Skip to comments.The Myth of Northern Innocence
Posted on 12/03/2012 4:55:51 PM PST by John S Mosby
Burly-and-bearded country singer Trace Adkins ruffled all the usual feathers and bruised all the usual feelings when he dared to wear a Confederate battle flag earpiece in full view of gasping national TV viewers while singing The Christmas Song in the Yankee stronghold of Rockefeller Center on November 28.
Adkins, who belches out such venerable neo-country chestnuts as Honky Tonk Badonkadonk and Brown Chicken, Brown Cow, was subjected to the predictably rage-stroking vilification that comes whenever anyone suggests that the American South has ever been anything beyond a rancid cultural cesspool of lynching, incest, bestiality, racism, toothlessness, retardation, and yes, racism, even though I said it twice.
(Excerpt) Read more at takimag.com ...
I had to post this fact-based commentary on the former President, who was not superhuman, nor the ONE (though obamao is desperately trying to hijack Lincoln's aura,like he did Reagan before, as some kind of saviour to his "brothers"- NOT! This is laughable in that he is a muslim who believes in slavery of nonbelievers and the govt. plantation).
Needless to say the South has a lot to say about obamao, and NOT because he is a so-called "black" (he is not- he is a mulatto)- but because his goal is the destruction of the United States of America and our Constitution. For which an inordinate number of Southerners have fought and died since the War Between the States. And for which we will fight, again-- the Bill of Rights and our Constitutional Republic. The comments at the end of the article are heated, informed and uninformed, but they bring up even more items for Progressive Yankees(who put up a Massachusetts governor to defeat a Yankee based foreign Marxist-- that was smart, huh?) to chew on as they try to revive this empty suit, mind and chair of a notpresent__dent. In Hoc Signo Vinces. Deo Vindice.
Sorry. Link to Emmanuel of God Chi-Town:
1858: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p145-6)
1858: “We profess to have no taste for running and catching n*****s , at least I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do Iyield support to a fugitive slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it. (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p317, see also p91 and p94))
1859: “Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogism as this.” (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p399)
1860: (Douglass comment) In the struggle between the white man and the negro, assumes that there is a struggle, in which either the white man must enslave the negro or the negro must enslave the white.There is no such struggle! This good earth is plenty broad enough for white man and negro both, and there is no need of either pushing the other off. (Lincoln, 1953, v4, p20)
1862: (To an audience of free Blacks.) I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. (Lincoln, 1953, v5, p37-3)
1862:”My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that... I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” (Appelman, p29)
That was something Lincoln scribbled down on a scrap of paper. It's hard to know what exactly he meant by it. Was he saying that racial equality was nonsense and demagoguery, or that charges that Republicans favored racial equality were nonsense and demagoguery?
Do you really think he was more troubled by a few people who believed in Negro equality than by the many Democrats who had charged him with believing in it? Obviously, like virtually everyone in his day Lincoln did not believe in racial equality, but his attitude towards the idea may not have been as violently opposed as one might think. In any event, it's not something Lincoln actually said.
Parading around the Confederate flag similar to parading around the Mexican flag. Both fought against the US. Americans (Republican led) crushed the Confederate traitors (demonrat led) who wanted to preserve their third-world feudal society.
Isn’t it time we got in their face for once?
It isn’t the Confederate flag. The original Confederate national flag was the “stars and bars.” What Adkins was displaying was the Confederate battle flag, the banner under which men as brave and noble as their union brothers fought. The Confederate battle flag was incorporated in 1863 as the union part of the Confederate national flag. So, I’d say go ahead and protest as much as you want about the Confederate national flag; leave the battle flag alone.
You should read Frederick Douglass' "Oration Delivered Upon the Occasion of the Unveiling of the Freedmans Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln." It's easy to find. Here's the best part:
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
I’ve heard of bringing Illinois voters back from the dead, but Abe in 1953?
I fly the “ bonnie blue flag “ most ppeople don’t understand what it represents, where it came from or how it has been incorporated into other flags.
Those that know it’s history understand and those that don’t leave me alone.
YOU won; so YOU get to write your own version of history. I have enough on my plate stomaching and defending myself from the Marxist/Communist that your northern cesspool cities have foisted upon us “damned rednecks” down here in the Bible Belt. - Yep. My great,great grandfather fought at Shiloh in the Rebel army, and probably fired the FIRST SHOT at Fort Sumter, SOUTH Carolina because YA’LL WERE DOWN HEAH!
Land of Lincoln, indeed. - Maybe in the next life we’ll not have to live under this load of crap dumped on us by this “modern day Lincoln”. If Lincoln had been so brilliant he surely could have seen that slavery was on its way out anyway due to industrial innovations.
