Skip to comments.Ten Neo-Confederate Myths
Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
click here to read article
Sorry, southern armies invaded several states and territories. Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Vermont(!) Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
That indicates that they didn’t want to be let alone. In like manner, their attacks on US forts indicates that they wanted a war. South Carolina, too small to be a country and too large to be an asylum, needed a war to bring in Virginia.
They wanted a war. They got it. They lost it. The problem was the US didn’t hang enough traitors.
Of course there is an extra-legal right to revolt, but that is balanced by the duty of the government to put down insurrection.
To successfully exercise the right to revolt you have to win.
Which didn’t happen.
There is a standard.
Controversies between states and the federal government are, per article 3 of the Constitution to be submitted for resolution to the Supreme Court.
Which the rebels didn’t do, as they knew they had no case. They didn’t want resolution, they wanted war.
And they got a war. And they lost it.
We do know that Washington called on R.E. Lee’s father to put down insurrection.
Too bad R.E. Lee didn’t follow his father’s example. R.E. Lee was just too attached to getting mulatto girls pregnant.
I submit that you reveal yourself immune from brain washing with every post.
Gots to have one to be subject to getting it washed.
Nonsense. The South did not see the situation as a “controversy” that needed to be resolved by court. They just wanted to exercise their God-given right to self rule. And they only “wanted war” in the context of, if you do allow us our right to self-rule then, bring it on.
It wasn’t that the rebels “knew they had no case”, having a “case” wasn’t and never will be germane to having the freedom to self-rule.
Except they didn’t.
Their concept of self rule was to deny self rule to US states which did not permit slavery, to the US government which was a union of the people which preceded the US constitution, and to steal US property and imprison US citizens who did not support slavery.
Lincoln was referred to by Carl Sandburg as being a bit “lavender” which in those days was a way of saying “homosexual.” It also seems that Lincoln and Joshua Speed often slept together in what could be described today as a twin bed. While it was not unusual for people of the same sex to share a bed in those days, the beds shared were much larger than a small twin sized bed.
Regardless, Lincoln had a choice to invade the South or not, and he did so starting the war. When the war was over the relationship between the Federal government and the states was forever changed. The original federation was thereby dead, defunct, and forever perverted. What we have had since is a mutated version of what our Founding Fathers created.
Without DNA evidence I will continue to assume that someone may have had it “in” for Lincoln. Those dates prove nothing.
The poet Sandburg was born 13 years after Lincoln's assasination, and did not know Lincoln.
So his comment may be justly taken as, well, poetic license.
Before marrying Mary Todd, Lincoln fell in love and courted at least two other women: Ann Rutledge and Mary Owen.
Lincoln and Mary Todd had four sons: Robert (1843), Edward (1846), William (1850) and Thomas (1853).
Lincoln is not know to have chased other women after marriage, so he sounds to me like a good family man.
Joshua Speed was Lincoln's best friend, but no evidence of a homosexual relationship has ever been verified.
Speed married Fanny Hemming in February 1842, nine months before Lincoln married Mary Todd.
Of course, modern notions of what it means, exactly, to be "gay" involve "sexual orientation", meaning just about anyone who's ever had a "gay" thought.
More traditional ideas assumed that while many people have such thoughts, just as with heterosexual fantasies, what matters is behavior, not "orientation".
The verified record of Lincoln's behavior includes no evidence of "gay" sexual orientation.
Jay Redhawk: "Regardless, Lincoln had a choice to invade the South or not, and he did so starting the war."
From the beginning, Lincoln was committed to enforcing Federal laws and maintaining possession of Federal properties like Forts Sumter and Pickens.
But, Lincoln made no moves to "invade" the South, or start war, until after the Confederacy had not only started war at Fort Sumter, but formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.
Jay Redhawk: "The original federation was thereby dead, defunct, and forever perverted.
What we have had since is a mutated version of what our Founding Fathers created."
Changed, yes, completed, yes, but "perverted", no -- with slavery Constitutionally abolished, beginning with Lincoln's 13th Ammendment in 1865.
However, nothing you see today in our bloated Federal monstrosity began until the "Progressive Era" 100 years ago, with the 16th and 17th Ammendments, and Federal Reserve.
The only thing Lincoln did was defeat the militarized Slave Power, which started and declared war on the United States, then invaded every Union state and territory they could reach.
In the process, he also abolished slavery.
But the basic US Constitution remained unchanged for another 50 years, at which time the South helped lead the charge towards "Progressivism" -- electing Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, along with 60+ years of Democrat controlled congresses (1930 to 1994).
