Skip to comments.Southern pride rallies 'round flag
Posted on 06/27/2004 12:37:31 PM PDT by VRWCerEdited on 07/12/2004 4:16:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
OK, let me try this again, and maybe next time I'll get paragraphs! Sorry about that!
"Mr. White says. Mr. Sullivant says tourism actually has increased in South Carolina since the NAACP began its boycott."
The Washington Times
"The main tenet of what the Confederacy stood for was the maintaining of slavery,"
That's a lie.
Exactly. I live here in GA, and the whole flag issue still sticks in my craw (and I didn't even have any relatives who were Confederate soldiers - if I had, I'd be livid.)
Marked to read later.
I'm from Boston,I have ancestors who fought against the Confederates,and even I won't swallow that prophaganda.
They fought to defend their homes and their way of life.
I think the claims that are made about he true economic impact of a boycott have to be examined carefully. When the NAACP pulls their convention out of some major facility (say Phillips Arena in Atlanta, for example), that facility is then available for other activities (imagine the National Association of Plumbers and Boilermakers Annual Convention). I cannot believe that the net effect of such a boycott is negative, and it may well be positive. This is an area, like public financing of sports stadiums, which needs more rigorous analysis and less regurgitation of unsubstantiated claims by interested parties.
According to liberals everything blacks are against is bad anything whites support is bad. Whites do not have any right to be offended, Only blacks do. Blacks dont like the flag destroy it, History means nothing. What is really important is catering to 12% of the population because they vote in a bloc for democrats. Its time Whites started voting in blocs. Get rid of the liberal asskissers. Is this racist?? Nah, Now the Congressional Black Caucus, THATS racism at its primal best.
Southern Heritage Bump!
Could you explain what is meant by 'way of life' aside from slavery, or why it was that the Confederate states felt that the election of Abraham Lincoln would endanger that 'way of life'? And, no, "the ideal that the right to secede from the Union is an unenumerated right for purposes of the Tenth Amendment" is not a 'way of life'.
It is absurd to say that Southern states seceded in order to protect the right to secede, especially since the election of 1860 wasn't fought over the question of whether secession was legitimate. What then? Did the Republican victory in 1860 threaten the religious practices of the Southerners? Or the right to speak their accustomed language? Why did they secede, if not to protect the institution of slavery?
I had ancestors that fought on the side of the confederacy. None of my ancestors ever participated in any slave ownership, nor would they have joined the fight to protect slavery. They fought to oppose a tyrannical federal government. This was the endangerment to their way of life. They lost the war, and the federalism that they opposed is now imposed on all of us.
You didn't answer my question. What aspect of the "Southern way of life" was he defending other than slavery? And what policies, aside from those which the South feared the new President-Elect, Abraham Lincoln would impose to stop the spread of slavery, did they object to?
The bottom line is, all of these "determination of states to do whatever they like" and "Southern culture" arguments really boil down to the issue of slavery. South Carolina seceded because a President had been elected who opposed the Kansas-Nebraska and Fugitive Slave Acts, and who was determined to stop the spread of slavery. Here for instance is the Ordinance of Secession of South Carolina, which states explicitly that slavery is the cause!
"It wasn't about slavery" is the true myth.
Wlat must have dropped by this morning.
Ain't that sweet!
every time i hear someone saying that, i ask: IF THAT IS TRUE, WHY DID OVER 100,000 BLACK VOLUNTEERS RUSH TO JOIN THE CSA ARMY, NAVY & MARINES????
the LIARS & fools have NO answer to that! they just sputter,cry foul and SLINK AWAY!
dixie MUST be FREE!
free dixie NOW,sw
the WBTS was fought for just ONE main reason. the southland wanted her FREEDOM from the arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant, self-serving,hateFILLED,intrusive damnyankees.
the lust for FREEDOM was no different in 1861 than it was in 1776 OR 2004. (we southrons STILL want/deserve our LIBERTY!)
chattal slavery was at MOST a side issue, since only 5-6% of southerners EVER owned even one slave AND about the same percentage of yankees owned slaves as southerners. (i hasten to add that for the FEW percent of persons who WERE slaveowners, no matter where they resided, the continuation of slavery was VERY important!)
saying that slavery was any more than a SIDE ISSUE is mindless,cynical, stupid and/or a FRAUD, which is designed to deceive the ignorant.
Our new flag is better than the Battle Flag and better than the horrible thing that replaced it. I would vote it for over the GA battle flag state flag. It is probably the best looking state flag in the country!
Sonny lied alright. He should have danced with who brung him.
