Replies

It is important to note that the CONFEDERACY and the FLAG issues were not issues until the Southern states began to swing to the REPUBLICAN side of politics in the early 1990's.

The 'Battle Flag' flew over the South Carolina statehouse from 1964 and as long as the Democrats were in charge, very little attention was given.

Draw a time line and you will see that the arguments from the NAACP about the FLAG etc began as the DEMOCRATS began to lose political control of the south.

The attempt to keep re-inventing history to satisfy the uneducated could go on an on. We need to stop it.

Perspective time; please remember history, if we arn't careful we'll have to pull Abraham Lincoln out of our schools or rename Ft. Worth Texas, because Hispancis will discover he fought and killed their ancestors in the Mexican War. Uh, oh; so did Grant(who also owned slaves) - change the money....etc...etc...

Lincoln re-affirmed his strong support for gradual emancipation coupled with resettlement in his second annual message to Congress of December 1, 1862 and this proposal had five basic elements:

1. Because slavery was a "domestic institution," and thus the concern of the states alone, they -- and not the federal government -- were to voluntarily emancipate the slaves.

2. Slave-holders would be fully compensated for their loss.

3. The federal government would assist the states, with bonds as grants in aid, in meeting the financial burden of compensation.

4. Emancipation would be carried out gradually: the states would have until the year 1900 to free their slaves.

5. The freed blacks would be resettled outside the United States.

Bottom line: History is pretty rough on many sides and we're stuck with it.

A few more tidbits:

In early 1863, Lincoln discussed with his Register of the Treasury a plan to "remove the whole colored race of the slave states into Texas."

source: 102. N. Weyl and W. Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (1971), pp. 228-229. Source cited: L. E. Chittenden, Recollections of Abraham Lincoln.; Lincoln apparently also gave consideration to setting aside Florida as a black asylum or reservation. See: Paul J. Scheips, "Lincoln ... , " The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1952), p. 419.

Jenerette - www.jenerette.com

A man that stands up for his Southern and Scots-Irish Heritage can't be all bad.

Nobody is "all bad", but I don't see much good coming out of his attempt to frame white Southerners, whom he identifies in "Born Fighting" with the Scots-Irish without much if any statistical evidence, as a disenfranchised victim group that's been done wrong by the rest of the country despite it's having done the lion's share of the fighting for it. That's why he thinks they should align in Democratic Party victim-hood with blacks.

Webb is a socialist and a cultural leftist... Look at his policy stances, not whatever ethnic group he identifies with. The guy supports every form of abortion, is against protecting traditional marriage, supports affirmative action, is against education vouchers, against drilling in ANWAR, is against social security reform and believes in the "path to citizenship" i.e. amnesty for illegal aliens. He thinks both the taxes on "the rich" and the minimum wage are too low and worst of all, that the federal government must do something about both/

Is Webb all bad? No, he is a decorated veteran. I understand that many Freepers believe the South had the right of things in the Civil War and that Webb reiterates that belief in this speech while paying his respects to the Confederate war dead, but as important as understanding and remembering the past is, doing so pales next to the importance of the stands someone takes regarding the present.