God didn’t smile on chattel slavery anyplace. The new Confederacy would have been stronger sans that institution — not weaker.
The Bonnie Blue flag. I display that one and the Come and Take It flag. See my website for a free Texas: www.freetexasconstituttion.wordpress.com.
The Obama-as-the-reincarnation-of-Lincoln folks ought to take that and run with it.
I don't recall anyone ever claiming that the North was "innocent," but it certainly claimed to be the aggrieved party in the years leading immediately up to the Civil War because the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise (which opened up "Bloody Kansas") followed by the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision (not to mention the caning by Preston Brooks of Senator Charles Sumner). From being confined to places where it had always been practiced it is obvious that the "slave power" was indeed attempting to spread the "peculiar institution" throughout the entire country.
While it's true that the anti-slavery movement can be compared in some ways to the contemporary Left, it can also be compared to today's social conservative movement in that it was being forced to see (and be complicit in) the spread of something it believed to be morally wrong and it was being told to shut up and take it.
The first seven states seceded before Lincoln had even been inaugurated, knowing full well that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed. They basically pitched a hissy fit because the candidate of a non-extentionist party (which is what the Republican party was) was elected at all--a true temper tantrum in every since of the word.
If the Southern states had stayed put slavery would have continued unmolested there and there would have been no war--but they had a rod up their butts because they wanted slavery to spread throughout the nation.
Before the neo-Confederates jump all over me, I remind them that the South was as divided as the North and that I am myself a proud descendant of Southern Unionists (and Repubicans).
The mechanical cotton picker didn’t come into use until 1942. Slavery wasn’t dieing out because of technological innovation in the 1800’s. Some places it just didn’t fit very well like the great plains. That did not stop the slavery advocates from trying to push into that area.
How many Confederate Officials and Military Officers were tried for treason after the war?
Really? That is like saying you are chaste whore.
Not nearly enough.
Quite frankly I find that some Southerners constant whining about their victimhood to be quite tiring. Its as if they are trying to overcompensate for an emasculation that happened hundreds of years ago.
White and black Southerners should form a team so they can organize their constant bellyaching into a more collaborative unit. They both seem to blame everything on someone else, a long time ago.
It was also the flag of the Free and Independent State of Mississippi between secession and joining the Conederacy.
The title of this thread is “The Myth of Northern Innocence”. . and that it is, a MYTH. Scripture deals more with what the slave’s attitude toward his master should be rather than stressing the “eeeevils” of the slave master. . but keep feeling superior to all us “damn Rebels” here in the South. (Never mind Northerners were greedy slave sellers and trackers; but that’s just an inconvenient truth that doesn’t fit the myth.)
Slavery has been dead well over a hundred years; but we’re still paying reparations via Michelle’s lavish vacations. :o)
- Scripture deals more with the right attitude of the slave toward the master than it does any condemning of the master.
Few of the Confederate soldiers actually owned slaves.
- Now any talk of secession is moot, for anybody, for any reason - except maybe Texas; but I suppose the Northern liberal states would object with drones and bullets if she tried it.
There were men like Lee who thought secession was a bad idea but felt compelled to go with their state. But what of Southerners in states like Kentucky and Missouri?
I had an ancestor, born in Virginia, who was living in Missouri during the war and eventually spent 6 months in a Missouri Union unit. His brother, also living in Missouri, joined a Confederate unit. I never knew either one personally (although I did know two relatives who had personal memories of my Union ancestor, who later ran unsuccessfully for office as a Republican).
I have another ancestor, born in Virginia, living in Virginia in 1861, who fought for the Confederacy--his grave has a plaque saying "Confederate veteran."
I can't read their minds or know who was the better man.
And I must point out that the slave of bible days had a guaranteed means of redemption, with the only exception being an Old Testament practice of what would have been a freed servant voluntarily dedicating himself forever to a family. Compare to America’s pre-bellum implementation in which if a master did not want to give up a slave he was no more impelled to than he was to sell his house to a comer with enough money.
And so what if few SOLDIERS owned slaves. How many of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks were veterans compared to civilians? That didn’t change the result did it?
The idea should be to honor the soldier - irrespective of the actions of the leaders. They were all Americans.
I say “oranges”; you hear “apples” - and self-righteously so IMO. I am NOT wishing slavery back into existence; I do my own work. The cynical “Harry Reid” Dhimmicrat attitude toward blacks has rendered them sadly diminished & I suppose technically they’ve collected a sad form of “reparations” by way of welfare ever since before LBJ declared the “Waw on Poverty”. - Obama’s thrust to stir up hatred in this country has been . . successful; if that’s how one defines success.
