Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Americans Owe Confederate History Respect
Confederate States of America Page ^ | 6/10/2003 | CHRIS EDWARDS

Posted on 12/16/2004 6:48:26 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi

Americans Owe Confederate History Respect

By CHRIS EDWARDS

The Time Has Come To Take A Stand After attending the Confederate Memorial Day service on June 1 in Higginsville, I found myself believing our nation should be ashamed for not giving more respect and recognition to our ancestors.

I understand that some find the Confederate flag offensive because they feel it represents slavery and oppression. Well, here are the facts: The Confederate flag flew over the South from 1861 to 1865. That's a total of four years. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in April 1789, and that document protected and condoned the institution of slavery from 1789 to 1861. In other words, if we denigrate the Confederate flag for representing slavery for four years, shouldn't we also vilify the U.S. flag for representing slavery for 72 years? Unless we're hypocrites, it is clear that one flag is no less pure than the other.

A fascinating aspect of studying the Civil War is researching the issues that led to the confrontation. The more you read, the less black-and-white the issues become. President Abraham Lincoln said he would do anything to save the union, even if that meant preserving the institution of slavery. Lincoln's focus was obviously on the union, not slavery.

In another case, historians William McFeely and Gene Smith write that Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant threatened to "throw down his sword" if he thought he was fighting to end slavery.

Closer to home, in 1864, Col. William Switzler, one of the most respected Union men in Boone County, purchased a slave named Dick for $126. What makes this transaction interesting is not only the fact that Switzler was a Union man but that he bought the slave one year after the issuance of the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, history students know the proclamation did not include slaves living in the North or in border states such as Missouri.

So if this war was fought strictly over slavery, why were so many Unionists reluctant to act like that was the issue?

In reviewing the motives that led to the Civil War, one should read the letters soldiers wrote home to their loved ones. Historian John Perry, who studied the soldier's correspondence, says in his three years of research, he failed to find one letter that referred to slavery from Confederate or Union soldiers.

Perry says that Yankees tended to write about preserving the Union and Confederates wrote about protecting their rights from a too-powerful federal government. The numerous letters failed to specifically say soldiers were fighting either to destroy or protect the institution of slavery. Shelby Foote, in his three-volume Civil War history, recounts an incident in which a Union soldier asks a Confederate prisoner captured in Tennessee why he was fighting. The rebel responded, "Because you're down here."

History tends to overlook the South's efforts to resolve the issue of slavery. For example, in 1863, because of a shortage of manpower, Lincoln permitted the enlistment of black soldiers into the Union Army. Battlefield documents bear out the fact that these units were composed of some of the finest fighting men in the war. Unfortunately for these brave soldiers, the Union used them as cannon fodder, preferring to sacrifice black lives instead of whites.

These courageous black Union soldiers experienced a Pyrrhic victory for their right to engage in combat. However, history has little to say about the South's same effort in 1865. The Confederacy, its own troop strength depleted, offered slaves freedom if they volunteered for the army.

We know that between 75,000 and 100,000 blacks responded to this call, causing Frederick Douglass to bemoan the fact that blacks were joining the Confederacy. But the assimilation of black slaves into the Confederate army was short-lived as the war came to an end before the government's policy could be fully implemented.

It's tragic that Missouri does not do more to recognize the bravery of the men who fought in the Missouri Confederate brigades who fought valiantly in every battle they were engaged in. To many Confederate generals, the Missouri brigades were considered the best fighting units in the South.

The courage these boys from Missouri demonstrated at Port Gibson and Champion Hill, Miss., Franklin, Tenn., and Fort Blakely, Ala., represent just a few of the incredible sacrifices they withstood on the battlefield. Missouri should celebrate their struggles instead of damning them.

For the real story about the Missouri Confederate brigades, one should read Phil Gottschalk and Philip Tucker's excellent books about these units. The amount of blood spilled by these Missouri boys on the field of battle will make you cry.

Our Confederate ancestors deserve better from this nation. They fought for what they believed in and lost. Most important, we should remember that when they surrendered, they gave up the fight completely. Defeated Confederate soldiers did not resort to guerrilla warfare or form renegade bands that refused to surrender. These men simply laid down their arms, went home and lived peacefully under the U.S. flag. When these ex-Confederates died, they died Americans.

During the postwar period, ex-Confederates overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party. This party, led in Missouri by Rep. Dick Gephardt and Gov. Bob Holden, has chosen to turn its back on its fallen sons.

The act of pulling down Confederate flags at two obscure Confederate cemeteries for the sake of promoting Gephardt's hopeless quest for the presidency was a cowardly decision. I pray these men will rethink their decision.

The reality is, when it comes to slavery, the Confederate and United States flags drip with an equal amount of blood.

