Posted on 05/22/2017 9:58:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Source documents don’t change. But they must be available for reading. Then there’s the old saying “consider the source”.”
Are you aware of any historical source documents that have been banned?
My only statement was:
We still have history books and in those history books we can still read Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech where in his own words he tells us about why the Civil War occurred.
There is no 'personal motivation' in that statement, as it is just a simple fact regarding what is available for students to read in history books.
The ACLU has nothing to do with that being is history books.
At least on the AP and college level, history should not be sanitized and historical figures should not be idolized or vilified. Instead, students on those levels should be intellectually capable of reading the facts and making their own determinations.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
So you did not post the above? I regret any kid or person getting into any job or college ahead of those more qualified because the person claims minority status like Pocahantas did and Obama did. Hell, how many blacks/minority students can qualify for Harvard or Yale without claiming race? Colin Powell was AA period.
“So you did not post the above? I regret any kid or person getting into any job or college ahead of those more qualified because the person claims minority status like Pocahantas did and Obama did. Hell, how many blacks/minority students can qualify for Harvard or Yale without claiming race? Colin Powell was AA period.”
I simply quoted Alexander Stephens who said:
“...slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”
It is my view that Stephens was incorrect when he argued that there is a superior race and that slavery is justified.
However, I understand that there may be some that disagree with me.
This clown you quote was never in one damn history book I ever read.
Not from New Orleans but was professional historian and archaeologist for over a decade with a specialty in pre 1870 American military history and material culture. I find the censuring and distortion of history very disturbing. My post was not meant to be specific to New Orleans but in regards to pandering politicians anywhere perhaps I should have worded it differently.
Once we sanitize history, we erode the lessons it can teach us. For instance through this whole debate I have not heard anyone mention that Robert E. Lee was an advocate for education for blacks in the 1870’s, a fact that doesn’t really fit into the meme of white supremacy.
The reason why they left is irrelevant? That is absolute nonsense.
The Declaration clearly states that any "right to leave" is not absolute, can only be used as a last resort, and must be predicated on compelling reasons which permit no other recourse.
The South had no morally justifiable basis for leaving the Union.
Forcing them back in is a deliberate rebuke of the principle upon which this nation was founded. It turned a voluntary relationship into one of coercion, and in effect rather than freeing a million slaves, it simply created 25 million new ones.
That last sentence is the height of absurdity, and "forcing them back in" would very likely not even have occurred, had the South not insisted on perpetuating slavery, citing it as the "natural" basis for the formation of their new nation. The North—rightly so—rejected the illegitimate reasoning being used to attempt to justify secession. The Confederacy's stated basis for existing was a direct repudiation of the principles of the Declaration—by their own words.
You're a tireless apologist for the Confederacy, but you simply can't wish away the factors which tainted the South's actions—including leaving the Union so that slavery could be continued indefinitely.
Even though Jefferson's entirely appropriate diatribe against slavery was removed form the Declaration—to ensure the approval of the Southern colonies—the words that remained in the Declaration were more noble and powerful than the flawed men who wrote them and signed it—and ultimately the hypocrisy of slavery was acknowledged by individuals throughout the nation as a whole.
The words of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens in his "Cornerstone Speech" make it perfectly clear what the basis of the new government was: Negro slavery—the idea that all men were not created equal.
"...The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."So cry me a friggin' river for the Confederacy's absurd rationalization that it was "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another" just so they could keep Blacks in chains in perpetuity.Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
If the South had presented a morally justifiable argument for leaving the Union, it would have been allowed to do so. Inasmuch as their "just cause" was in fact patently unjust, their excuses for leaving the Union were subject to the will of the People. The use of force by the North was righteous, based on the People's judgment that the arguments the South presented were illegitimate—even ridiculous.
Have I? I just told one of them to go screw himself.
Is it? Their reasons for leaving are as relevant to their right to leave as someones choice of words is relevant to their right to freedom of speech.
Rights are not conditional, they are absolute. You either have them, in which case it doesn't matter why you feel like leaving or speaking, or you don't.
If you have a right, you can exercise it for whatever reasons suit you.
Rights which have to meet with the approval of others before they can be exercised are not rights at all.
Where does it say that? My recollection is that it says "Consent of the Governed", and indicates no other requirement.
I recall it saying that it was listing some reasons out of respect for the opinions of mankind, but I do not recall it saying that such a courtesy was necessary.
