Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites
Reuters via Lycos.com ^ | 12/22/2002 | Alan Elsner

Posted on 12/22/2002 7:56:45 AM PST by GeneD

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-579 next last
To: GOPcapitalist
The ordinances were the official acts of secession.

There was no secession. There was attempted secession.

Walt

101 posted on 12/22/2002 2:56:07 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Keith
The Civil War was fought by most Union soldiers to preserve the Union. Some had abolitionist sympathies, but weren't thinking of them as they fought and died. They felt they were fighting to preserve the country their ancestors had fought and died for in the War of Independence.

Most Southern soldiers felt they were fighting because the Union would not let them have their "divorce."

I read this post to me after I wrote my Post 98.

It seems we are on the same wavelength.

102 posted on 12/22/2002 2:58:21 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Missouri
I think what is missing in this disscusion is why the average Confederate soldier fought so hard. He had no plantation, no slaves, and was poor.

Poor whites were fighting for white supremacy.

Walt

103 posted on 12/22/2002 3:00:43 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
There was no secession. There was attempted secession.

Call it whatever you like. It won't change the fact that it happened, or that your false god spent 4 years of bloody conquest trying to counteract its effects.

104 posted on 12/22/2002 3:02:42 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Whether or not Southern politicians decided on seccession because of slavery, tarriffs or what end of a soft boiled egg should be opened, the botttom line was that young men had to go out and settle the matter on the battlefield.....Polybius

No it didn't.....WhiskeyPapa

Ummmmm.....Walt.....My point is that fifty-something year old politicians picked a fight and then hundreds of thousands of teenaged boys and twenty-something year old men ended up having to settle the matter on the battlefield.

What do you mean, "No, it didn't"?

105 posted on 12/22/2002 3:09:53 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields

History is a lie.

106 posted on 12/22/2002 3:12:10 PM PST by DensaMensa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DensaMensa
History is a lie.

History is the LATEST lie.

107 posted on 12/22/2002 3:13:02 PM PST by DensaMensa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
"It seems we are on the same wavelength."

right you are...a feather in MY cap!

;)
108 posted on 12/22/2002 3:13:36 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
"your false god spent 4 years of bloody conquest trying to counteract its effects."

what the heck are you referring to?
109 posted on 12/22/2002 3:14:34 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Keith
what the heck are you referring to?

Walt's false god, Abraham Lincoln. It has been my experience that Walt, aka WhiskeyPapa, is incapable to admit or recognize any error or flaw on the part of Lincoln and often treats him as a secular deity rather than an historical figure. Therefore it is my contention that Lincoln is his false god.

110 posted on 12/22/2002 3:22:28 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Oops. The wording didn't come out right on that one. incapable=unable
111 posted on 12/22/2002 3:24:29 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
... But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. ...

Gettysburg Address, A. Lincoln (1863)

112 posted on 12/22/2002 3:28:28 PM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
he's no god...just the greatest president we ever had.

that's enough for this history teacher.

thanks for the explanation.
113 posted on 12/22/2002 3:29:09 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Does this shit ever end? And it's our tax dollars that pay for this and pay the salaries of these leftists that trash and twist United States history.
114 posted on 12/22/2002 3:32:28 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
I happen to think that arguments that the war was not about slavery are ludicrous. Without slavery the war would not have happened - period.

This however, is ridiculous.

It's about making happy a bunch of liberal college professors eager to deconstruct the Civil War.

Mentioning slavery is fine. But we have always emphasized the soldier's tale at Civil War battlefield memorials out of respect for the sacrifices made - by both sides.

115 posted on 12/22/2002 3:34:27 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery.

If I had my way a whole lot of leftist Federal poobahs would be fired and turned out onto the street to beg for their supper

116 posted on 12/22/2002 3:36:47 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Mentioning slavery is fine.

A mention is fine, but the Civil War was not about slavery. Any such relationship both then and now today is mostly an afterthought, and a simplified easy-to-understand northern after the fact justification.