"Progressives" are your "mutations" and "perversions", not Lincoln's military victory over the Slave Power.
“Their concept of self rule was to deny self rule to US states which did not permit slavery,”
“to the US government which was a union of the people which preceded the US constitution,”
“and to steal US property and imprison US citizens who did not support slavery.”
Time for meds.
Instead of blabbing, try factual discourse.
Not only beyond the President's power but also beyond the power of Congress to legislate slavery.
All legislative powers are enumerated in the Constitution and the power to legislate slavery is not among them. Powers not granted Congress are left to the states or the people.
The Constitution did not grant Congress legislative powers regarding slavery, voting, abortion, marriage, flag burning, or to prohibit the citizens from any endeavor in their pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution did provide an amendment process to add, or subtract, powers of legislation. The 13th amendment took the power to determine if a state would be free or slave away from the state and added it to congresss legislative powers. The amendment itself is not legislation but it provides Congress with the power to enact legislation regarding the amendment. Section 2 of the 13th amendment adds the legislative power
Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Mussolini was shrewd enough to recognize the value in “pomp & circumstance”. He appropriated or subverted many things to serve as jingoistic symbols - including flags, banners, bunting, and the fasces to instill a sense of national unity.
The unfortunate thing is that he set a precedent that (inappropriately in most cases) gets applied as a stereotype against anyone’s opponents.
Scurrilous, slanderous, and asinine. You’re batting 1000 ;-)
Southern states didn’t want US states which did not permit slavery to be able to ban slavery. Personal liberty laws, which delineated the procedures that slave catchers had to use in northern states were held unconstitutional, denying self rule to US states which banned slavery.
Slave catchers would, given their inability to get cooperation by state officials, support in the north, to kidnap poor whites, get false papers, and sell the kidnapped whites as slaves to cooperative slave owners such as R.E. Lee. That was one reason why slaves at Arlington over time became more and more white. The other was of course the raping of slaves by their putative masters.
Of course territories were controlled by congress. In territories Congress has plenary power, just as the state governments have plenary power over their territory. The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery, and was passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, with many of the members of the constitutional convention voting for it.
Yes, Mussolini did pervert good symbols for the benefit of his corrupt state.
Just as Tolkien complained that Hitler perverted proper heroic northern myths to support the corrupt Nazi state.
And as our southern partisans corrupt the US revolutionary history in an attempt to justify the corrupt confederate pseudo state.
And with DNA evidence you would invent Lincoln’s identical twin brother to continue your falsehood.
The first is selective misapplication of a two-sided condition. Like smoking bans...the ban limits freedom of the smoker while giving freedom to non-smokers. My point remains the same and remains valid. Southernphobes today try to portray themselves as having some sort of moral high ground by saying or by pretending that the WBTS was fought to free slaves, which is not only wrong it would be hypocritical if true...given that the same war prevented Southerners from being free to decide their political fate.
The second comment would be hysterical if it wasn’t so revealing. I defy you to show any evidence R.E. Lee took whites as slaves. Seriously, take your meds.
I particularly recommend the comments.
The civil war prevented some southerners from having the authority to torture and rape other southerners.
By contrast, it gave some southerners freedom from being raped and tortured under color of authority by other southerners.
So really your opposition is either on the side of rape and torture, or against it. By your choice, your soul is judged.
“By contrast, it gave some southerners freedom from being raped and tortured under color of authority by other southerners.”
Northern States also had slavery so did they rape and torture too, or was it just your hatred of the south that makes you say such stupid things?
You’re more full of poop than a Christmas goose.
Since you hate the South so much why are you so invested in the war that kept those States in the union? You’re just a typical liberal Yankee, a bigot.
As Michele Malkin would say, “gigglesnort”.
Seriously, you can’t be that stupid. There was nothing there that Lee said. Only stuff some dipwad said he said. That’s your proof? LMAOROTHF!
I especially liked this part:
“In another departure from the conventional portrait of Lee, you show him agonizing over joining the Confederacy.”
What?! She “discovered” one of the most commonly known things about Lee?! It was so well known Ang Lee used it in one of his movies.
Sorry, son. You’re way over your head. Come back when you drop your tail.
Geez... You are an idiot. Or should I just call you Saul Alinski? Your “reasoning” is similar to saying, if you don’t agree with Obama’s policies you must be racist. You need to go back to DU, troll boy.
There is a reason why the Lee family doesn’t release the ledgers to anyone other than a Lee sycophant.
Lee was known for being a cruel master, even before the War of Treason to preserve Slavery.