Chris Edwards is a local musician and MU graduate student of history. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and of the board of Missouri's Civil War Heritage Foundation.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: americans; blahblahblah; condeferateneos; confederacy; confederate; confedobsessors; csa; dixie; dixiecranks; dixietrash; dixiewankers; flagobsessors; graylosers; graylost; greyisgay; hate; hicks; history; kkk; neoconfederate; owe; rebelnutballs; redneck; rednecks; respect; respectmyass; respectthispal; segrigation; southmoronics; weoweuanotherwhuppin; youlostgetoverit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-424 next last
To: stand watie
if lincoln, the TYRANT, had been INTELLIGENT, he would have wished the new nation well & traded with the CSA.

if davis, the TYRANT, hadn't been such an IDIOT, he wouldn't have started the WAR by SHELLING sumter.

151 posted on 12/18/2004 4:11:35 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
Who is N-S?

That would be me.

152 posted on 12/18/2004 4:14:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: honest2God
And can you please tell me what forms are ok?

Can I want my children to marry other Jews? Is that okay with you? (It's, oooooh, "racism.")

Can I generalize and say that blacks are better basketball players? You know, "White men can't jump," and stuff like that.(It's, oooooh, "racism.")

Can I observe that Asian kids, even ones fresh off the boat, seem to outperform the general population, in academic achievement?.(It's, oooooh, "racism.")

ML/NJ

153 posted on 12/18/2004 4:27:25 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: honest2God
If you have an argument against what I say on the Civil Rights movement in Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today, make it. The facts cited as to the origins of the movement may be verified. That it embraces a different concept of the role of Government, from what was embraced by the Founding Fathers, is obvious, if you but analyze what was being advocated.

I did not suggest that the concept that all men were created equal was refuse. What was refuse is the smear of the Southern hierarchy. Why don't you read the Declaration of Independence through as an entity, and understand what Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were acually saying. It hardly supports your argument. They certainly were not attacking the landed gentry in the American South. (See Declaration Of Independence.)

William Flax

154 posted on 12/18/2004 7:32:01 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Marauder

Ditto's


155 posted on 12/18/2004 8:32:43 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Don Simmons

Right on my friend :)


156 posted on 12/18/2004 8:39:07 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
then i'd guess that you believe the base CDR @GITMO lied about the lease the payments, huh???

free dixie,sw

157 posted on 12/18/2004 9:26:21 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
btw, anything i EVER said in my whole life is wrong according to N-S, the Damnyankee Minister of Propaganda.

it is the NATURE of a PROPAGANDIST to LIE, as it is the NATURE of a SERPANT to slither.

free dixie,sw

158 posted on 12/18/2004 9:30:58 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
btw, i'm pleased to share the following private message with you:

"stand, continue to post the truth, despite what Non-Sequitur says. Everybody, except the dumbest & most ignorant of the Unionist clique on FreeRepublic.com,knows what he posts are nothing but spin, exxagerations, nonsense & falsehoods."

he/she GETS IT!

free dixie,sw

159 posted on 12/18/2004 9:43:49 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Thank you for your gracious welcome. I will come to Foxhole and Canteen and say hi!. And thank you for the advice about the flameproof undies. I'm afraid I've already had my lace singed a bit in my short tenure here--I've always been outspoken and its hard to just sit back and lurk while my betters (those here for a long time) have at it. Be well.


160 posted on 12/18/2004 10:27:14 AM PST by ariamne (reformed liberal and Shieldmaiden of the Infidels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
btw, THANKS for working with the warriors of PW!

ya'll are doing the LORD'S WORK against the LEFTIST, infidels.

now, if we could just the PW folks to go after the damnyankees, who are doing the "devils' bidding"!

free dixie,sw

161 posted on 12/18/2004 10:35:08 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash; honest2God
I am not the one fixated. All of your rant comes back to one thing, you are a fanatic on the subject of human slavery--consistently claiming that every system that allowed it, from the beginning of history, was evil for doing so.

But this moral judgment of yours, despite your rant, is not one that you have supported on any basis other than your own rhetoric. While I agree that a slave system is a flawed system, that does not in and of itself make slaveholders evil men; nor does it give you the slightest right to interfere in other people's cultures.

If you want to narrow this to the specifics of this thread, let me be very clear. The Constitution--however you deny it--was a compact between the States, whose independence had been recognized in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. It was based upon delegated powers. As Article VII makes very clear, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Parse that language anyway that you like, and it is a Compact between the States that ratify. Several almost didn't join.

