meet him. Among their number was an embittered young man who had recently returned from Carlisle Indian School back East.
Much to the dismay of most present, this young man shot the Army Officer in cold blood, was subsequently arrested, and charged with murder.
He was acquitted, by the White judge, on the grounds that at the time a state of war existed and that was an act of war. A puzzling result if you believe that White people were out to kill Indians.
The bottom line is that at the beginning of the War of Northern Aggression, owning slaves was legal. So that makes the United States of America doing illegal things if they fought to free slaves. Another point is that if they made States at gunpoint stay in the Union, that is slavery in its own right. Not talking morals, just laws. miles
Jorge...opinions unsupported by facts..... that is your specialty.
Bricktop who is really Robert Brown who lives at 830 Willment Place in Edmond OK and is also using Miles Massey in his nasty attacks on members who have serious physical illnesses accompanied by 4ager who is Sean Clarkson who is using John Hopkins University computers to post here while he should be working. Brickhead is no bigshot at Oklahoma University, in fact they have never heard of him and 4ager ..... well another member whom he has attacked with lies, slander and threats is letting his misuse of JHU computers slip to the appropriate people there. The net is closing on the lead troll, FOestology aka cat taco man. He really flipped out when it was revealed that yet another group of members have retained a P.I. to run him to ground. When the cold, hard light of truth is shown upon these cowards, they will go to ground faster than a gopher who just had it hair parted by a 22-250. 100s of active user I.D.s in place. You wimps can ban until HE double L freezes over and you still will be outed as fast as the information is acquired. THEN when you make your threats to harm other members (the last refuge of a yellow belly scum sucking dog) you will find actions have consequences. You dolts started this fight but you will not ever finish it. Quick now, run to Mr. Post Count aka Bin and get this user ID banned, You have had so many banned, you have lost track. What you are too stupid to realize is that you have thrown a lot of innocents under the bus in your quest to have absolute control of the site. So instead of a few poed folks you now have a dozen plus linked by email and phone who are cooperating to ensure your miserable lives only become moreso.
We're here, (you think) we're queer, get used to it you racist, homophobic, women hating azzwipes.
Then why do you live in Key West, Larry the Gagger? FYI, I'm crushed you haven't "outed" me...
Freedom and opportunity? NO QUESTION, but fabricated standards IN ORDER to achieve same? no way. As to the book being "old news", so in the Constitution, the truth is there and the Bell Curve is a statistical sample, meaning, SOME might fall outside the parameters but overall? HINT: THE WHEEL AND WRITTEN WORDS..
The bottom line is that at the beginning of the War of Northern Aggression, owning slaves was legal. So that makes the United States of America doing illegal things if they fought to free slaves. Another point is that if they made States at gunpoint stay in the Union, that is slavery in its own right. Not talking morals, just laws. miles
Miles I have no argument.
But I'd still fight on the Union side.
And I value your friendship highly.
Mike
Which is what I've summarized as your position, and your rationales for why in spite of your own assertions about the rights of self-determination and self-governance and in the face of logic and legal fact.
Freedom and opportunity? NO QUESTION, but fabricated standards IN ORDER to achieve same? no way. As to the book being "old news", so in the Constitution, the truth is there and the Bell Curve is a statistical sample, meaning, SOME might fall outside the parameters but overall? HINT: THE WHEEL AND WRITTEN WORDS..
So, lets turn back the clock, and here's a crusty old sorta-Cuban ex US Naval Aviator standing right there in Independence Hall amid the other Founding Fathers...
You have had so many banned, you have lost track. What you are too stupid to realize is that you have thrown a lot of innocents under the bus in your quest to have absolute control of the site.
TFF!
blah blah blah.... yeah right. Name them Larry!
Oh, and by the way, the multiple voices and imaginary people in your paranoid diseased mind are NOT real people. "They" don't count.
Also, since you're so phfucking stupid to realize, no one has the power to BAN aside from Rick Bin. And Rick Bin doesn't BAN whomever I ask him to (I wish!). No, you and YOU alone are responsible for your innumerable bannings you psychotic paranoid delusional gender confused geriatric TROLL!
Hate to interrupt your "intellectual banter" , but it has struck me that Christmas is now brought to us by slave labor, as well as the clothes on your back, your underwear and the shoes on your feet. But ... nobody is bitchin' about these slaves are they--- not even the descendants of slaves are. Why don't these folks and BW go over to China and start tearing down some statues and some flags while they are at it??
I am in agreement with BW on one point now. He would have fought for the North, because he could have bought another Irishman to do his fighting for him ....
Hate to interrupt your "intellectual banter" , but it has struck me that Christmas is now brought to us by slave labor, as well as the clothes on your back, your underwear and the shoes on your feet. But ... nobody is bitchin' about these slaves are they---
Yes, people are, though most Americans never think about it.
A basic exercise I have my students do is locate 25 items each made in a different country in their own house. This to their general surprise they can do easily, tho finding American can be hard to do.
Quote
Actually, they are not even the descendants of slaves are.
Most likely ALL of us are the descendents of slaves.
Quote
Why don't these folks and BW go over to China and start tearing down some statues and some flags while they are at it??
Because China is not my country, the United States of America is. Neither would I vote to remove the Stars and Bars.
Quote
I am in agreement with BW on one point now. He would have fought for the North, because he could have bought another Irishman to do his fighting for him ....
Me, run from danger?
You silly twerp.
My own record over the last four decades suggests exactly the opposite
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children" and "rich people were/are evil".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical", that such actions are driven by "evil rich people", and that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children" and "rich people are evil".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because of "evil rich people" and because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect the children from the evil rich.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save the world's children from the evil rich?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada...you get the picture....
![[Linked Image]](http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/tucson.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/98/a98524fa-e5d4-5f2e-a47e-67b360662c33/a98524fa-e5d4-5f2e-a47e-67b360662c33.image.jpg)
On this front it is a social good sense and courtesy issue, like not wearing a swastika in downtown Auschwitz or driving an Obama bumper sticker to my family reunion. You lose and you look bad while losing.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/aiq/beq/aiqbeqxqT.gif)
Lincoln himself was a racist, whereas President Davis welcomed a black child into his own family and raised him as his own child! This child was carried off by Union soldiers and never seen by Davis' family again.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.thefurqaanproject.com/orderaquran/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/o/a/oaq_quran.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.confederate-flags.org/images/images-2012/Confederate-Nationals.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://s144.photobucket.com/user/lt13demi/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_74.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://cwmemory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Screen-Shot-2013-03-31-at-10.28.27-AM.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://caveofknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/stars_and_bars.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee202/bridgershooters/Odds%20and%20ends/Civil%20War%20survivors.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/Shoalcove/Rifle1/creed3_zpsj9jon7p6.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/Shoalcove/Stuff1/DSCN1255.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s140.photobucket.com/user/ed_Brown308/media/Mobile%20Uploads/35994_zpsxj5xs1gy.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/24hrcamp/stjoesphoto21967.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/summer%20east/IrishBrigade3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/summer%20east/IrishBrigade5.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://rememberingletters.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/usa-z-battle-flags-of-confederate-states.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.civilwar.org/photos/galleries/flagsofbentonville/8thtx-web.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s140.photobucket.com/user/ed_Brown308/media/36049_zpsbpcrmcmd.png.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s133.photobucket.com/user/FishinHank/media/11707424_854866391271008_6851013210135202909_n_zps3sl91qxb.jpg.html)