It's also very interesting that the Emacipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. Slavery was a political tool used by the north rather than an actual cause or reason for the war. It is the simpletons who today further this arguement. They are gripped for some reason with a feeling of guilt and have become prisoners of political correctness on the issue.
and sonny, the scalawag, has ENDED his career in "public service", thereby.
Well said. Virginia and Arkansas rejected ordinances of secession prior to Lincoln's call to arms in April 1861. Two days after Lincoln's directive to raise 75,000 men to fight against citizens, Virginia seceded; Arkansas seceded weeks later in May.
I asked about causes and reasons of secession, not the war. The war began after a group of seven Southern states had already seceded (and thereafter attacked the United States). I ask again: can anyone suggest a reason why the seven original Confederate states seceded which is not founded in slavery? "Most soldiers didn't own slaves" is not an answer.
And what freedom was she being denied? Can you point to anything in particular aside from "practice slavery" (or, to be more precise, "spread slavery westwards into new territory")?
no matter how much you may wish that the damnyankees were intent on crusading against slavery, that is nothing more or less than a self-serving LIE!
to quote Professor Tyrone brown of Grambling University, "in 1860 there was not in all of the nation more than 10,000 people who cared a damn about the plight of the slaves".
Why then, did Delaware not join the secession? Surely they would have if slavery was the reason. My point still stands.
I do not doubt that this is true. There were, however, a considerable number of Southerners who had an interest in maintaining and extending the institution of slavery. That is why they seceded and why they later began the war.
Delaware would have been part of the "second wave" of seceding states (e.g. Virginia or Tennessee), which reacted after the Confederacy began the war by joining the new nation. Since at that time neighboring Maryland had already been occupied by federal soldiers, there must have been a strong sense amongst the pro-slavery faction in Delaware that their position would be strategically hopeless. Furthermore, there was obviously a strong pro-Union faction in the tiny state, as it sent nine regiments to the federal forces.
did you bother to actually read my post #26????
slavery, once again (SIGH!) was ONLY important to the slaveOWNERS. hardly anybody else cared about the "peculiar institution", period, end of story.
over 98% of southern soldiers, sailors & marines were NOT slaveowners (in point of fact, their average GROSS ASSETS were less than US $ 25.00 in 1860! ours was a PEASANT REVOLT/ARMY!) and did not fight for the slave-owning minority to own slaves. this was particularly true of the 100,000 plus black Confederate volunteers! (if the war was to preserve/spread the "peculiar institution", what were THEY fighting for????)
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and arguably Missouri were all slave states that stayed in the Union.
"...Still forbearing, still hoping, still striving for peace and union, we waited until a section President [Lincoln], nominated by a sectional convention, elected by a sectional vote--and that the vote of a minority of the people--was about to be inducted into office, under the warning of his own distinct announcement that the Union could not permanently endure "half slave and half free"; meaning thereby that it could not continue to exist in the condition in which it was formed and its Constitution adopted. The leader of his party (William H. Seward) [of the Republican party], who was to be the chief of his Cabinet, was the man who had first proclaimed an "irrepressible conflict" between the North and the South, and who had declared that abolitionism, having triumphed in the Territories, would proceed to the invasion of the States. Even then the Southern people did not finally despair until the temper of the triumphant party had been tested in Congress and found adverse to any terms of reconciliation consistent with the honor and safety of all parties."
"No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it."
--Jefferson Davis, "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" (1881)
For those of you that enjoy Civil War reading, I just finished Newt Gingrich's "Grant comes East" over the weekend.
I highly recommend it, especially if you enjoyed the Shaara's triology. Its a page turner.
Grant Comes East is the sequel to Gingrich's alternate history novel Gettysburg. A significant portion of Gettysburg actually takes place right near my home in Carroll County, Maryland.
Absolutely - the Baltimore Riots of '61 were proof of that.
Well, here for example is the text of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. This ordinance states that South Carolina is seceding from the Union, that it is doing so to protect its rights upon which the federal government is (or, rather, threatened to) infringing, and that those rights were the right to hold slaves. Furthermore, the state was particularly annoyed at the northern states' attempts to subvert the Fugitive Slave Act. Read it for yourself.
Oddly enough there doesn't seem to be anything in there about "taxes" or "economic control", excepting taxes on slaves. Either the secession convention didn't consider these factors as important as slavery, or you're engaging in revisionist history.
Why did the North go to war? To preserve the Union, moron!
How peculiar! Most of the histories I've read have stated that the South began the war when the Confederate state governments tried to seize United States property and began shelling it. You must have access to the lost accounts of Fort Sumter firing on Charleston. Will wonders never cease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.