There are several provisions in that Constitution, which deliberately took slavery off the table, as an issue between the States, ratifying the Constitution. Your suggestion that you--or those who think as you think--would have been justified in waging a murderous war, against the Southern leadership, because they insisted on the original Constitutional intent, is what is truly immoral; truly evil. It was because there were an increasing number talking, as you are writing, was probably the single most significant reason for the South's secession--although there had been many other issues, also.

As for systems that demean individuals? Do you really think that the slave or bondsman, whether in Biblical, Greek, Roman or ante-bellum Southern times, who served a Master loyally, and in a way that contributed to his social order at the time, had less dignity than someone today, living on Welfare, without even trying to do anything productive? Or take the serf, serving the great landowner, who went off to war with his King, Henry V? Was there not far more dignity in his service at Agincourt, than that accorded many a modern beneficiary of Tony Blair's Socialist Britain?

You want to see history as a battle between Good and Evil, rather than one between differing perspectives, and competing interests. There certainly are evil men; but their differing with you on competing social systems is not the crux of their evil. On the other hand, those who take an oath to support a Constitutional compact, and then call for a course of action that flies in the face of that compact, have violated one of the most sacred principles of morality. The South was reacting, not provoking in her secession. The tragedy--on both sides--flowed from the arrogant madness you espouse.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

162 posted on 12/18/2004 10:57:23 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
that the bluebellies were FILTH and that we southrons deserved to be FREE & left alone to live in a FREE dixie republic.

You honestly don't believe that the Confederacy committed any "crimes against humanity" during their cause either? Neither side was 100% comprised of saints. Both had many good people, both had plenty of SOBs.

163 posted on 12/18/2004 11:23:37 AM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
the CSA committed NO ORGANIZED crimes against humanity. none.

YES, there were many individuals in gray, who committed INDIVIDUAL war crimes (as well as common crimes), but there is NO EVIDENCE whatever that the CSA high command either planned,endorsed or covered up these INDIVIDUAL acts. (in point of fact, many CSA service members were HANGED for committing crimes by the Provost Marshal of the ANV,ATN, etc.)

otoh, the commission of WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY was a PLANNED/premeditated portion of the damnyankee's overall war plan.

i challenge you to find ANY ORIGINAL source document that shows that the Union Army ever HANGED anyone of their service members for ANY crime committed against any civilian SOUTHERNER or CSA POW. furthermore, the Provost Marshals of the USA seldom even bothered to "make a show of investigating" ANY offense committed against a southerner or CSA captive in union military confinement.

as a result, mass rape, arson,looting/plundering of private property,looting/burglary/armed robbery/desecration of churches & synagogues,armed robbery,sexual assaults, kidnappings for profit, coldblooded MURDER and other WAR CRIMES were both COMMONPLACE & UNpunished. (anytime the higher authorities of ANY military force lets the soldiers know that crime will NOT be punished, crimes will RISE exponentially!)

also, the damnyankees CREATED the CONCENTRATION CAMP, where rebel POWs & civilian internees were INTENTIONALLY/routinely abused,tortured,denied shelter & medical care,raped,assaulted & MURDERED POWs & civilian internees, without just cause, on a WHOLESALE basis.

at Point lookout Prison Camp, at least 15,000 POWs and civilian confinees were MURDERED. (the best estimates of the TOTAL number of confinees murdered at all the damnyankee concentration camps combined is between 50-100,000 persons.)

btw, on public display at the Point lookout Museum is an original document, signed by a Union Army CPT, which says that, "any UN-WARRANTED or INTENTIONAL shootings of rebel prisoners in our hands will IMMEDIATELTY cease. after this date, any such guard or staff officer killing prisoners will be fined the sum of ONE DOLLAR".===> some REAL PUNISHMENT, don't you think!!!!

free dixie,sw

164 posted on 12/18/2004 12:08:37 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
as a result, mass rape, arson,looting/plundering of private property,looting/burglary/armed robbery/desecration of churches & synagogues. . .

Okay, seriously, how many synagogues were in the South at the time??

And, I'm not defending the actions of the Union troops. Much of that was uncomprehensible! However, it worked.

The Confederacy lost . . . get over it. Learn to function in present day society. You sound like a bitter person.

165 posted on 12/18/2004 12:42:49 PM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
there were many synagogues in the big cities of dixie at that time. New Orleans had several. so did Atlanta & Savannah.

"However, it worked." ====>do you REALLY think that murdering UNarmed civilians & helpless POWs, committing mass rapes, kidnappings,etc. are A-OK and/or aren't something for damnyankees to be EMBARRASSED about????

