Confederacy of the determined - (Southern heritage buffs vow "Confederate History Month")

WASHINGTON TIMES.COM ^ | APRIL 24, 2005 | Christina Bellantoni

[MacDorcha]

"The Confederacy tore this nation apart and got 623,026 of our ancestors killed so you could keep your slaves."

Which side was Delaware on?

[Mongeaux]

"The Confederacy tore this nation apart and got 623,026 of our ancestors killed so you could keep your slaves." Which side was Delaware on?

In spirit or in fact? Look at this:

Jim Crow Laws: Delaware

As a border state to the Confederacy, Delaware enacted nine segregation laws impacting nearly every facet of public life between 1874 and 1953. One of the most unusual and inhumane laws on record was passed in 1893, requiring black servants to obtain the permission of their master before marrying. Failure to obtain written consent resulted in a $30 fine.
1874: Miscegenation [Statute] Prohibited marriage between white persons and Negroes. Penalty: A fine of $100 imposed on offenders and upon the minister performing the ceremony.

[MacDorcha]

You didn't answer my question. Which side did Delaware come into when the Civil War broke out?

Did you know that abolishing slavery in states where it already existed was NOT the intent of Lincoln's actions as president?

How can one claim that ANYONE was killed "to keep slaves" and not be ignorant of the true nature of the Civil War?

[Mongeaux]

Did you know that abolishing slavery in states where it already existed was NOT the intent of Lincoln's actions as president?

How can one claim that ANYONE was killed "to keep slaves" and not be ignorant of the true nature of the Civil War?

Ok so you were just going to turn em all loose once you won huh? Just gonna stop buying and selling your brother human beings like cattle? No more ripping infants from their mothers bosoms and turning a profit on their misery? Face it - your society was based on an abomination and you can try to gloss over your reasons for ripping this nation apart and killing your countrymen but in the final equation the world is better off that you lost.

I honor your heroic dead but their masters burn in hell.

[MacDorcha]

To even suggest that slavery was a singly "southern" thing is to express a level of un-awareness not rivaled by many.

Yes, its econimcal structure would fall to the grounds if it were abolished, but the fact remains: the North did NOT attack the South with the intent of "freeing the slaves" and the South did NOT leave the Union in hopes of "keeping slaves" ;especially when one considers that Lincoln did NOT intend to free them, only to prohibit it from expanding to the west. And the Western States STILL came to the aid of the South.

And by the way: the "masters" down here were just as represented up there. About 5-6% of fighters on BOTH sides in the ACW were slave owners. I honor the heroic dead on both sides. ANY "master" can go to hell.

"...you can try to gloss over your reasons for ripping this nation apart and killing your countrymen..."

And WHOSE land was the majority of the fighting on? I don't recall reading about the Great Confederate Offensive into New York! "Killing your countrymen" and "defending your home" are different. One is treason, the other is allowed (called for?) by the Constitution. As was the voting of the Southern States that left in the first place.

YOU face it- any moral high ground the North thinks it had durring the Civil War is moot!

[smug]

I also fly the Bonnie Blue Flag without recourse from my Northern neighbors, whether due to ignorance or apathy I do not know. Probably ignorance.

[Mongeaux]

Yes, its econimcal structure would fall to the grounds if it were abolished, but the fact remains: the North did NOT attack the South with the intent of "freeing the slaves" and the South did NOT leave the Union in hopes of "keeping slaves" ;especially when one considers that Lincoln did NOT intend to free them, only to prohibit it from expanding to the west.

Ok so the Civil War was about offshore fishing rights or something...nothing to do with tens of thousands of souls held in evil bondage. I know it salves your conscience to pretend that there was ANY other moral imperative than slavery to hang the war on. It's just not good enough. Slave states deserved to lose - God would not support that kind of evil and He didn't.

And WHOSE land was the majority of the fighting on? I don't recall reading about the Great Confederate Offensive into New York! "Killing your countrymen" and "defending your home" are different.

That's right, you only made it as far as Pennsylvania, right? Well if you wanna win a war you fight it on the OTHER guys' lands instead of your own...

As for "killing your counrtymen" who do you think was taking the bullets? Belgians?

YOU face it- any moral high ground the North thinks it had durring the Civil War is moot!

Come now, you're posting on Free Republic so I know you're not a wooly-headed moral relativist. The Union won and the Nation was preserved (thank GOD) and who freed the slaves? Jeff Davis? Noooooo....

[smug]

I was born in the "North" by some ill conceived plan of my parents, but Southern I am from the tip of my toes to my bald headed top. But, having lived here and learned here most "northerners" are ignorant of most everything involved in the "War of Northern Aggression'. They believe that it was fought to free the slave's. They have no knowledge of the fact that all states "held" slaves and profited from them. It can almost be universally said that to be a Yankee you are "ignorant of fact" as regarding the cause of the WNA.

[Mongeaux]

Hey - if I wasn't taking a contrary position who would you guys have to argue with? I am providing a valuable service here!

[MacDorcha]

"and who freed the slaves? Jeff Davis? Noooooo...."

And yet, the slaves in Delaware were the last to be released... (that's in the North) Could it be that the slaves were released in the South NOT for moral reasons, but as "punishment" and an economic back-breaker on the rebeling states? Could it have been a "sanction" instead? Methinks so.


"Ok so the Civil War was about offshore fishing rights or something...nothing to do with tens of thousands of souls held in evil bondage. I know it salves your conscience to pretend that there was ANY other moral imperative than slavery to hang the war on. It's just not good enough. Slave states deserved to lose - God would not support that kind of evil and He didn't. "


Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri didn't lose. Where were you going with that?

"That's right, you only made it as far as Pennsylvania, right? Well if you wanna win a war you fight it on the OTHER guys' lands instead of your own... "

Or maybe WAR wasn't what we wanted? Maybe we wanted to be left alone?

Yankee Soldier: Why to you keep fighting?

Confederate Soldier: Because you're down here.

The lack of invasion early on is a clear indication of the intent (or lack there-of) of the Confederacy at it's inception.

"As for "killing your counrtymen" who do you think was taking the bullets? Belgians? "

If I shot a burglar in my house, by your logic, I would be "killin my countryman"

And in closing: Who the Hell said I was talking moral relativism here? You argued that the South was wrong and evil for leaving the Union. I countered that the Union at the time had made no such claims, and that indeed, several Union States still had slavery.

It therefore stands to reason that if the Civi War was about SLAVES, that Delaware wouldn't have been permitted to stay with the Union, Maryland would haev been occupied territory, and Kentucky would have become a "slave state" sympathizer.

[BillyBoy]

>> Each candidate recently shared his thoughts on what Mr. Bowling called a "litmus test for all politicians." Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine would not support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Former state Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore would support something that recognizes everyone who lived during the Civil War.
Former Govs. George Allen and James S. Gilmore III, both Republicans, issued Confederate History Month proclamations. In 2000, Mr. Gilmore replaced that proclamation with one commemorating both sides of the Civil War -- a move that enraged the Sons of Confederate Veterans. <<

Oh goody, now the RINOs on this forum have an excuse to go lynch Jerry Kilgore in 2005. The "true conservatives" managed to succesfully elect Mark Warner in 2001 and they are no doubt looking for an encore performance. And it has nothing to do with the fact they miss the good 'ol days of the "solid [DemocRAT ] south", which was of course full of "true conservatives"

For more info., please see the Georgia RINOs who are "outraged" at Republican Governor Perdue for replacing Roy Barnes pathetic polititcally-correct flag with a design that is simular to the FIRST flag of the confederacy. It clearly recongizes "confederate hertaige", but it's not the stars-and-bars, so they're back at work trying to elect Democrats in Georgia.

The RINOs here just can't wait to start using the phrase "Governor Kaine"

[Mongeaux]

And yet, the slaves in Delaware were the last to be released... (that's in the North) Could it be that the slaves were released in the South NOT for moral reasons, but as "punishment" and an economic back-breaker on the rebeling states? Could it have been a "sanction" instead? Methinks so.

Oh come on, Delware may be "North" compared to Georgia, and their slaves last to be released but they were released. How fast do you think the Confederate States would have let them go by comparison? As for releasing the slaves on "moral" grounds, yes I DO believe morality was at the heart of the act, however slave states and the economic realities of which you spoke earlier (combined with an actual WAR) made political decisions necessary, at least as far as how to time that release.

Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri didn't lose. Where were you going with that?

