Posted on 12/16/2004 6:48:26 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Ping
Well, there IS that little matter of shelling that fort in Charleston harbor...
Our Confederate ancestors deserve better from this nation. They fought for what they believed in and lost.
So did John Walker Lindh. Should we "honor" him, too? Even if we assume that the war had nothing to do with slavery (which is a HUGE assumption), these men fought against the United States. Why should the United States then turn around and honor them? As a pragmatic matter, their treason against the United States was overlooked and forgiven. Shouldn't that be enough?
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.
Some did. Others joined the Klan and used terror tactics to murder and terrorize black Americans and keep them from exercising their rights as Americans. Now, these were not Confederate guerrillas, but they certainly did not simply lay down their arms and "live peacefully."
Friday April 12, 1861 4:30 AM - A mortar shell was fired over Fort Sumter in Charleston, SC.
There were negotiations going on over Fort Sumter, and the union sent ships to reinforce Sumter during the negotiations. The South fired on Sumter before the reinforcements could get there. Hostilities were pretty much mutual.
So you're saying that the US should be able to keep military installations in other countries without permission?
But the fact remains that the first shot was fired by the Confederacy.
The Klan was formed to keep the carpetbaggers from the North from terrorizing Southerners.
Leaving aside the entire question of whether South Carolina was another country or not, Sumter was the property of the federal government. Southern secession, even if legal, did not change that. Wouldn't it have made sense to negotiate the disposition of federal property in the southern states before the acts of secession?
And for the record we do keep military installations in other countries without their permission. It's called Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
***To many Confederate generals, the Missouri brigades were considered the best fighting units in the South.***
Well Missouri was fighting the War with Kansas before the rest of the country joined in. I even like to think that the last action of the Civil War was by Confederate Raiders lead by the James and Younger family on the Yankee money supply in Northfield Minnesotia in 1876.
Then why did they lynch and murder black people?
And what were these supposed "terror" tactics, besides teaching black kids to read and ensuring that the black Americans could exercise their right to vote? (Or was it that the ex-Confed's found literate black children and enfranchised black men to be terrifying?)
Suggesting that it is treason to seek to retire from a Federation is absurd. You can make a much stronger case for treason against the founding fathers, who revolted against a Government that claimed to be ordained by God.
The idea that the Federal Government has some sort of all overriding claim on the States is more akin to the Nazi German theory of one Reich, one Volk, one Leader, than anything ever intended for America.
I, as a Conservative Ohioan, am very glad the South is still part of the Union. Without those Southerners who honor their Confederate traditions, the prospects for American Conservatism, generally, would be very bleak indeed. But I also understand what is involved in the endless spewing of venom against the Old South. It is an attempt to break down one of the last bastions of Conservative values in America. It stems from the far Left. It has been embraced by the brainwashed academics and media types--the useful idiots for the far Left. It is given absurd credence, today, by those other Americans who never learned to question what those brainwashed academics prattled. But it is analogous to some very, very ugly parallels in Lenin, Trotsky and Stalinist Russia, and in Nazi Germany.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Great post!
I gotta tell ya, people are so unbelieveably ignorant about the whole issue of slavery in this country. The most ignorant of all are the "African-Americans" - those who use that term as a source of pride are largely oblivious to the very facts surrounding their own heritage.
*** Keep reading!!!***
First of all, the slave trade in this country was outlawed in the early 1800s - but it was perpetuated illegally by Northern merchants. They were the ones with the wealth to finance the trips to Africa and the goods used to purchase the slaves. Most Southern landowners played no part in the actual importation beyond the purchase -- and they weren't the only ones making those purchases either!
Secondly, slavery was indeed a "trade". To hear so many "activists" in this country, you'd think that we took armies to Africa and rounded up potential slaves at gunpoint and brought them back. Not the case - no how, no way! Slaves, who were born into the institution of slavery IN Africa, were sold -- exchanged for a wide variety of goods including textiles, sugar, spices, etc. -- BY THEIR OWN "PEOPLE"!!!
Next is the fact that by bringing slaves into this country, so many doors were opened up for blacks to eventually achieve a higher standard of living. Look at how many millions of "African-Americans" we have in America today. Regardless of the claims to the contrary, opportunity abounds for everyone in this country, no matter their skin color. All it takes is a good attitude, hard work, and a sense of appreciation for just how good we really do have it here. What do you think were the prospects of Africans 200, 300, 400 years ago? Not good, when you think about it. Anyone of African heritage who thinks they would be better off today had slavery never existed in America should take a trip to Sub-Saharan Africa and have a look for themselves. Muhammad Ali told the tale pretty well back in the 1970s - but like most things that don't pander to people's pre-conceived notions and tell them what they want to hear - his statements went largely unnoticed.