IF i'm "bitter", it's because 92 members of MY family were raped/robbed/tortured & MURDERED, only because they were NOT "white persons" AND unarmed, AND BECAUSE "all too many posters here" seem to think that this INTENTIONAL ATROCITY was "perfectly acceptable in wartime".

btw, would you tell a Jew that telling the story his family's demise during the HITLER TERROR makes him sound like a "bitter person". NO?? i thought NOT.

free dixie,sw

166 posted on 12/18/2004 12:56:19 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
IF i'm "bitter", it's because 92 members of MY family were raped/robbed/tortured & MURDERED, only because they were NOT "white persons"

Okay, I'm not discriminating against the South for slavery. I fully realize the North had previously had slaves and still had probably just as racist of views. But, do you honestly not believe that many Southerners (many who fought for the Confederacy) had not raped/robbed/tortured and murdered plenty of people, only because there were NOT "white persons"?

167 posted on 12/18/2004 1:02:28 PM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
PLEASE spare me that self-serving & silly NONSENSE.

can't you discern the VAST difference between INDIVIDUAL un-lawful acts by individual criminals and a PREMEDITATED & INTENTIONAL holocaust committed against an "unfavored" racial minority group by GOVERNMENT PLAN & ACTION????

if you can't, here's the difference:

the "Son of Sam" was a serial-killer;AUSCHWITZ was an INTENTIONAL action of a CRIMINAL REGIME. the damnyankee DEATH CAMP at Point Lookout, MD & a dozen or so other damnyankee DEATH CAMPS were like places of HORROR.

may i suggest that you borrow the book,PORTALS TO HELL, from your local library? MUCH of the sad story is therein.

free dixie,sw free dixie,sw

168 posted on 12/18/2004 1:22:25 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
Everybody, except the dumbest & most ignorant of the Unionist clique on FreeRepublic.com,knows what he posts are nothing but spin, exxagerations, nonsense & falsehoods."

If not for the fact that some of the words are capitalized I would think that you wrote that. But still it's mildly upsetting to think that there are more than one person out there as wrong as you.

169 posted on 12/18/2004 1:39:08 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
then i'd guess that you believe the base CDR @GITMO lied about the lease the payments, huh???

No, but I would expect you to. The base payment check is deposited in a Swiss bank each year. The base commander at Guantanamo has nothing to do with the process.

170 posted on 12/18/2004 1:40:20 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
I've always been outspoken and its hard to just sit back and lurk while my betters (those here for a long time) have at it.

Join in the fun.

171 posted on 12/18/2004 1:41:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thanks..it's been quite a roller coaster ride so far..as a lefty I thought all conservatives walked in lockstep, was I ever wrong. It's the libs who dare not deviate from party line. There are so many different views here, I must have lost weeks of sleep since I joined, checking out the threads.


172 posted on 12/18/2004 2:18:36 PM PST by ariamne (reformed liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
perhaps not but he was quoted on CNN as saying exactly that.

free dixie,sw

173 posted on 12/18/2004 3:15:26 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
well at last, something we agree about!

what a SHOCK!

free dixie,sw

174 posted on 12/18/2004 3:16:25 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
i believe that there are at least as many different views on FR as there are freepers.

free dixie,sw

175 posted on 12/18/2004 3:17:59 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
in other words, you think anybody, who disagrees with the damnyankee's Minister of Propaganda on ANY subject, must be wrong?????

what ARROGANCE!

free dixie,sw

176 posted on 12/18/2004 3:21:07 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I wouldn't call any of those things racism. Unfortunately, the term has been thrown around so much by those with a political agenda, that generalizations (which is what your second two examples are) are sometimes mistaken for racism. Wanting one's child to marry someone from your own background is fine--forcing them to do so against their will (while not racism) I think is silly (not that I am saying that you would do so).


177 posted on 12/18/2004 4:38:19 PM PST by honest2God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: honest2God
I wouldn't call any of those things racism.

Can I observe that blacks under perform academically? Or that they commit many more violent crimes than their proportion of the population would suggest?

ML/NJ

178 posted on 12/18/2004 5:09:28 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I'm flattered that you need my permission to do so. j/k
Again, citing these thing isn't necessarily racism. The first again, is a generalization. I'm sure that Powell or Rice would outperform many whites or asians any day. The second is an inference based on statistics. Now, an example of racism would be to suggest that both of these things are true BECAUSE they are black.


179 posted on 12/18/2004 5:23:08 PM PST by honest2God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
actually, i'd guess that the percentage of southerners that EVER tortured/raped/robbed/kidnapped/murdered a person of any race/religion/ethnic group was LESS than 1%, just as it is in society as a whole.

in every society, the percentage & the number of criminals in peacetime is small.

otoh, when removed from their home area during war,given assurances of NO punishment for their actions and/or ENCOURAGED by their "supervisors" & "leaders" at higher levels to commit crimes against "the enemy", a MUCH larger percentage will commit ATROCITIES.

that is PRECISELY what happened with the damnyankee army in the south.

as Dr Susan Brownmiller of Harvard University has said, the damnyankee army committed the outrages against common decency & crimes against humanity because "they COULD".

free dixie,sw

180 posted on 12/18/2004 5:27:45 PM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
perhaps not but he was quoted on CNN as saying exactly that.

