Posted on 04/10/2015 5:03:22 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up.
One hundred fifty years ago, on April 9th, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House and the Union triumphed in the Civil War. Yet the passage of a century and a half has not dimmed the passion for the Confederacy among many Americans. Just three weeks ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for the right to put a Confederate flag on vanity license plates in Texas. Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate? The answer is likely not a desire to overtly display one’s genealogical research skills; nor can it be simplistically understood solely as an exhibition of racism, although the power of the Confederate flag to convey white supremacist beliefs cannot be discounted.
Rather, displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement (which, in turn, supports a lucrative Confederate memorabilia industry).
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Loyalty is supposed to your state not Fedilla you boob. Lincoln f’d up the republic and male member heads like you perpetuate the tyranny. I am tired of your BS. Go away thug.
Boo hoo bubba. Make me.
If the Confederacy was really "indefensible," fanatics would not have to resort to endless insults, such as you indulge in.
And the Republican Party of the 1850s was not the Conservative Party. It was a successor to the Whigs & the Know Nothing fragment of a party. If you are suggesting that men like Calhoun were not Conservative, you discredit your judgment to anyone who knows anything about history.
Conservatives are those who defend their cultures; not those who would change them. Words have established meanings--at least to Conservatives.
Perhaps you don't argue with any, but in my experience, they never cease to bring out the claim that the Union fought the civil war to end slavery.
No, the Union did not fight the Civil war to end slavery, they fought the Civil war to end Independence for states that wanted out of it. The Union had no intention of ending slavery when the war began.
So it should be easy to point them out. Where are they?
All throughout this thread, but given your current stance, I think pointing them out is irrelevant. Suffice it to say, that you seem to be conceding the point is good enough for me.
Your fanatical defense of the "Union" speaks for itself and is a shining example of someone who will continue to lick the increasingly fascist Federal boot. It's sad actually, for you to be so brainwashed.
You would kill anyone that lived in a state that seceded today. You would take up arms against your once fellow countrymen. You are the face of the enemy, a statist tool. I deserve better country men than you.
But continue on, I am sure your mentor Non Sequitur reads all you crap, and enjoys it so.
OK, that's a (literal) LOL moment. How in the hell did you get that?!! The fact is YOU conceded the point "Perhaps you don't argue with any, but in my experience, they never cease...blah blah blah"
You're a strange one.
I think most people at the time didn't believe the Union would respond so viciously to their attack on Ft. Sumter which didn't kill anybody. I also don't think Lincoln realized the strength of their will to fight for Independence, and badly underestimated their resolve.
Indeed, the invasion force was accompanied by sightseers and picnickers like it was going to be a big party or something.
The original confederates renounced America in favor of their make-believe nation.
Just as did Jefferson and Adams renounced England in favor of their then make-believe nation. They just happened to be dealing with a less vicious National leader on the other side. He stopped at 15,000 dead.
They do not have "every bit as strong a claim on America as you do" because they turned their backs away from, and turned their gun against the country of my forefathers.
They would have been better advised to have just refrained from joining the thing in the first place. I notice Canada never had to fight a civil war with people who thought they had a right to rule them.
Oh, they tried invading Canada, but Canada came back and whipped their @$$ and then unlike the Confederates, did march to Washington and then proceeded to burn it down.
Had the Confederates done the same during the first battle of the war, they might have succeeded in maintaining their Independence as did Canada.
But they weren't interested in conquest, they just wanted to be left alone.
You're a strange one.
Okay, now you seem to be introducing ambiguity into your position, so how about we just clarify it?
Did the Union fight the Civil war for the express purpose of ending slavery?
No.
I hope that isn’t too ambiguous for you.
Thank you. That's all I was going for.
It took King George seven years to come to that conclusion. The Confederacy could have realized that they weren't going to win their war in a lot less time than that and halted the "meat grinder" even sooner.
The war was bloody? Well what do you expect when you invade someone's home?
You constantly ignore the fact that it was the Confederacy who chose to start the conflict. So if you want to complain about "invasions" then you need to accept that the South kicked the hornets nest and have nobody but themselves to blame for getting stung.
And yet no criticism for the fact that the Union would have kept them in ACTUAL SLAVERY had the South just stopped fighting earlier?
Since slavery was not the reason why the North was fighting then no.
You need to put your moral contempt on those people who thought the issue was negotiable. That Union was going to leave slavery intact. They didn't care about slavery, they cared about stopping Independence, and nothing else.
Slavery died as a result of the war, though it was not the primary goal of the Union's fight. But it was dead; the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment saw to that. So the South should be criticized for attempting to continue it through other means.
It is impossible to convince faux conservatives that deify Lincoln that Obama is following the same mold as Lincoln. The current tyranny of the federal government traces back to the abandonment of our Constitution by Lincoln.
Sic semper tyrannis!
I think massive casualties would have shortened that time frame with a rational leader.
You constantly ignore the fact that it was the Confederacy who chose to start the conflict.
No, I do not. In fact I have pointed out to others arguing on the same side as I, that the attack on Ft. Sumter was what cost them Independence. They shouldn't have done it.
Now I will point out to you that nobody was killed in the attack, and the response to it was excessive and disproportionate.
Since slavery was not the reason why the North was fighting then no.
Oh, we have another admission that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery. Good. So what was the North fighting for?
Slavery died as a result of the war, though it was not the primary goal of the Union's fight. But it was dead; the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment saw to that.
And yet in all these discussions regarding the Civil war, for some reason the argument generally breaks down to the issue of Slavery instead of the issue of Independence. It's just like the Abortion debate where people argue "Choice" instead of "Dead Baby." It is a deliberate skewing of the issue away from the salient point into something which proponents regard as defensible.
Nobody wants to defend the violent repression of other people's freedom and independence, so they make the past actions more palatable by proffering a less objectionable reason for fighting. "To end Slavery."
That it isn't true doesn't matter. They want and need it to be true because it is the only thing of which they can think that can give them moral justification for what happened.
I too regard Lincoln's actions as the initial beginnings of the Federal Leviathan superstate. Most people want to cite Woodrow Wilson as the first Massive government progressive, but it honestly started with Lincoln, and then went through Teddy Roosevelt before it got to Woodrow Wilson.
Lincoln was the fork in the road where we started Separating from Federalism and Originalism.
But instead you had Jeff Davis.
No, I do not. In fact I have pointed out to others arguing on the same side as I, that the attack on Ft. Sumter was what cost them Independence. They shouldn't have done it.
But they did. And having done so then your complaint seems to be that the North just didn't surrender right off the bat. Instead shouldn't your ire be directed at those who started the war in the first place?
Now I will point out to you that nobody was killed in the attack, and the response to it was excessive and disproportionate.
One of the most ridiculous arguments in the Confederate arsenal. Nobody was killed, so no harm no foul. It was a deliberate attack on a federal facility, a conscious act of war. The fact that nobody was killed is meaningless. The Confederacy was certainly trying to force the fort into surrender, and kill as many as was necessary to accomplish that.
Oh, we have another admission that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery. Good. So what was the North fighting for?
Because they had been attacked. So their goal was to preserve the Union in the face of armed rebellion. Why did the South start the war?
Mainly because the claim is idiotic and ridiculous.
Again you distort what people here are posting.
The south went to war because they perceived the election of Abraham Lincoln as the death knell of slavery in America and they would do ANYTHING to keep it. They didn't care that he said that he wouldn't steer any effort at ending slavery - only keep it from spreading. The south's primary motivation wasn't independence - it was control.
There was no violent repression of anyone except for that which the south perpetrated against its neighbor. When they went to war against America all bets were off.
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.