Posted on 12/19/2002 7:02:09 PM PST by dts32041
Hate and ignorance at Vanderbilt
Just before Thanksgiving, the editor of the Nashville newspaper, The Tennessean, and Vanderbilt University Professor Jonathan Farley teamed up to commit a hate crime.
Farley wrote, and the Tennessean published, an article that attacked the United Daughters of the Confederacy for what Farley calls "honoring traitors." Farley's article brims with hatred of Confederate Army soldiers and their descendants.
Farley wrote: "Every Confederate soldier, by the mores of his age and ours, deserved not a hallowed resting place at the end of his days but a reservation at the end of the gallows. ... Indeed, the race problems that wrack America to this day are due largely to the fact that the Confederacy was not thoroughly destroyed, its leaders and soldiers executed, and their lands given to the landless freed slaves."
Farley feels this way even though he is the son of West Indian immigrants whose ancestors were not part of America's Southern history.
Farley's fuse was lit when the UDC objected to the removal of "Confederate" from the name of a building, Confederate Memorial Hall, which the UDC raised money to build in the 1930s. The UDC wants its money back, but Farley wants it paid as reparations to descendants of black slaves.
Considering the offense Sen. Trent Lott's tribute to centenarian Strom Thurmond caused blacks, how might Southern whites feel about getting the finger from Farley?
Perhaps Farley would be less intolerant if he were better informed. He thinks the Civil War was about slavery, and that the Confederacy was about persecuting and torturing blacks.
It is hard to believe, but in a number of Northern states, free blacks had fewer rights than slaves in the South. Historian Charles Adams reports that Indiana and Ohio prohibited free Negroes from entering the state. Lincoln never spoke against the Illinois law (1853) that barred black people from residing in that state. The Oregon constitution (1859) prohibited blacks from coming into the state, holding property, making contracts or filing a lawsuit.
Northern states that permitted black residency did not permit blacks to attend the theater or school, nor could blacks be admitted to hospitals. Alexis De Tocqueville wrote that the Southern people were "much more tolerant and compassionate" toward blacks than were Northerners. In 1862, the North British Review wrote that "free Negroes are treated like lepers" in the North.
President Lincoln made it abundantly clear that the Civil War was not about slavery. He invaded the Confederacy in order to maintain the union and the revenue base for his expansionist plans.
In 1862, Lincoln wrote a public letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation as a wartime measure hoping to stir up a slave rebellion in the South (Northern slaves and those in Confederate territory under Union control were not freed), Union General "Fighting Joe" Hooker wrote to Lincoln that "a large element of the army had taken sides against it, declaring that they would never have embarked in the war had they anticipated this action of the government."
Pulitzer Prize winner David Herbert Donald documents that Lincoln, "well into his presidency," wanted to solve the "Negro problem" by sending all blacks back to Africa. Lincoln had a colonization scheme for sending blacks to Liberia. This would keep blacks from migrating to the Northern states "where they would compete with white laborers." Lincoln justified his scheme in terms of "restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future."
If Lincoln had not been assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, he might have carried off his scheme. The Northern states would have wholeheartedly supported it, and perhaps the defeated Southern states, as well.
Lincoln had the power to implement his scheme. He had acquired dictatorial powers early in the war simply by asserting them. He ignored rulings by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, suspended habeas corpus, arrested state legislators and newspaper editors, and exiled a U.S. representative. Indeed, it was his exercise of dictatorial power that caused his assassination.
As a Vanderbilt professor, Farley should know that slaves were brought by European colonists to the South prior to the existence of the United States. Slaves were brought there not because the Confederacy (which did not exist at that time) wished to mistreat blacks, but because there was no labor force to work the fertile agricultural lands.
The black slaves brought to North America were captured and sold into slavery by other blacks. The African slave market in Dahomey was operated by blacks. The Southern states emerged from colonies in which slavery was an established institution. As economic historians have noted, slavery was on the way out as a growing population provided a free labor market.
Farley calls the people of the old South "cowards masquerading as civilized men" who visited "tyranny and evil" upon millions of blacks. What virtues did The Tennessean see in this ignorant hate-filled diatribe? Where is the apology for the offense it gives?
He wouldn't have called them cowards to their face. This pontificating cheap mini-me imitation of Harry Bellefonte wouldn't know what is meant by courage and honor if it slapped him in the face. There's nothing more pathetic than self-aggrandizing, nutless victacrat hiding behind his adjunct prof status and bowing-up on a group of defenseless women.
Liberialism is a severe mental disorder.
1) The war was clearly about slavery. The South's secession was prompted specifically because of a perceived threat to slavery's existence by Lincoln's election. Lincoln was fighting to maintain the Union, not abolish slavery ... but, he was compelled to fight precisely because of the south's actions done with an eye solely on slavery.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
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.
Why do you feel the need to so misrepresent slavery and secession? Not a single state even mentioned tariffs in seceeding from the Union.
2) The South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Lets not forget that, shall we? It would be better called the War of Southern Agression.
3) As a descendant of slave-holding southerners (the Floyd's of coastal Georgia) whose plantation in Georgia was burnt to the ground by the Union Army, and the ground confiscated by the Feds (its the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Station today), I'd like to see this man hung for his genocidal urgings against my ancestors.
4) I'm tired of supposed Republicans defaming the founder of our party and defending the Confederate cause. If you are too wrapped up in all of that still, its time to beat your path back to the party of bigots - the Democrats. You'll find open arms there for being a Confederate from your pals like Hollings and Byrd.
5) Only a complete ignoramus would claim Lincoln is a dictator for suspending Habeus Corpus or ignoring Supreme Court rulings. President Andy Jackson originated the saying "The Supreme Court has made its ruling, now lets see them enforce it!" The three branches of government are co-equal. The Supreme Court was never meant to be some tribunal that got to pass judgement over everything the other two branches did. As to Habeus Corpus, the Constitution clearly states "The privelege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article I, Section 9). WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK A CIVIL WAR IS, IF NOT A REBELLION! Lincoln a dictator! What tommyrot!
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Farley is both ignorant and full of racist hatred. He seemingly exists to spew bile and spray acid at white people.
He's been writing this kind of diatribe for several years now, first at Oxford, now at Vanderbilt. Lord knows why they sought to hire him. He reflects no credit on the university, none whatsoever.
And now we have the myth that Southern Republicans represent a legacy of racism? That's idiotic. Anyone who knows anything about the South knows very well that during Jim Crow the South was anything but Republican. The legacy of racism in the South is to be laid at the doorstep of the Democratic Party, not ours.
But this is the new tactic among the democrats - to make the South into a backward cesspool of ignorance and racial hatred. In order to do this, they have to ignore their own history and fabricate a new history that has nothing to do with reality.
And I'm pointing this out as a descendant of two Union vets whose father is a member of SUVCW. Truth sucks, doesn't it?
Article I Section 9 concerns the powers of the government in general, not just the Legislature. The legislature would not, after all, be making a "regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money" for the Treasury Department. Similarly, Article I, Section 10 concerns prohibitions of State power - nothing to do with the Legislative power.
I don't see how the Legislature could be expected to deal with suspensions of Habeus Corpus during rebellions, since they are not empowered to command any forces at such times or any times for that matter - the President is. Further, as the executor of the laws, it would certainly seem to fall upon the President to determine a a suspension is needed in a given situation, and not the Congress.
Mr. Roberts should get a medal, not a noose!
Silly! I meant the Vanderbilt idiot. Roberts didn't call for killing all my Southern ancestors.
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.