When?

181 posted on 12/19/2004 4:19:42 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
what ARROGANCE!

Almost as arrogant as posting the most outrageous crap and expecting everyone to accept it at face value, just because you said it was true?

182 posted on 12/19/2004 4:21:12 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
NOPE. you actually are arrogant enough to be /upset/miffed/ANGRY when smart people here do not continue to swallow the damnedyankee PROPAGANDA, as if it were TRUTH rather than only spin, lies & self-serving apologism for ATROCITIES & TYRANNY.

as for you & your coven of damnedyankees, i couldn't care less if you believe anything i or any southron says or thinks.

my posts are primarily to persons who want to know the TRUTH, stripped of 150 years of LIES.

southerners assume (i think correctly) that damnyankees do not WANT to know the UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH about tens of thousands of MURDERED rebel POWs & the rampage of the damnyankee army through the southland, which was MAINLY directed against the poorest of the poor, persons of color & unarmed civilians.

free dixie,sw

183 posted on 12/19/2004 6:55:19 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
my posts are primarily to persons who want to know the TRUTH, stripped of 150 years of LIES.

One couldn't find more than a grain of truth within any average 50 posts of yours.

184 posted on 12/19/2004 9:11:41 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
don't you WISH you were correct.

as the KING OF SPIN & PROPAGANDA, you know a lot about "grain of truth", but CHOOSE more of the same old lies, evasions, self-serving aplologies for DIShonorableness & everything else except UNcomfortable FACTS.

free dixie,sw

185 posted on 12/19/2004 11:04:33 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Really, you equate Hitler to Jefferson Davis!

No, I didn't. I said that the Nazi system and the Southern slave system was similar in that they both did not insure that all of the people under their control enjoyed their full, God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I also recognized that the Southerners did so to a much lesser extent and to much different ends than was the case in Germany. I said nothing more. And the truth of that statement, as a historical fact, is really incontestable.

I don't think I ever typed the name Jefferson Davis on this thread, nor would I compare him with Adolf Hitler.

>>it is immoral for the state to allow one person to own another?<<

May I sell myself into slavery?

It is immoral for the state to allow such a thing.

But as for you selling yourself, that is a much closer question because of the morality of personal autonomy. On the one hand it cannot be free of immorality, because are perpetuating, and to some extent condoning, the slavery system. Further, if your decision binds anyone else, such as your descendants, to a life of bondage, than it is clearly an immoral choice. ON the whole, I would say it is, but it is by no means an unclouded question.

186 posted on 12/20/2004 4:02:24 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
John Brown was a psychopathic idiot but the PC side of this argument you've aligned with treats him as a prophet.

Well, that may be so, but I'm responsible for no one's opinion but my own. Were I wishing to pick a fight, I'd point out that your side of the argument is the Kluxers and their excusers. If the Klan and segregationists had not chosen the battle flag as a symbol, it would probably not be as controversial as it is.

I guess my point is that a person believes what he believes for his own reasons. Just because someone else reaches a similar conclusion, it does not mean that you abide by their reasoning. Just as I've reached my conclusions absent the PC nonsense of others on "my side" so, I trust, you've reached your conclusions based on your convictions and the best of what the South and its culture has to offer, and not out of any atavistic race hatred.

Plus, considering the number of moderate and swing voters (i.e., those required to actually elect a politician) who are turned off by the fact that there is a streak of modern conservatism that doesn't even what to admit that slavery was bad, letting alone all the auxiliary issues, it is a wonder that the Republicans control all the political offices that they do.

I'm glad Brooks caned Sumner. Wish he coulda caned all the RRs of the day.

Well, whatever. Well, Reconstruction would have been much worse had more assaults taken place?? The biggest strategic event in Reconstruction, from a Southern standpoint, happened at Ford's theater. If that narcissistic idiot Booth hadn't shot Lincoln, Reconstruction probably would not have been as bad. But we'll never know, I guess.

I'm Southern and make no excuses to any of ya'll whose water we have to carry to keep this nation from falling into the abyss.

Fantastic. I'm American. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the South. I've traveled a bit down there, and found the people to be warm and friendly. I even find things to admire about the Confederacy. Slavery just is not one of them.

187 posted on 12/20/2004 4:23:29 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: honest2God
Although, I fear you may be wasting your time.....

Well, that may be the case. But, if, in 2004, the Democrats can point swing voters and moderates to posts on Free Republic as support of the notiont that conservatives can't even decide among themselves that slavery was evil, then I fear for the preservation of the conservative and/or Republican majorities.

