Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals
Townhall.com ^ | July 22, 2020 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."

There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."

Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.

Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: confederategenerals; confederatestatues; constitution; declaofindependence; decofindependence; greatbritain; robertelee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 641-655 next last
To: FLT-bird; Reily
FLT-bird to Reily: "Notice how these PC Revisionists side with Leftists consistently while falsely claiming they're 'conservatives'? "

Notice how our Lost Causers side with their anti-American Democrat ancestors while falsely claiming they're "Republicans"?

521 posted on 08/04/2020 5:54:58 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; DoodleDawg; Reily
jeffersondem: "First things first: in which post on this thread have I referred to the Alexander Stephens speech?"

As I carefully explained the first time (how many times will you ignore it?), your claim that slavery is the "cornerstone" of the US Constitution, refers back to Alexander Stephens famous claim that slavery was the "cornerstone" of the new Confederate constitution.

And might I add, it's typical Democrat mind-set: projecting your own feelings onto others.
You wish the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy to be also the "cornerstone" of the US Constitution, when in fact, it was nothing of the sort.

But as Reily pointed out, your claim does fit rather well with the 1619 project, and so maybe that's your true home-base?

522 posted on 08/04/2020 6:07:30 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird; jmacusa; Monterrosa-24; OIFVeteran
FLT-bird: "No, the denial is an absolute Leftist lie.
The Democrat party of 1840 and 1860 and 1910 is not the Democrat party of today.
The same goes for the Republicans.
They have each changed considerably.
The lie is that secession was "about" slavery.
Plainly it was not.
It was about tariffs and economics and more broadly, the centralization of power."

Those are absolute, complete lies.
Democrat lies.
Southern Democrat lies.
Lies told by Southern Democrats who pretend now to be "conservative Republicans".
You're not a Republican of any kind, you're still a GD Democrat, and you will be one until you stop lying about the Civil War, period.

Confederates told us why they seceded, and it was all about slavery, it had little or nothing to do with any of that other nonsense you Democrats keep lying about.
Read the documents!
But of course you have read them, and you still lie about them, which confirms absolutely your status as a GD Democrat, Southern Democrat Lost Causer.

And Democrats, by definition, were never "conservative" they've always been opposed to the United States and our Constitution.
And from time to time you Democrats go berserk and wage war against us -- all the while lying, lying, lying.
That's the definition of Democrat.

523 posted on 08/04/2020 6:29:49 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; DoodleDawg
jeffersondem: "Sure, we all change our views from time to time. I personally like Doodledawg’s method of jinking 180: “I stand corrected.” "

Nonsense, you're just straining at gnats, I stand by all of those statements.

524 posted on 08/04/2020 6:37:32 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; DoodleDawg; Brass Lamp; DiogenesLamp; rustbucket; central_va; Pelham; woodpusher; ...

“As I carefully explained the first time (how many times will you ignore it?), your claim that slavery is the “cornerstone” of the US Constitution, refers back to Alexander Stephens famous claim that slavery was the “cornerstone” of the new Confederate constitution.”

No. You are wrong.

My statement was about the cornerstone federal court case, not Alexander Stephens’ speech.

And the cornerstone federal court case was not about the Alexander Stephens’ speech either.


525 posted on 08/04/2020 6:45:31 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Those are absolute, complete lies. Democrat lies. Southern Democrat lies. Lies told by Southern Democrats who pretend now to be "conservative Republicans". You're not a Republican of any kind, you're still a GD Democrat, and you will be one until you stop lying about the Civil War, period. Confederates told us why they seceded, and it was all about slavery, it had little or nothing to do with any of that other nonsense you Democrats keep lying about. Read the documents! But of course you have read them, and you still lie about them, which confirms absolutely your status as a GD Democrat, Southern Democrat Lost Causer. And Democrats, by definition, were never "conservative" they've always been opposed to the United States and our Constitution. And from time to time you Democrats go berserk and wage war against us -- all the while lying, lying, lying. That's the definition of Democrat.

As usual, you're just lying. Yours are the standard PC Revisionist leftist lies. Had the Confederates seceded over slavery, the Northern Republicans at the time were only too happy to offer them slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states turned it down. Then 5 more Southern states joined them when the greedy Yankees chose to start a war for money and empire to prevent the original 7 from leaving. Read the documents! I've provided a bunch of them many times. But of course you try to ignore them and just keep lying. That's a textbook tactic for Leftists like you.