117 posted on 12/22/2002 3:43:27 PM PST by DensaMensa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I'll have to get my books out. I recall some memoirs of Lincoln where he talked about being very shaken up by the bloodshed at Gettysburg, and going back to the slaves at the White House because he knew they knew how to pray. He became a Christian praying with those slaves.

Of course, maybe the book was wrong.
118 posted on 12/22/2002 3:48:59 PM PST by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Keith
The war also established that the rule of law can be overridden by a president who controls the military.
119 posted on 12/22/2002 3:54:46 PM PST by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: FirstFlaBn
On the National Park Service: this article conveniently forgot to mention the names of the three "historians" on its advisory panel...

Thanks for filling in the blanks on who these characters were. Lefty types, naturally.

Not that there was ever any doubt...

120 posted on 12/22/2002 3:56:31 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
I used to live next to a National Monument. They burned most of the buildings on the site then out of all the settlers, they picked a woman pioneer to focus on. An old timer in the area told me that the NPS moved a nice log house to the site. They now claim that she built that very house. I hope that the new administration will do something about the PC history that the NPS is creating.

The Monument is renowned for its fossils but instead of protecting and exploring the principal resource, they spend our tax money promoting the idea that men were not needed in settling the West.

121 posted on 12/22/2002 4:02:04 PM PST by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
"Much of the public conversation today about the Civil War and its meaning for contemporary society is shaped by structured forgetting and wishful thinking" he said.

One sad fact is that most Americans can't even tell you in what century the Civil War occurred. "Structured forgetting and wishful thinking" pretty much describes what is going on in our school systems concerning U.S. History in general. And why must everything be couched in terms of "its meaning for contemporary society"? This is a filter which does much harm to the teaching of history, no matter what your point of view about the events in question.

122 posted on 12/22/2002 4:12:15 PM PST by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FirstFlaBn
Very pertinent info.

BTW one of my ancestors served in the First Florida. A cousin still has the signed oath which he had to take in order to vote. I am going on memory but I think he was originally in the 6th Fla. then later merged into the First.

123 posted on 12/22/2002 4:14:31 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The civil war had far less to do with slavery and far more to do with state's rights.

I imagine that this is nothing but the feds way of attempting to thwart the discussion of state's rights.
124 posted on 12/22/2002 4:15:58 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The clintonistas may be gone but their people are still running the "show".
125 posted on 12/22/2002 4:41:22 PM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Okay, I feel compelled to give my $0.02.

The "war" (i.e., the conflict between the government of the United States and the secessionist states) was fought over slavery, albeit indirectly (the U.S.A. fought to preserve/restore the union; the south seceeded over the abolishonist Lincoln's rise to prominence). The south did seceed to preserve slavery, however, the north did not fight to "Free the slaves".

Those who fought the war, did not fight the war over slavery. Very few people in the south actually owned slaves, and those who did were not the rank and file solders (a few were generals).

If the NPS wants "accuracy" in how the battlefields are portrayed, then they must provide the same accuracy over protraying the war crimes the United States inflicted on its own people (realize the view of the USA was that the secession was illegal, and the states still belonged to the union, despite their rouge governments). Sherman's utter destruction of many civilians lives, properties, and communities is an example. Sherman was not court martialled for this. Many officers since have been court martialled for less. Sherman was a war hero, but he was also a war criminal. But in San Francisco, they have an elementary school named after him.

The NPS must also point out the reconstruction era, where the citizens of the southern states did not enjoy the same constitutional rights of those in the rest of the USA.

I am not one of these people who relives the confederacy. I think the right side won. However, the whole truth is the only truth.

126 posted on 12/22/2002 4:42:04 PM PST by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magellan
I might also add the Confederate constitution banned the importation of slaves. So the confederate states were constitutionally forbidden to import slaves before the northern states. I doubt this fact will make it into any of the NPS "politically correct" exhibits.

Of course, the breeding and trading of slaves was allowed in the confederate states.

127 posted on 12/22/2002 4:48:49 PM PST by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Sherman's utter destruction of many civilians lives, properties, and communities is an example. Sherman was not court martialled for this.