They do not have to justify their right to leave, they only need exercise it.
According to King George III, the Colonies did not have a morally justifiable basis for leaving either, but the judges of what is a moral basis for leaving are the people leaving, not the people attempting to force them into subjugation.
By what moral basis should others force people to live under their rule? Tell me that! Who granted to others the power of dictatorship and oppression?
Stop lying. It is clear from the Historical record that the Union was making every attempt to bribe them into remaining by protecting slavery forever.
In the Union slavery was legal, and had they simply remained in it, slavery would have continued.
Therefore you do not get to claim a FALSE MORAL MANTLE when your side had every intention of continuing slavery indefinitely.
The history demonstrates clearly that the Union's objection to the South leaving was not because the South had slavery, but because the South would no longer be sending a large portion of the money they earned to the North.
Read some of the newspaper excerpts I posted above. They scarcely mention slavery. Their focus is entirely about what an economic disaster it would cause them if they didn't control the South economically.
Money. It was about money. 750,000 men died so that the North Power barons could keep making their money. The vast bulk of the North did not give a G*dD@mn about slavery so long as they kept getting the Money.
Grow up and face the very ugly ugly truth about the thing the North did because of the lust for money in the circles of power back then. The same circle of power that continues today.
This nation is ruled today by that same Washington/Boston corridor and the Wealthy Liberal elite who live there.
Stop projecting. If you're just going to begin by calling me a liar, then you can stick it.
In the Union slavery was legal, and had they simply remained in it, slavery would have continued.
What balderdash. Sure, slavery was marginally legal in the North, in some states. That doesn't change the fact that it was on its way out and that sentiment had turned against it massively.
Therefore you do not get to claim a FALSE MORAL MANTLE when your side had every intention of continuing slavery indefinitely.
I "get" to do whatever I please, and I please to reject your conflation of Northern and Southern attitudes towards slavery being similar in any meaningful way.
The perfectly legitimate moral mantle you choose to dismiss was not false by any stretch of the imagination, notwithstanding your citations about slavery still being legal in the North. The institution was almost completely vestigial in that region, regardless of what outdated laws existed.
The fact that the North still held on to some lingering stupidity with respect to slavery—whether legal or cultural—can't excuse the South for its strident, extremist defense of the abominable institution.
The history demonstrates clearly that the Union's objection to the South leaving was not because the South had slavery, but because the South would no longer be sending a large portion of the money they earned to the North.
Like Hell it does. That's simply your whimsical interpretation—a caricature that is rejected by the vast majority of historians.
If such reasoning were so sound, you'd think that the South would have cited it much more prominently in its founding document and speeches. Instead, they doubled down on the inferiority of Blacks, and the propriety of slavery as being the "natural" order of things.
The vast bulk of the North did not give a G*dD@mn about slavery so long as they kept getting the Money.
Absolute reeking bullshit. Precisely the opposite is true. The North's citizenry came to see abolishing slavery as a moral Crusade. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that Northern families were sending their sons off to die because of simple greed and the flow of money. It's preposterous on its face, and is readily repudiated when one reviews the wartime correspondence of the soldier's themselves, and their families.
Grow up and face the very ugly ugly truth about the thing the North did because of the lust for money in the circles of power back then. The same circle of power that continues today.
An even uglier truth —the ugliest of them all—is the lie of denying that Slavery was the real cause of the Civil War.
Over the last 150 years of American history, your quaint thesis has been thoroughly considered—and just as thoroughly rejected—by an overwhelming consensus of scholars, not to mention We the People.
So maybe it's time for you to stop lying.
Your old, decrepit, blind dog will never hunt...
Alexander Stephens? You've never heard of or read Alexander Stephens? The Vice President of the wannabe confederacy? What sort of history books have you been reading?!
Aah, I see you’ve met our Bizzaro world historian DegenerateLamp.
Try Virginia and American history from age 13-18 high school. Before that I lived in upstate NY, NJ, KY, TX, Germany, and KS. This clown is a new person of interest on Huffington Post and every liberal site. I am 70 plus with a BSBA and MBA.
Did I mention that this clown was the Vice President of the confederacy?
We know that BS these days no thanks to you. Tell me what year you learned about this Georgia idiot? Jeff Davis was the man we learned about in VA along with Jefferson, Washington and many more. You live in liberal Washington State so do tell?
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.