526 posted on 08/04/2020 6:47:32 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Notice how our Lost Causers side with their anti-American Democrat ancestors while falsely claiming they're "Republicans"?

Southerners are Americans genius. Confederate States of AMERICA. The Republican party of the 1860s is not the Republican party of today. If it were, I couldn't support it.

527 posted on 08/04/2020 6:49:07 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Sure, every Founder wanted every state to be recognized as 100% free & independent from Britain, but no Founder ever considered any state as 100% free & independent from each other.

This is a laughable lie. The states as everybody understood, were free to choose which way each of them wanted to go be it ratify the Constitution or not. Then again, pesky things such as actual facts never bothered you before so I'm hardly surprised to see you spout this BS.

528 posted on 08/04/2020 6:51:00 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Synonyms for the word "ordinance" include: "edict · decree · law · injunction · fiat · command · order · rule · ruling · dictum · dictate · directive · mandate · enactment · statute · act · canon · regulation..." So FLT-bird is here making a distinction which has no meaning, apparently for no other purpose than to be quarrelsome.

LOL! You obviously do not know the difference between a local ordinance and a law. Nor do you know anything about history either. All powers exercised by cities and countries are at the discretion of the state and can be taken away by the state - and yes this has happened numerous times.

529 posted on 08/04/2020 6:52:37 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
woodpusher quoting: "Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
At 596:
Vermont was admitted as a free and independent state."
Only a free and independent state can be admitted as a free and independent state."

That ruling is from 1933, not 1791.
There is no contemporaneous equivalent document.
And the 1933 SCOTUS claim that Vermont was "recognized" by NH, MA & NY, bears some scrutiny -- were ambassadors exchanged?
Were treaties negotiated?
Were tariffs imposed?
So what, exactly, did such "recognition" consist of?
If it was nothing more than withdrawal of their own claims to Vermont territory, that is hardly the same thing as officially recognizing Vermont as a separate country, free & independent from the United States.

woodpusher "Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3.
You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied.
It did not.
Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777.
Vermont was explicitly found to have been admitted under clause 1."

In 1933!!
There is no contemporaneous document verifying any distinction of the sort.
See, for example here.

But I think we can cut to the chase, if we simply compare Vermont to Texas.
Texas was a recognized independent country, with all the trappings & courtesies afforded a real country by foreign powers, including the United States.
Vermont achieved no such status, it called itself a "state" or "commonwealth", its chief executive was a "governor" and it only failed admission to the United States because New York opposed it, pending settlement of boundary claims.
Once those claims were settled -- Vermont paid $30,000 to settle -- then Vermont was quickly admitted, without any navel-gazing over whether clause 1 or clause 2 applied!

So why does this even matter?
Because our Lost Causers love, love to claim examples of successful secession from the United States and Vermont seems an ideal candidate, to them.
But in fact, Vermont was never officially recognized as a country separate from the United States, and it applied & became a US state at the first possible opportunity.

530 posted on 08/04/2020 7:34:26 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher; OIFVeteran
woodpusher: "I am not the one who (#403) posted: [BroJoeK #403 quoting] OIFVeteran: "There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America."

To which you responded, "...what branch of the Federal government the States are a part of?"

Now, FRiend, you well know that is a stupid question, intended not to enlighten but to befuddle.
The answer is not "what branch of government", but rather "which constitution" governed which states.
Before their individual ratifications, each state was governed by the Articles of Confederation and after by the new Constitution.
At no time did any original state claim to be, or was officially recognized as, free & independent from the United States.

woodpusher: "Your attempt to avoid explaining is understandable. "

Your attempt to ask senseless questions is quite understandable.

woodpusher: "How do you invite a state to join a confederacy if it is a member of said confederacy?
How does the legislature of Rhode Island reject said invitation unless it is not a member of said confederacy?"

Before ratifications, each state remained under the United States Articles of Confederation.
The issue was, which constitution would govern them, not which country did they belong to.

woodpusher: "You can't handle the truth. "

Nonsense, the truth you can't handle is that none of those states ever formally claimed to be, or were officially recognized as, free & independent from the United States.

By "formally claimed to be", I mean documents of secession or declarations of war against the United States.
By "officially recognized", I mean such normal things as ambassador exchanges, treaties & tariffs, etc.

And that's the truth you can't handle.

woodpusher: "Mutual consent, or as the U.S. Supreme Court put it, successful revolution."

In 1933!
In 1791 Vermont was admitted as a state, by mutual consent, just as the Constitution and James Madison required.

woodpusher: "It does not matter that the U.S. government, when there was one, did not officially recognize Vermont's independence until it entered the union.
At the time of admission, and thereafter, they were officially recognized by the U.S. Government to have been previously, and at the time of admission, a free and independent state.
Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3.
You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied.
It did not.
Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777."

That is total & complete rubbish, sure, concocted by SCOTUS in 1933, but not by our Founders in 1791.
In fact, the 1791 US law admitting Vermont as the 14th state says nothing -- zero, zip -- about any of it.

531 posted on 08/04/2020 8:07:24 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
woodpusher: "And whatever you quoted was not the next paragraph.
Or the one after that.
Here is my quoted paragraph, and the rest of the document.
Your quote does not seem to appear in the Virginia Bill of Rights or the Virginia Constitution."

FRiend, we all make mistakes and can all sympathize when we see glaring mistakes from our "debate partners".
In this particular case, the words you claim here are not found in the "next paragraph", are in fact both quoted and highlighted by you, exactly as I said, in the next paragraph.

Like I said, we all make mistakes, so I won't rub this one by you in... too much. ;-)

woodpusher: "In have not seen it and generally do not take Broadway or Hollywood as historically accurate.
For example, there are many stirring examples of congressional dabate in the Spielberg movie, Lincoln.
Not a word of it was taken from the verbatim records of the actual debates."

In both examples, the dramatized words catch the essence of historical events.
In the case of the Lee's song, it's the fact that Congress requested a declaration from Virginia, to which Virginia responded,

Standard histories of the time put it this way: My point is: leadership here came from Congress and Virginians acted "in compliance" with Congress's wishes.
One historical question is whether RH Lee himself was in Virginia on May 15, 1776?
Jefferson's intentions, and, of course, the musical's lyrics, suggest he was.
532 posted on 08/04/2020 8:52:21 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24; jmacusa
Monterrosa-24: "Confederates vote Republican today and that is why the deep South is solid red."

Anti-American Confederate Democrats are not Republicans, ever, regardless of how they vote.
You can't be a Republican until you give up your GD Democrat lies.

Monterrosa-24: "Yankees vote Dem today and that is why Massachusetts and New England are solid blue."

Northern Democrats today are the same people they were in 1860!
Then as now they were big city immigrants & business globalists who dominated their state governments and allied with Southern Democrats to rule in Washington DC -- to support the social institutions (i.e., slavery) which made them wealthy.

In 1860, just as today, Republicans were small town, small businesses, farmers, professionals, middle-class, freedom loving -- PUT AMERICANS FIRST-ers.

Monterrosa-24: "You name-called our points a “big lie” but we have all the evidence and all you have are insults."

Sorry, but you have only lies, and it's all just lies, but I do confess one thing: some of your lies are so cleverly expressed it takes one's breath away and requires a lot of words to unpackage & straighten out.

That's why the temptation to simply resort to insults can get pretty... strong.

533 posted on 08/04/2020 9:08:25 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird; Reily; jmacusa
FLT-bird: "Southerners are Americans genius.
Confederate States of AMERICA.
The Republican party of the 1860s is not the Republican party of today.
If it were, I couldn't support it."

Then you are absolutely not Republican, you're a Southern Democrat, if not Dixiecrat.

I have it on the authority of President Donald Trump -- repeated to every Southern rally -- that we Republicans are the party of Lincoln.

So I'm sorry you're not one of us, but maybe someday you'll grow sick of Democrat lies and wish to join us.
When that day comes, I promise you'll be welcomed with open arms & hearts, FRiend.

534 posted on 08/04/2020 9:26:43 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Then you are absolutely not Republican, you're a Southern Democrat, if not Dixiecrat. I have it on the authority of President Donald Trump -- repeated to every Southern rally -- that we Republicans are the party of Lincoln. So I'm sorry you're not one of us, but maybe someday you'll grow sick of Democrat lies and wish to join us. When that day comes, I promise you'll be welcomed with open arms & hearts, FRiend.

I'm an Independent FRiend. I was happy to vote for Trump and would again. I was beyond fed up with the corrupt Republican Party Establishment. The party needed a hostile takeover and that's what it got. So long as the Trump wing runs things....no ridiculous foreign wars, protect our borders, no socialist insanity, stop allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of by the Europeans, the Chinese, the EU, hell, everybody....in other words as long as the current incarnation of the Republican Party is dead set against everything New England stands for, I'm with it 100%

535 posted on 08/04/2020 9:50:18 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; FLT-bird; jmacusa; Monterrosa-24; woodpusher

I think an outstanding example on how to show that the democrats and republicans have not changed in over 150 years is taking statements from the two leaders of the civil war but updating it to reflect a current moral difference between the two parties.

Jefferson Davis(Democrat)- “African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.”

Abraham Lincoln(Republican)-”If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

Now let’s look at those statements through todays biggest moral question.

Jefferson Davis (Democrat)-”Abortion, at it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.”

Abraham Lincoln (Republican)- “If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

The democrats were morally wrong 150 years ago and they are morally wrong now.


536 posted on 08/04/2020 9:51:44 AM PDT by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran
I think an outstanding example on how to show that the democrats and republicans have not changed in over 150 years is taking statements from the two leaders of the civil war but updating it to reflect a current moral difference between the two parties. Jefferson Davis(Democrat)- “African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.” Abraham Lincoln(Republican)-”If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Now let’s look at those statements through todays biggest moral question. Jefferson Davis (Democrat)-”Abortion, at it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.” Abraham Lincoln (Republican)- “If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” The democrats were morally wrong 150 years ago and they are morally wrong now.

Ridiculous. The parties have both changed dramatically - as has America - as has the world in 150 years. 150 years ago Southern Democrats were the party of small government, balanced budgets and decentralized power. Alexander Stephens, often quoted for his Cornerstone Speech is rarely quoted for this: "If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity." -Alexander Stephens He was hardly the only one. “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a MORE CENTRALIZED FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND TO DEPRIVE US OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864 Lee reflected similar sentiments "I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it." Robert E. Lee in a letter to Lord Acton Davis expressed similar ideas in his 2nd inaugural "The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861 The Republicans of 160 years ago were a party of centralized power....of crony capitalism with big business in bed with government and getting massive subsidies from government, of federal deficits and debts. The Jeffersonian Democrats who were overwhelmingly Southern dominated the Democrat party. They wanted decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets and no corporate welfare. The regions did not change much in their political values. The parties did. New England still wants centralized power (hell, now they want global government rather than merely national). They still want massive government spending. The South still wants limited government and states' rights. The Democrats now dominate the Northeast and advocate what they want. The Republicans now dominate the South and advocate what Southerners have traditionally wanted.

537 posted on 08/04/2020 10:15:09 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

Your points are solid but the Yankees and those who are loyal to the GOP due to fraternal reasons rather than conservative ideology will refuse to consider the truth. But 99 percent of Pat Cleburne fans vote Republican today.


538 posted on 08/04/2020 7:46:42 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a Russian AK-47 and a French bikini.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Paragraphs are your friend...

Ridiculous. The parties have both changed dramatically - as has America - as has the world in 150 years. 150 years ago Southern Democrats were the party of small government, balanced budgets and decentralized power.

Alexander Stephens, often quoted for his Cornerstone Speech is rarely quoted for this: "If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."

--Alexander Stephens

He was hardly the only one.

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision…

It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a MORE CENTRALIZED FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND TO DEPRIVE US OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.”

-- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

Lee reflected similar sentiments "I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

Robert E. Lee in a letter to Lord Acton Davis expressed similar ideas in his 2nd inaugural "The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control."

Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

The Republicans of 160 years ago were a party of centralized power....of crony capitalism with big business in bed with government and getting massive subsidies from government, of federal deficits and debts.

The Jeffersonian Democrats who were overwhelmingly Southern dominated the Democrat party. They wanted decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets and no corporate welfare. The regions did not change much in their political values. The parties did. New England still wants centralized power (hell, now they want global government rather than merely national). They still want massive government spending. The South still wants limited government and states' rights.

The Democrats now dominate the Northeast and advocate what they want. The Republicans now dominate the South and advocate what Southerners have traditionally wanted.

539 posted on 08/04/2020 7:53:37 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Dude, we’re not all Democrats up here in “Yankee Land’’. Did you happen to notice that when Trump was having rallies his biggest turn out was here in NJ.


540 posted on 08/05/2020 2:48:58 AM PDT by jmacusa (If we're all equal how is diversity our strength?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 641-655 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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