Shermans directive was to "destroy the railroads to shut off supplies and break their will to fight". His method was not discouraged nor frowned upon. War is Hell.

128 posted on 12/22/2002 5:13:41 PM PST by DensaMensa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: *dixie_list; Tax-chick; PAR35; condi2008; archy; BurkeCalhounDabney; bluecollarman; RebelDawg; ...
Obligatory ping.
129 posted on 12/22/2002 6:08:01 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"Our current museum is absolutely abysmal. It tells no story," Latschar said.

So you are going to make up a story? Tell it to someone else.

130 posted on 12/22/2002 6:12:57 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: magellan
I might also add the Confederate constitution banned the importation of slaves.

A common misconception. The confederate constitution actually protected slave imports, albeit only from the slave-owning parts of the United States.

131 posted on 12/22/2002 6:16:44 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
I'm starting to get a little bit p*****.
132 posted on 12/22/2002 6:21:07 PM PST by agrandis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The theory rested on three propositions: that the war was fought over "states' rights" and not over slavery; that there was no dishonor in defeat since the Confederacy lost only because it was overwhelmed by the richer north; and that slavery was a benign institution and most slaves were content with their lot and faithful to their masters.

I visited the Gettysburg battlefield a couple of years ago, and I didn't notice a particularly pro-Southern slant to the presentations. I happen not to believe any of these propositions of the Lost Cause ideology, except possibly the second. So I think I would remember if any of them had been pressed on me, and I do not remember any of them.

I visited the Harpers Ferry site around the same time, and I remember thinking how the site did what I thought was a good job of presenting the arguments both for and against John Brown.

Interesting that the Bush administration would ideologize these matters to an extent the Clinton administration did not do.

133 posted on 12/22/2002 6:23:43 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The Civil? War proved that might makes right in the eyes of the world, that the people in the North were willing to follow a president who ignored their constitutional rights, and that a bunch of farmers in 1776 wouldn't have won without help from outside powers willing to supply arms and training.

The Southern armies might have won a guerilla war, but marching en masse to battlefields against an opponent with three times your population is a sure way to lose.

134 posted on 12/22/2002 6:26:09 PM PST by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Could we expect any different from the National Park Service?

I predict that wihtin 10 years the relief on Stone Mountain depicting Lee, Davis, and Jackson will be destroyed by "the officials."

135 posted on 12/22/2002 6:29:33 PM PST by agrandis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Thank you for your informed reply. I am researching ...

While you are doing your research, make sure you look up the Cherokee Causes also. Many of those who debate against the CSA and bid us "look at the documents" frequently leave that one out. Remember, you can trust the government. Ask any Indian.

Also, make sure you look at what else was said in the Causes as well as the Ordinaces from specifically Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas. Additionally, ,remember the secession dates of the last 4 states. If they seceded over slavery, they took their precious time about it. Until, say, DC decided to call up their various militias to march upon their bretheren.
136 posted on 12/22/2002 6:34:53 PM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hgro
The victory was the destruction of the ability of individual states govern themselves, free of centralized federal government intervention and intimidation. I'm sorry, y'all, but we all lost, black and white alike, at the end of the WAR BETWEEN THE STATES.
137 posted on 12/22/2002 6:37:13 PM PST by theoriginalgriff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
"Compassionate conservatism" may well turn out to be more PC than Clintonista liberalism.
138 posted on 12/22/2002 6:38:42 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
"The war also established that the rule of law can be overridden by a president who controls the military." baloney. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "suppress Insurrections.." and the elastic clause grants them the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out those Powers in the Constitution. While much of what Lincoln did was by executive order, Congress was actually more rabid about "punishing" the south than he was and had ample opportunity to undo any actions he took if they saw them as illegal. Frankly, the south lost it's claim to it's victimization when they fired on federal property (Ft. Sumter) to begin the war. That would be considered both an insurrection AND an invasion of Federal property. The popular mythology that Lincoln trashed the Constitution is more southern whining seeking to explain away their defeat by claiming that the president acted outside of his powers. If anything, he kept the Radicals in Congress under reign. The other whining complaint is that Lincoln was unconstitutional in suspending Habeas Corpus. Again, read your Constitution...Art. I, Sec. 9... "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." While Taney tried to say that Lincoln couldn't do this, only Congress could, Lincoln disagreed and challenged Taney to enforce it. The USSCCJ who had said blacks had no rights in the USA was powerless and ignored. Know thy Constitution...
139 posted on 12/22/2002 6:38:49 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Keith
Taney was right. That section is in Article I, on the powers of Congress.
140 posted on 12/22/2002 6:43:41 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
To borrow from a radical, bias is as American as apple pie.

Why this, why now?

141 posted on 12/22/2002 6:44:05 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
Does the National Park Service preside over Stone Mountain?

By the way, if Stone Mountain goes, can Mount Rushmore be far behind? As I learned from listening to C-SPAN's Booknotes a week ago, the architect of Mount Rushmore was a former Klansman (he also was presiding over Stone Mountain until he was dismissed because of Klan politics.)

142 posted on 12/22/2002 6:47:39 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I understand what you are saying...since Lincoln was CIC in a case of open rebellion he had to act. If this was such a craven theft of Congress' powers,why didn't Congress act upon Taney's ruling? I'm just saying that in a situation where if Maryland had seceeded, DC would have been surrounded by enemy territory, Lincoln did what he had to and Congress was grateful for his prompt action in those circumstances. Which is why both the Executive and Legislative branches were all to happy to ignore Taney's ruling. In a final word on this whole mess, I hardly ever hear anyone cite how unconstitutional the south's action was. How so, you say? Again, look to your constitution... Article I, Section 10...No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; " I just think that for a document which covers so much, procedures for leaving the Union are never covered... This is fun guys, thanks for the intellectual exercises.
143 posted on 12/22/2002 6:52:10 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You'll find nothing in the record to support that Lincoln mentions colonization after 1/1/63.

I'm guessing that you forgot about the conversation between Gen Butler and President Lincoln just a few days before he was shot?
144 posted on 12/22/2002 6:54:08 PM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Keith
Lincoln could have called the Congress into special session, something he quite deliberately neglected to do.
145 posted on 12/22/2002 6:54:33 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug; lentulusgracchus; FirstFlaBn; agrandis; GeneD; billbears; sheltonmac; GOPcapitalist; ...
I smell a rat.
"In preparation for this report 28 Civil War sites were asked to review their current park programs and media with an eye towards how the causes of the Civil War were presented especially slavery as a cause. All media products, exhibits, wayside exhibits, films, Internet sites, and public programs were given a cursory review.

"Each product or services was rated for causes of the Civil War and slavery in a descending scale from “A Great Deal” to “Not at All.” All 28 sites reviewed their programs and returned the survey. "

Source: Interpretation at Civil War Sites: A Report to Congress March 2000.
146 posted on 12/22/2002 6:54:51 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
No BARF ALERT??????????????
147 posted on 12/22/2002 6:55:29 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
One could say that wars between Britain and France, France and Germany, Germany and Russia or the US and Japan were inevitable, given the interests of those countries and the way nations behave, but the actual reasons for specific wars are what really matters. There was certainly a disagreement about the relations between the federal and the state governments lying at the roots of the Civil War. Perhaps war might have been fought around another issue relating to federal-state relations. Or perhaps, without an issue as divisive as slavery, there would have been no war. But for making this particular war at this particular time, slavery was essential.
148 posted on 12/22/2002 6:56:05 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Keith
The Southern states seceded and then joined the Confederacy. The article does not apply here.
149 posted on 12/22/2002 6:58:26 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
>>I think what is missing in this disscusion is why the average Confederate soldier fought so hard. He had no plantation, no slaves, and was poor.

Poor whites were fighting for white supremacy.<<


Back in 1861, I'd bet 90% on the whites in the free states thought they were better than Blacks so what kind of answer was that.

150 posted on 12/22/2002 6:59:31 PM PST by Missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-579 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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