No, I don’t hate the south. Yes, slave owners in the north were also cruel. Virginia, at the time that Lee was raping his slaves and selling their mostly white daughters to brothels was part of the US.
Lincoln was elected to limit that bad practice to where it already existed, that is, to ban the expansion of slavery to the western territories. That small half step toward righteousness was so offensive to the slave power that they resorted to treason in support of continuing and expanding slavery. Treason in support of the expansion of slavery is a bad thing. Is that really so hard for you to admit?
Glad you agree that Lee agonized over his violation of his oaths to support treason in support of slavery.
Pity he ultimately tood the wrong side. His father, not known for virtue, took the right side, helping to suppress insurrection. R.E. Lee was not the man his father was.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Per Article 4 of the US Constitution. Of course this means that congress has authority to forbid slavery in any new territories.
If you seriously believe that’s what I agreed to you should take your head out of your ass.
What else would you call it. Certainly Lee had taken oaths. Certainly he made war against the US. Certainly his war against the US supported slavery.
What else would you call it?
Doesn’t matter what I would call it. I did NOT say what you alleged I said. What I would call THAT is lying.
You agree that he agonized?
“I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully
against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.”
Officer oath, circa 1830.
I, Robert E. Lee, a cadet born in the State of Virginia, aged 18 years and 9 months, do hereby acknowledge to have this day voluntarily engaged with the consent of my mother to serve in the Army of the United States for a period of five years, unless sooner discharged by proper authority. And I do promise upon honor that I will observe and obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, the rules and articles of war, and the regulations which have been or may hereafter be established for the government of the Military Academy.” [Douglas S. Freeman, R. E. Lee: A Biography, Vol. 1, page 51]
Oh, come on, make a stab at defending Lee from a charge of treason. Please do ‘mitt sucre drausen’.
“I,______, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.”
“I,_______, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders
of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.”
1829 oath of Army officers.
First off, why would I argue with a liar?
Second, I know you are familiar with the arguments that I would trot out. As one of them would suggest, either you agree that the WBTS was the moral equivalent to the American Revolution or you don’t. I already know which you believe simply by your comments so far.
So, going back to number one, why would I argue with a liar?
Ok, You fail to argue with yourself because you are a liar. By contrast, truth may be unpleasant.
So Lee agonized over breaking his oaths, and decided that he cared more for slavery than honor.
Won’t take the bait, donmeaker the liar.
Rather Don Meaker the provider of truth.
Well, now we have two documented lies.
You wrote quoting the source I provided:
In another departure from the conventional portrait of Lee, you show him agonizing over joining the Confederacy.
What?! She discovered one of the most commonly known things about Lee?! It was so well known Ang Lee used it in one of his movies.”
So perhaps you agree that Lee agonized.
What would he agonize about?
Would he agonize over whether it would rain? Would he agonize over an estimation of in which army he would rise most quickly?
Or would he agonize over an oath that he took during he career, that would require him to support the US against any enemy whatever, even if that enemy was his friends and neighbors. I submit the latter. Sadly he made the wrong decision. Fortunately for him, Grant was magnanamous in granting terms, giving him and others surrender terms that gave him immediate parole. When he was considered for a treason trial, his defense was that his terms did not permit that, that he had kept the terms of that parole, and that gave him immunity from trial. Not that he did not commit the offense, but rather that his parole, granted under the terms of his surrender were so magnanamous that he, and other soldiers under his command, were exempt from trial, conviction, and punishment.
As Bill Ayers said after getting off on a technicality for many fewer deaths than Lee: “Guilty as Hell, free as a bird.”
And like R.E. Lee, Ayers went into academia where traitors could be protected and coddled by the like minded.
I’m sorry which parts are the lies and which aren’t? See, that the problem. Once your become a documented liar, no one knows what would be the truth and what would be the lie.
Sucks to be you, Liardonmeaker.
All of it is true. Every word. Take it to the bank.
The part that you write? That is where you find lies. Lies like “Lee was an honorable man.”
What’s that, Liar Boy? Hwert him wittle feewings? Now him make up more stuff I suppusedwy said.
Poor wittle Liar Boy.
How old are you? Seven?
Bad spelling is not an argument.
Nor is you pretending that you don’t understand the word “like”.
You give him too much credit ;-)
Stupidity is not an excuse, even for documented liars.
‘That is why I don’t excuse you based on your pretense at stupidity.
LOL! The Pee Wee Herman rebuttal. “I know you are, but what am I?”
Dude give up while you’re behind.
Pathetic. Shaking my head, walking away.