Posted on 01/15/2015 10:05:46 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Many American presidents have held Robert E. Lee in the highest regard and publicly paid homage to him. Today, we have a president who holds Al Sharpton in higher esteem than Robert E. Lee.
As you can probably surmise by my detailed caption, this article is a collection of random thoughts. It is typical at the beginning of a new year for people to reflect soberly on the state of events, and make optimistic resolutions and predictions for the future. Although I will try to maintain a hopeful outlook, I’m afraid I am unable to make any starry-eyed predictions.
My random thoughts are heavily influenced by the anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s birthday, which falls on January 19th. The anniversary of the birthday of this remarkable man should be a very special day, not only for Southerners, but for all Americans who acknowledge true heroes. Unlike today’s media-created celebrities, Lee was a genuine hero. In addition to his exemplary public life, General Lee’s personal life didn’t involve scandals or debauched behavior that had to be hidden from the public eye.
Theodore Roosevelt characterized General Lee this way: “the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth.” Lee is also venerated in Europe, as evidenced by this tribute by Winston Churchill: “one of the noblest Americans who ever lived.”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
That's interesting. in Discussing Secession, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant the closest thing I could find to an affirmative view of secession was this:
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.
Of course he followed it with this:
The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.
That doesn't sound very pro-secession to me.
“Sorry, did I miss the part where Grant was loudly calling for abolition while owning slaves?”
Exactly my point and I’m glad we agree. Abolition was not real popular in the North at the time the War Between the States started. So it was not really about slavery at all. If it had been the highest commander of the Union Army would have divested himself and his wife of slaves and and taken up the abolistionsist banner. Would have loudly rejected slavery in any form. He did not.
So I’m glad we agree that slavery was not the initial reason for the start of the War Between the States.
Your posts on this thread have been well-reasoned, and thoughtful. 'Course, you always post like that, come to think of it. :)
“Because your choo choo just jumped the tracks. The known facts are that the South rebelled to protect their institution of slavery from Republican plans to prevent it from spreading.”
But once again the known facts become troublesome for your choo choo because when the South seceded from the Union slavery was as legal as assault weapons or alcohol or tobacco. 11 states did not secede from the Union because they “thought” slavery might become illegal.
All the Northerners that owned slaves didn’t seem too worried about it. That’s because nobody at that time had dreamed up the Emancipation Proclamation or even dreamed it would happen. The Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln’s Hail Mary and came much later when he was afraid that the tide of public opinion was agains’t the prolonged war.
So once again the facts just don’t support your ongoing and lengthy posts which never really address these pesky realities.
When he says that "secession is rebellion" and "They would surely have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed." it isn't hard to see that he wasn't favorable to the act. Your selective quote only shows that he recognized that there was no Constitutionally enumerated remedy to the act.
rockrr-Spivey replied: That doesn't sound very pro-secession to me.
I can't see anywhere in central_va's post where he said that Ulysses Grant was "pro-secession".
Of course, if you just want to put words in other posters' mouths, feel free. LOL! :)
No. Grant said that if the founders knew all the trouble it would cause they would have written a provision for secession into the Constitution — not that they actually had provided for secession or that secession was in fact constitutional.
Grant is all over the place in his memoirs. Although IMO well written overall, it contains a lot of contradiction in this area.
Everyone agrees that a roach motel clause in the Constitution would have made it a non starter. And a converse clause would have left it un-ratified(is that a word?) too.
Do you know what "a valid deed of manumission" means? It means the slave was free. It was a prerequisite for giving the owner the $300 (far below previous market rate for a military age male, by the way).
That's not even including Maryland or Virginia slaves that "didn't get the memo", of which there were probably quite some few, as it would be in the interest of some Maryland & Virginia slaveholders to keep mum on the subject.
Now you're trying to conflate slave ignorance of the ramifications of the Emancipation Proclamation with a tolerance for slave labor in DC, which isn't the same thing at all. Unless you're going to claim that slaveowners simultaneously kept their slaves in the dark as to their freedom and simultaneously sent them to DC to work, with the wide knowledge and acquiescence of the people of DC (the "tolerance" you're claiming).
Well, yes it was the initial reason. Slavery was the reason the southern states overwhelmingly gave for their actions in unilaterally announcing that they were now a different country . Then they started shooting at US troops when those troops refused to abandon their posts. And so on and so on. Therefore, it seems, slavery was indeed the reason for the war. In that, General Grant and I are in agreement. In his memoir he says, "The cause of the Great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery." Seems a pretty plain statement.
I see you are still trying to dodge any discussion as to the pesky fact that when the South seceded from the Union owning slaves was as legal as owning an assault weapon.
Both Northerners and Southerners owned slaves at the start of the war and up until after the war had ended and the 13th amendment had been ratified. Even the Union General and his wife owned slaves and have photos which are posted online of them, their children and their slaves. So they were in no way ashamed of owning slaves. They posed for photos with them.
Lets face it Lincoln could not afford to let the South leave the Union as it would have caused a complete economic collapse in the North. War is always about two things. Power and money. Its never about issues like slavery.
So to try to say that the War Between The States Was About Slavery just does not hold water.
Take it up with the secessionist leaders who over and over again said that the protection of slavery was the reason for their actions. Here's what Mississippi had to say:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.Now, tell me again secession had nothing to do with slavery.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Lets face it Lincoln could not afford to let the South leave the Union as it would have caused a complete economic collapse in the North.
Except that the United States did not suffer an economic collapse when the southern states seceded. In fact, they had the economic wherewithal to fight and win a protracted war.
And please post this picture of the Grant family and their slaves.
Then why did that say exactly that over and over again? Here's some of Texas' Declaration of Causes:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
The people who led the Confederacy into rebellion thought otherwise, as their speeches and writings show.
So once again the facts just don’t support your ongoing and lengthy posts which never really address these pesky realities.
But the facts do.
Nice smokescreen, but you’re still wrong.
I’ll take that as a concession that you’ve got nothing.
Is that the thin line you want to attack me on?
Ohioan has not challenged that point of fact that I made that slavery was outlawed in DC in 1862, but you seem to be ready to throw ad homonen attacks based on conjecture about how slaves may have been illegally used in DC after that date.
Interesting, and instructive as to your intellectual capacity.
The north went to war to defend the union and ended up freeing the slaves. The south went to war to defend slavery and ended up losing everything.
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.