188 posted on 12/20/2004 4:33:24 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
All of your rant comes back to one thing, you are a fanatic on the subject of human slavery--consistently claiming that every system that allowed it, from the beginning of history, was evil for doing so.

But this moral judgment of yours, despite your rant, is not one that you have supported on any basis other than your own rhetoric.

Not true, but I'll restate it. I believe that every person has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that? It's in the Declaration of Independence. You can look it up. If a political system denies its citizens these God-given, inalienable rights, then that system is morally corrupt.

This does not mean anything more than that. It does not mean that everyone in that society is evil or that there is nothing positive to say about it. Merely that that part of the system which permitted human bondage was wrong.

***

While I agree that a slave system is a flawed system, that does not in and of itself make slaveholders evil men; nor does it give you the slightest right to interfere in other people's cultures.

It does not, in and of itself make those men evil men. I can think of a number of situations where a man could find himself a slave holder without acting immorally. But that does not mean that no (or most) slaveholders were of that type, or that slavery itself was not immoral.

Further, if a man holds a gun to my head, I have the right to kill him in self-defense. If a man holds a gun to your head, I have the right to kill him to save you. If a man holds me a slave, I have the right to kill him, if necessary, to free myself. And, likewise, if a man holds you as a slave, I have the right to kill him, if necessary, to free you. All the rest is dicta.

And this has nothing to do with some "not interfering with other people's culture" putrid politically correct crap. It has to do with whether you believe in the promise of America, that every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

***

If you want to narrow this to the specifics of this thread, let me be very clear. The Constitution--however you deny it--was a compact between the States, whose independence had been recognized in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. It was based upon delegated powers. As Article VII makes very clear, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." Parse that language anyway that you like, and it is a Compact between the States that ratify. Several almost didn't join.

Uhh, no. As I said before, the Constitution did envision the continued existence of the states, but it was no compact. If it was merely a compact between states, then the states could have ratified the Constitution through legislative acts. It would not require the consent of the people through Conventions. (Every state enters into compacts to this day, for interstate standards for many things. If there is a major river separating states, for example, often bridge authorities exist to control and manage the bridge crossings. Those are created through interstate compacts. When was the last time you heard of a convention to ratify the creation of a bridge authority?)

Further, in the Declaration, it sets out a political philosophy which states that when a Government becomes destructive to the ends of securing the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and create another. The Constitution created a new form of Government, that of a federal republic, in place of the one preceding it, that of the Articles of Confederation. Under the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, it was the people, not the states, which had that right. Thus, as a matter of political philosophy, only the people could have ordained and established the Constitution.

Finally, there is the issue of Article VI, clause 3. Not only did the Federal officers have to swear or affirm that they would uphold the Constitution (including the clause which made Federal law the Supreme Law of the Land), but members of the state legislatures, state judicial and state executive officers had to likewise do so. If the Constitution merely established a compact, the state legislatures, officers, etc., would not have to swear to uphold it. Thus, it is clear that the Constitution did not make something inferior to the authority of the state (which would be the case of a compact) but something superior to the authority of the state.

***

There are several provisions in that Constitution, which deliberately took slavery off the table, as an issue between the States, ratifying the Constitution. Your suggestion that you--or those who think as you think--would have been justified in waging a murderous war, against the Southern leadership, because they insisted on the original Constitutional intent, is what is truly immoral; truly evil. It was because there were an increasing number talking, as you are writing, was probably the single most significant reason for the South's secession--although there had been many other issues, also.

Those who formed the Union in the first place were required to compromise on the issue of slavery, in order for the South to agree on the issue. They made a deal with the devil so to speak. To the extent that it later sowed the seeds for the abolition of slavery was some mitigation. They are morally culpable for their actions, but I think they did what they could.

Had they chosen to fight in order to eliminate slavery instead of making this compromise, they would have been morally justified in doing so.

***

As for systems that demean individuals? Do you really think that the slave or bondsman, whether in Biblical, Greek, Roman or ante-bellum Southern times, who served a Master loyally, and in a way that contributed to his social order at the time, had less dignity than someone today, living on Welfare, without even trying to do anything productive?

Oh, please. Are you really so myopic that you see nothing but this false duality? Who has more dignity, Uncle Remus or the welfare queen???

Turn it around: Who do you think has a higher moral standard, the overseer who whips slaves out of sadism and rapes the slave women for his own animal gratification or the man who promoted Colin Powell to Secretary of State and Condie Rice to National Security Adviser??

***

Or take the serf, serving the great landowner, who went off to war with his King, Henry V? Was there not far more dignity in his service at Agincourt, than that accorded many a modern beneficiary of Tony Blair's Socialist Britain?