And finally, the treatment of slaves in America - if you believe all the horror stories, you'd think they were all beaten and whipped daily. Again - no how, no way! Of course, there were many cases of maltreatment at the hands of cruel slaveholders - no denying that. However it simply was not a widespread practice for one basic reason: investment. The cost of a slave back then translates to a very high dollar amount by today's standards. Slaves were used for labor - labor they cannot perform if they are injured...and certainly not if they're dead. Most slaveowners were actually very good to their slaves and provided them food and shelter -- things they simply would not have received enough of if they were living the life of a slave IN AFRICA! If they ran away here - yes, they were disciplined. If they ran away in Africa - they were killed on-the-spot. There were simply too many to be found at practically no cost over there for the slaveholders to bother with a concept such as "discipline".
Bottom line is that, even though slavery was a deplorable institution in this country, it existed in every corner of the Earth back then. America was hardly the sole violator of "human rights". Actually, slave treatment in America was a cut above the rest.
I'm not justifying slavery by any means. I'm simply pointing out the ignorance of many people and their refusal to accept facts by those who try and champion the cause.
As with most things - a good dose of real history can cure ignorance.
The difference between being a revolutionary and a traitor is all in the difference between winning and losing. Had our founding fathers lost the Revolutionary War, you can bet your sweet bippy they would have been tried and executed for treason. Nathan Hale was, after all.
The Yankees were taking property that belonged to Southerners and giving it to blacks. They also appointed blacks to positions of authority such as law enforcement and encouraged them to brutalize Southerners.
There were negotiations going on about the disposition of the US Ft.- Lincoln was overriding those by attempting to resupply the Fort.
Why? In this context, all a Federation suggests it that the constituent parts (here the states) retain control of their internal affairs. It says nothing about the Federation's permanence.
You can make a much stronger case for treason against the founding fathers, who revolted against a Government that claimed to be ordained by God.
Actually what the founding fathers committed was treason to King George III. And thank God for it. Just as Claus Von Stauffenberg committed treason against Adolf Hitler. The question is whether that treason was to be denounced or applauded.
The idea that the Federal Government has some sort of all overriding claim on the States is more akin to the Nazi German theory of one Reich, one Volk, one Leader, than anything ever intended for America.
I disagree here. The Nazi reference is interesting in that they eliminated the traditional role of the Länder and made the state a unified state. The Bundesrepublik after the war revered the Länder to a federated state. I would not say that the Federal Gov't in the US, even at its strongest, ever eliminated the existence of the state governments. However, the question is really whether a voluntary submission to a federal republic can be reversed. That is the essence of the secession question.
I'll repeat. Wasn't the time to negotiate the disposition of federal property before secession? Seizing the property and offering to negotiate after the fact seems akin to taking posession of the house and offering to pay for it after you've moved in.
...and this justifies rounding up innocent blacks and killing and lynching them, denying them their right to vote, to hold office, to their property, to be left to enjoy their lives, and their right not to treated like a second class citizen for the next 100-odd years? I see.
They also appointed blacks to positions of authority such as law enforcement and encouraged them to brutalize Southerners.
Oh, the horror of the dew of Southern whiteness being subject to the terror of blacks in authority. I forgot that the history of the South since the Civil War was a history of blacks rampaging through the countryside, taking innocent whites and hanging them from trees and lighting them afire...
Frankly, given the history of race relations in America prior to the end of the war, Southern whites should have been on their knees and been thankful that there was not a massacre of whites as there had been in Haiti. Was it not Jefferson, reflecting on this possibility and the truth of the treatment of American black, who stated, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Excellent read. Do agree the south deserves our belated
respect. I weary of hearing how a college may not display
the image of anything related to the Confederacy yet seem
to recall Ike kept the image of Gen.Lee behind his desk in the Peoples House. (Washington D.C.Aug.18,1960 TO Dr.Scott.
Oke noted "a nation of men of Lees calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul." Seems to me if neither
Abe Lincoln,nor Eisenhower could condemn this great man
neither should any lesser man.For they were Americans all.
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.