Posted on 12/16/2004 6:48:26 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Here's one that will go to 5000+ posts. Too bad it will be as anti-historical as all the others.
This is completely true and nice to see someone finally point it out. At the same time, I believe we may have glorified the Confederacy a bit too much. While I realize that they were good people and most of their motives were pure, the simple fact is that they took up arms against their government. Last I knew, that is considered treason. The Confederate veterans have been treated throughout history much better than most guilty of treason could ever hope for.
bump
There is more than enough 'conveient memories' on both sides.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. The North was just as guilty of exploiting slaves as the South. The majority of the people just tended to stop at an earlier date. However, that was more to do with the economic culture than a sudden wave of morality towards the black man.
What's to be upset about? The end had to be in Canada since the Fugitive Slave Act required that runaway slaves be sent back South if apprehended.
They also didn't like the fact that the first slaves sold in the Colonies were in Massachusetts.
If they check their history they would have found that the first slave was in the Virginia/Maryland area.
Nor did they like to remmeber that the triangle trade that made Boston very rich included bringing molasses to Boston to be made into rum which was taken to Africa to be traded for slaves.
Without demand for those slaves the Boston traders wouldn't have brought the slaves anywhere, would they? So the south has no moral high ground in the slave trade scenario.
Well, for one thing taking up arms against the government is not neccessarily a bad thing. The colonies did it against the King. Second, it's not like they were trying to take over the government or rule the country as is typical in a civil war. They had no interest in ruling the northern states, they just wanted to be let alone. That being said I agree with the above comments that there is too much glorification of the South, even though I agree with their fundamental right to secede and admire some of their military leaders.
No, we don't. But the Northern states don't either. Both sets of states had businessmen that grew rich off the slave trade, directly or indirectly.
}:-)4
Exactly. What gripes me most as a southernor is the false idea that all the morality was in the North and that all Notherners were fighting for the sole purpose of defeating slavery. That's totally bogus.
Both sides share the guilt.
I sympathize with southerners who are sick of the insulting, bigoted attitudes of northeastern white liberals, but I don't understand at all how that translates to celebrating treason.
To be reviled by a liberal, regardless of shade or location, is more of a badge of honor than a mark of shame. But the south itself does it's cause little good by clinging so tightly to their myths about the war.
I can agree with that. But it's an "all or nothing" type of situation. Had we lost the Revolutionary War, the military and political leaders of the revolution would have been tried and, most likely, executed. You have to admit that the North was much kinder to the South than that.
. . . even though I agree with their fundamental right to secede and admire some of their military leaders.
The genius of the South's military leaders is what kept the South in the war as long as it was. Think about it, the Conferacy had no pre-existing government, no tax base, no economic prosperity, and a much smaller population than the North. What else could explain their relative successes, or at least the success in delaying the inevitable, than their military genius. Think about it this way, who is more revered in the South even today, Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee? One was a so-so political leader, the other was quite possibly the best military mind we ever had. Too bad he lived in a time where his expertise had to be used in the way it was.
Not sure I agree that they had the right to secede though.
"To this day, The South is reviled and held in contempt by northern white liberals. It's almost pathological."
Its not almost pathological; it IS pathological. In the same way that "northern white liberals" hate America herself.
The only thing wrong with trying to utilize the truth in this argument is that truth doesn't matter much to those of the NAACP persuasion.
I once watched footage of a black speaker in the house of reps state that "sharks still swim the route of the slave ships because so many were thrown overboard" on their way from Africa to here. Any ideas on how he was able to verify this outrageous claim?
Yes, it's true that our American flag stood for slavery for far longer than the Confederate flag did. But it's also true that people were captured/kidnapped by black slave traders before they were brought here to be slaves. Another snippet of truth is that there were black plantation owners who owned slaves.
If truth mattered to these people, they'd just shut up.
Yes, I agree.
Not sure I agree that they had the right to secede though.
I do, It's strait out of the declaration of independence.
Sorry, but they didn't take up arms against their government. They SECEDED from the US Gov. formed their own, and took up arms to protect themselves from invasion.
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.