Again, the question was not whether he was dignified in his situation, but whether he was respected as a man. Was this serf given the option of not serving? Was his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stripped from him on the arbitrary whim of the state? If so, then an evil was done. The decree to which the victim of that evil mitigates or overcomes it is merely a credit to him as an individual, it does not go to vitiate the evil in the system.

***

You want to see history as a battle between Good and Evil, rather than one between differing perspectives, and competing interests.

Actually it is often both. History is often a battle between Good and Evil. See, e.g., WWII. But is also a fight between differing perspectives and competing interests. See, e.g., WWII.

What you appear to want to do is to simply strip the element of evil away from the antebellum South in order to not feel unease at your admiration for the Confederates. This is juvenile thinking, in my opinion, because it presupposes that the Confederates were incapable of evil and incapable of being wrong. If you view them this way, then you do not view them as human beings, which they most assuredly were, but as demigods, whose every action is justified if only we could discern how.

A mature view of history could say Robert E. Lee was a gentleman, a fine soldier, a man of good character, and one of the indispensable men of history who, unfortunately, fought in defense of a system which permitted the evils of slavery.

***

There certainly are evil men; but their differing with you on competing social systems is not the crux of their evil. On the other hand, those who take an oath to support a Constitutional compact, and then call for a course of action that flies in the face of that compact, have violated one of the most sacred principles of morality.

This, in my mind, is a pretty monstrous way of looking at the world: It is not evil to establish a slave-holding society, but it is evil to fight one? What a tortured view of morality that is.

***

The South was reacting, not provoking in her secession. The tragedy--on both sides--flowed from the arrogant madness you espouse.

All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it is moral to fight to secure these rights, be the beneficiary of that fight you or another. If these ideas be "arrogant madness" then I am arrogantly mad. As were innumerable great men in our history and in world history. I would be proud to take my place among them.

189 posted on 12/20/2004 6:45:32 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash; wardaddy
This sentence: "Well, Reconstruction would have been much worse had more assaults taken place??"

Should have read: "Well, wouldn't Reconstruction have been much worse had more assaults taken place??"

190 posted on 12/20/2004 7:20:20 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash; Ohioan

No one here has said they admire slavery. We are simply not obsessed with exploiting the condemnation of it to feed our need for self virtue and sanctimony.

As for race which appears to occupy a large chunk of your brainspace, I lived in Manhattan. I was not impressed with race relations there. Tawana, Howard Beach, Yankel Rosenbaum, and Bensonhurst come to mind....not to mention the dangerous hostility some blacks have towards others in certain areas.

But then again, my moral orbit does not revolve around only race.


191 posted on 12/20/2004 8:18:29 AM PST by wardaddy (Quisiera ser un pez para tocar mi nariz en tu pecera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
No one here has said they admire slavery. We are simply not obsessed with exploiting the condemnation of it to feed our need for self virtue and sanctimony.

There are those who post here who do not seem to be the least bit morally offended by the fact that slavery was permitted to exist, and, in fact, hold that the only immorality was fighting to destroy it. Others seem to view anything Southern or Confederate as somehow beyond reproach, including slavery and Jim Crow. That's just dumb.

And it has nothing to do with "self virtue" or "sanctimony." I've merely stated that slavery and slave-holding is evil. That this is statement is somehow controversial in 2004 in the United States is jaw-dropping.

As for race which appears to occupy a large chunk of your brainspace,

I've condemned slavery regardless of race. If someone who is white or oriental is being held as a slave, my opinions would be consistent. Race isn't an issue with me, although I understand how it interferes with the "we Southerners were magnificent creatures who did no wrong, but are unfairly maligned" narrative that I've seen whenever this subject arises.

I lived in Manhattan. I was not impressed with race relations there. Tawana, Howard Beach, Yankel Rosenbaum, and Bensonhurst come to mind....not to mention the dangerous hostility some blacks have towards others in certain areas.

Is there a section in the "Lost Cause Handbook" that says that when the subject turns to race, you deflect criticism of the South by pointing out the racial problems of the North? Frankly, I agree with you that race relations in the North have been insane at times and are no model for much. But so the hell what? If you want to have that discussion, we can have that discussion.

What I'm asking here is whether the confederate system and its supporters really believe what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone could posit a cogent explanation showing that this is not violated by chattel slavery, I'd consider it. But the fact that one has never been produced simply tells me that none exists.

But then again, my moral orbit does not revolve around only race.

Nor does mine. I'm not saying that the slaves shouldn't have been held because they were black, I'm saying that they shouldn't have been held as slaves because they were human beings. How is this controversial?