We have enough trouble NOW without trying to fight the “War of Northern Aggression” over again. :o)
History as taught since 1970. 3rd World Feudal? You need to read Goad’s article. Lincoln was a railroad millionaire— the issue was WHO would be able to expand THEIR railroads in the WEST. There was only a FEW fair Northern legislators who proposed to pay the value of capital labor (amortized over time) to achieve manumission.
One can hardly argue that coolie labor was treated ANY differently by the Manifest Destiny Yankee industrialists/railroad trusts who put the railroads through— as they were “blessed” by the most annoying New England Puritans and Tory ministers in their “sacred” mission. Might want to ask the Indians about that.
There is an awful lot of history you have tossed away, in support of the prepared narrative. And, naturally, completely ignore the greater issue of State’s Rights (inclusive of slavery, and MANY other issues).
Correct! Knees are jerking all over FR! Adkins is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans— bonafide descendant of
a soldier in the CSA. He has every RIGHT to his heritage and expression of it.
Just like La Raza has the right to show Toltec symbols in their idiotic claim that California should belong to them as Aztlan.
Expression is the right. In the case of Goad’s article— these are inconvenient truths—and Lincoln being used by marxist democrats (like the wealthy Spielberg— who has always supported the soviet line of WWII-— it was ALL the Nazis) is simply ridiculous.
The single star of the Bonnie Blue Flag has grown to be eleven!
It was a high stakes game for property, agriculture and cheap labor.
The coming industrial revolution (cotton gin, harvesters, mechanical inventions for agriculture) was to reduce the need for manual labor of any kind on the farm. And it was to solidify the conglomerates and bank control and reduction of the family farm.
Several panics and depressions later, brought on by the industrial/banking cycles of debt demand— brought us to today. Try as they did through the Grange movement and Co-ops, they could not overcome internationalism, a generated two World Wars that removed generations of inheriting farmers.
What is surprising here is that so many “conservatives” do not know how Progressivism masqueraded as “conservative” in the expansion of US colonial interests— at the expense of the family farm. And farce presidential elections like the one (another one) we just had. There are others in control now-— they think.
Maybe it is time to go Paleo-conservative, being fully informed now that we have gone from Lincoln through Teddy and FDR progressivism/socialism to full blown Marxist redistribution.
The Northern industrialists who expanded railroads to the West used slaves-— they were called coolies— and NO one cared a whit about that or Eminent Domain land grabs or any number of extra Constitutional actions of the ruling class.
The peculiar institution was both an asset and a liability for the South. This WAS a battle of the greater wealth holders of both regions, political and otherwise, as they both sought hegemony in Western expansion. And neither side cared a damn about slaves except as they presented as capital labor or a tool for socio-political advantage.
The “innocent” tag refers to the puritanical holier-than- thou anointing of the Northeastern social justice liberals in describing their “holy war” to free slaves. It was anything BUT that, and particularly disgusting to hear this crap repeated by the trust fund diaper baby descendants of Yankee industrialists in their academic sinecures as they live off the proceeds (oh, and secondarily denigrating the religion that produced the “holy war”). The old memes being trotted out against the Southern view are being broken down by facts— inconvenient ones.
It is absolutely hilarious to see, yet again, the marxist-socialists trot out Lincoln to try and paint this absolute “creature” of a present__dent with his characteristics. More of that “triangulation”, and always in a “crisis” (reminds one of Hitler as Hindenburg was dying, joining the job of chancellor and president of Germany- contrary to their constitution— an eerie similarity, that and the antisemitism of obamao).
The Progressive view of history. And, pro-Constitutional,too.
States really shouldn’t have any rights.
I agree, that's why it is so confounding to see so many continuing to fight the War of Southron Belligerance.
Hey, bubba, that is NOT what is going on here. We just went through another ridiculous farce of an election. And NOW the liberal marxist thugocracy is propping up the obamao as being like Lincoln!!
The derivation of our emasculated Repubican party of today began with Lincoln-— and now the demonrats are desperate for moral justification as they deconstruct what little is left of our Constitutional Republic. They certainly couldn’t cite Jefferson— not with what they are doing. No, you need a “holy” person of emancipation (despite ALL historical evidence to the contrary). There are no conservatives left. And, the South was right.
You’re right - states shouldn’t have any rights. States have powers.
If you think States have powers then the illusion is complete. However, we may be entering a time to re-determine the “power” of States. For this to happen it will take people of strong moral fiber and tenacity and governors who will draw the line, with their new conservative legislatures. If challenged further, like with federal force (extra judicial, judicial and military)— it remains to be seen how this would be sustained.
One thing is certain. If something is not done to both preserve US sovereignty and strengthen the individual States- we will soon have a country unrecognizable from the Founder’s vision. Deo Vindice.
You appear to be another one of those lost causers who conflate and confuse current conditions to 150 year old history. So, are you suggesting that the same sort of traitorous bastards who turned their backs on their country and their commitments are or should be the ones who save us from the progressives this time around?
Good point. "Lost causes" look conservative to people because they lost. People seem to think history would have stopped where it was if the losing side had won. But if they'd won, they'd have reshaped history themselves. And people -- not so very different from those complaining her and now about the union victory a century and a half ago -- would be complaining about how everything went to blazes when the union and Constitution collapsed and we lost George Washington's republic to secession mania.
If you use the bible to talk about “slavery” you had jolly well better use the term in the same sense the bible did. That ain’t self righteousness; that’s sense.
Slavery is slavery. That, too, is sense.
That is nonsense if you use the first term and second term by different definitions.
Why are you dancing around in this vain, transparent attempt to deny the obvious?
The only lost cause I lament about is the one the Founders started, and the continual reduction of the original intent, driven by revisionists of every stripe and every agenda, but particularly the NWO Progressive one that began post WBTS.
IF you want to call the same people who CREATED this country traitorous bastards, then you can live with that version of history. Not one was convicted of treason, and the only ones who were hung (aside from an unfortunate Swiss-born CSA officer- a foreigner that is), were the assassination conspirators (with a good bit of recently researched info that Sec. Stanton and his band of Reconstruction Radical repubs were behind killing Lincoln— who would have been much more lenient on the South, as Goad’s observations support. Please don’t forget that Lincoln’s mother, Nancy Hanks, was pure Southern). Who IS w being suggested? Constitutionalists, who support the original Founders intent and a distinct cultural group. They are not composed of pseudo conservative Statist RINOs machine party politicians who devolved from the repub party of Lincoln to today.
Might add that it is just as specious to call the democrats the party of slavery. Neither party is the same as 150 years ago, once the Progressive agenda took over and the Establishment (all hail fellow well met— you know, like the loser Alf Landon) became the Statist norm with an agenda that has had little to do with the sovereign country of the USA, and manipulated by an elite crew of extra sovereign world government types. The rise of European sovereignty is a harbinger of what is happening to us, expressed as a State’s sovereignty— we are NOT paying for this federal monster.
There is far more blatant organized bigotry against blacks in the North (all academic political contortions aside), and it is essential for the Northern liberals to cover that up with continual “tut-tuts” against expressed Southern heritage which is expressed along with frank patriotism for the US. They need to have “superior” feelings so essential to Progressives who know better than our Founders.
Surely it must be maddening for the Statist police of the coming state being planned to figure out who is whom as they continue to eliminate our rights in their comfortable gubmint jobs (all equal opportunity hires— to include sharia muslims). The people at the top are criminal, and one in particular. Pravda is correct- how ironic.
I have no idea where you got that in anything I (or anyone else here) posted.
From your prior post to me, #41: “So, are you suggesting that the same sort of traitorous bastards who turned their backs on their country....” That’s where I got that, OK.
To disabuse you of some ignorant righteous indignation of the same “tut-tut” variety discussed in this thread:
The colonies of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were all later Southern states. Those colonies produced Founding Fathers who created the US, who had descendants and these descendants seceded from the US, in consultation with their state legislatures (in which many,if not most were in a leadership role) based on their understanding of the Constitution.
A few examples: the Lees of Virginia (all of them- one a step grandson of George Washington), President John Tyler(who fought secession until there was no choice), John B. Gordon (GA),Lt. Col. Waller Patton and his brother Col George S. Patton (yes, the grandfather of Gen. George S. Patton (all descendants of Rev. War Gen’l Hugh Mercer, Washington’s right hand man)and Vice Pres. John Breckinridge. ALL of these descendants of our Founders seceded from the US. Traitorous bastards, yeah, right. PC history must have glossed over who they were.
There were also in Northern states, descendants of Founders and Framers who sided with the South in its secession, again based on an understanding of the Constitution that most in the US had. These were mostly not in on the greedy railroad and West expansion cartels.
All of these people seceded in much the same understanding of the Constitution that Federalist delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island had when in 1814, they threatened to secede in their opposition to the War of 1812, intending to make a separate peace with Britain. Presaging the coming divide of North from South.
The truth of Lincoln is pretty well known with all his inconvenient truths and ludicrous portrayals in Hollywood. For obamao and his minions to try to compare him to Lincoln is beyond laughable, and at the same time indicative of the deviousness of these lying social justice marxists. Still working the white guilt vote, to continue the racial divide and set back race relations 50 years. It is an old communist tactic in the US- no surprise in sychrony with leftie Hollywood- and disgusting. We cannot have a pretender king pretending to be an emancipator while systematically destroying our Constitutional Republic. The South will definitely not have it.
Yep, traitorous bastards.
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.