They were smart enough not to secede. They lost their slaves too.

"That's right, you only made it as far as Pennsylvania, right? Well if you wanna win a war you fight it on the OTHER guys' lands instead of your own... "

Or maybe WAR wasn't what we wanted? Maybe we wanted to be left alone?

Yeah, ALONE to keep your slaves! That wasn't going to happen. It was a BAD thing.

If I shot a burglar in my house, by your logic, I would be "killin my countryman"

If you shot a cop coming to take the people you held in bondage (let's say HOSTAGES for modern times) then you'd be a kidnapper and felon as well as a cop killer. "Burgle" is a good word. Burglars take away your property, like say the people you own.

You argued that the South was wrong and evil for leaving the Union. I countered that the Union at the time had made no such claims, and that indeed, several Union States still had slavery.

I did argue that, yes. A united America is a moral good and a boon to the world. We are lucky the Confederacy lost. The United States did claim the Confederate states were wrong to leave and went to war over it, if memory serves.

It therefore stands to reason that if the Civi War was about SLAVES, that Delaware wouldn't have been permitted to stay with the Union, Maryland would haev been occupied territory, and Kentucky would have become a "slave state" sympathizer.

The south seceded because they could see the Abolitionist movement gaining ground and knew their slave-owning agrarian life was going to be ended sooner or later. The United States went to war to return the Confederate states to the Union and end slavery, both of which they did everywhere, EVEN in Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware.

And that was a good thing, we should thank God for it.

[Casloy]

shoddy state of the soldiers' uniforms

Interesting little trivia. Shoddy was the name of a type of material produced for uniforms during the civil war. It was awful stuff and fell apart quickly. From then on the words "shoddy" refers to anything that is poorly made.

[Casloy]

the North did NOT attack the South with the intent of "freeing the slaves" and the South did NOT leave the Union in hopes of "keeping slaves"

While that is correct, the base line for the Civil War was the institution of slavery. Had it not been for slavery and the regular political struggles of the northern and southern states to resolve it's presence in the new states we would never have had a Civil War. You can twist this thing around every which way you want but the one passionate issue that drove the single most significant wedge between the north and south was slavery. Read any primary source material from the time and fight over slavery was the predominate issue. This common refrain that the Emancipation proclamation didn't free any slaves is a canard. It wasn't meant to free any slaves at the moment it was issued, it was meant to put the Civil War on a footing in which a victory by the North would end slavery once and for all. The fact is, the Emancipation Proclamation did end the institution of slavery once and for all, it just took a couple of years to enforce it.

[MacDorcha]

The rest of the post seems now to go back to my original focus: There were Union States that held slavery in part of their economy. These states were permitted to retain their slaves for several years after a select few slaves were released as a direct result of the Civil War.

If slavery was THE reason, why would the North even allow themselves to be allied with slave owning states?

"How fast do you think the Confederate States would have let them go by comparison?"

Well, according to legislation at the time, neither would have completely given it up. Ever. Lincoln took great pains to establish (IN THE NORTH!) that he was NOT intending to abolish slavery, but instead, he simply wished to prevent it from being a part of any new states.

This could be pressures from railway companies or union workers who would prefer industrialized settlements to agricultural ones. Or any other number of reasons. (I only speculate here.)

Had the Emancipation Proclamation been the true will of the Federal Government at the time, wouldn't it have been instituted at the ONSET of war/secession, and not halfway through?

The Border States that gave up their slaves did so according to their own internal laws. Had any of the States rejoined the USA, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been voided for that State, and further attempts to remove slavery would have been harder.

ALSO: The willingness of the South to Fight excercised the idea that was set forth in the Constitution- This nation is a Nation OF States, not a Nation OVER States. The will of the State (and it's people) will not be waived by any single federal power.

[MacDorcha]

Sorry, forgot to ping you to 35...

Unm, ping.

[MacDorcha]

Oh, and you're added :)

[fortheDeclaration]

It was American blood which makes the ground sacred, no matter where it was spilled.

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

The Politically Correct Northerners will never allow us to honor our war-dead.

They are not your war-dead.

They are American war dead.

[fortheDeclaration]

Lincoln pledged to honor the Constitution and to limit slavery

The South would not accept this limitation.

They even divided their own Democratic party over it.