192 posted on 12/20/2004 8:49:28 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
since you don't admire slavery in the southland, how do you feel about the slavery in the NORTH???? especially the damnyankees who planned to KEEP THEIR SLAVES, while "freeing southern slaves"????

or the FACT that MANY northeastern corporations (primarily large banks, insurance companies, railroads & shipping conglomerates) GOT RICH off the trade in human flesh.

FUNNY THING though, i never hear anyone talking about EITHER issue.

imVho, damnyankees are now & have always been SELF-RIGHTEOUS LIARS & HYPOCRYTES on the issue of slavery and a HUNDRED other issues.

free dixie,sw

193 posted on 12/20/2004 8:52:20 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
since you don't admire slavery in the southland, how do you feel about the slavery in the NORTH???? especially the damnyankees who planned to KEEP THEIR SLAVES, while "freeing southern slaves"????

or the FACT that MANY northeastern corporations (primarily large banks, insurance companies, railroads & shipping conglomerates) GOT RICH off the trade in human flesh.

FUNNY THING though, i never hear anyone talking about EITHER issue.

imVho, damnyankees are now & have always been SELF-RIGHTEOUS LIARS & HYPOCRYTES on the issue of slavery and a HUNDRED other issues.

free dixie,sw

194 posted on 12/20/2004 8:53:12 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
actually, i'd guess that the percentage of southerners that EVER tortured/raped/robbed/kidnapped/murdered a person of any race/religion/ethnic group was LESS than 1%, just as it is in society as a whole.

Whatever the percentage it is of Southerners that owned slaves is the percentage of Southerners that tortured/raped/robbed/kidnapped/murdered.

195 posted on 12/20/2004 8:59:59 AM PST by Modernman (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
do you believe the same thing is true of the arrogant, self-serving,hateFILLED,self-righteous damnedyankees that OWNED SLAVES??

or are you just a, ignorant, brainless,little south-HATING troll, who should head over to DU and stay there with the other LIBS/DIMocRATS/FOOLS/HATERS????

free dixie,sw

196 posted on 12/20/2004 9:08:19 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
see #194, troll.

begone to DU.

free dixie,sw

197 posted on 12/20/2004 9:09:15 AM PST by stand watie ( being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
since you don't admire slavery in the southland, how do you feel about the slavery in the NORTH???? especially the damnyankees who planned to KEEP THEIR SLAVES, while "freeing southern slaves"????

i find it MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE!!!!! i don't care WHO it is that is HOLDING SLAVES, whoever DOES is morally WRONG!!!!

or the FACT that MANY northeastern corporations (primarily large banks, insurance companies, railroads & shipping conglomerates) GOT RICH off the trade in human flesh.

THEN they got those RICHES immorally!!!!! but their immorality is SECONDARY TO those of the SLAVEHOLDERS, who actually HELD the slaves...

FUNNY THING though, i never hear anyone talking about EITHER issue.

THEN you need to GET OUT MORE, because reparations for SLAVERY has been in THE NEWS alot lately. (AND no, I don't BELIEVE that descendants of SLAVES should receive REPARATIONS!!!!)

imVho, damnyankees are now & have always been SELF-RIGHTEOUS LIARS & HYPOCRYTES on the issue of slavery and a HUNDRED other issues.

imVho, the neo-confeds are the REASON why the DEMOCRATS get such traction on the "CONSERVATIVES are bigots lie." if the CONSERVATIVES are united on the ISSUE that every HUMAN being has THE right to LIFE, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness, then what does AN AMERICAN conservative stand FOR?????

free dixie,sw

dixie lost, get over it,whc

198 posted on 12/20/2004 9:12:26 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
do you believe the same thing is true of the arrogant, self-serving,hateFILLED,self-righteous damnedyankees that OWNED SLAVES??

Sure I do. What percentage of Northerners owned slaves? (and lets not count states like Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky, that needed to be kept in the Union mostly at gunpoint)

Do you admit that every Southerner who owned slaves engaged in abuse of another human being? So, that would make, what, 25% or so of Southerners at the time robbers/rapists/murderers/kidnappers etc.

or are you just a, ignorant, brainless,little south-HATING troll, who should head over to DU and stay there with the other LIBS/DIMocRATS/FOOLS/HATERS????

It is clear that the only thing you are capable of are ad hominem attacks and chanting "liar, liar pants on fire."

I will say that men like Lee were gentlemen, despite their devotion to a lost and evil cause.

You, sir, are not a gentleman.

199 posted on 12/20/2004 9:13:20 AM PST by Modernman (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

#194 is not a rebuttal to my point, any more than whining "but everyone else is doing it" is a legitimate way for a child to get out of trouble.


200 posted on 12/20/2004 9:14:51 AM PST by Modernman (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-424 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson