| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
What's wrong about this photo? Or if you're a true-born Southerner, what's right?
While scanning through some of the up and coming movies in 2005, I ran across this intriguing title; "CSA: Confederate States of America (2005)". It's an "alternate universe" take on what would the country be like had the South won the civil war.
Stars with bars:
Suffice to say anything from Hollywood on this topic is sure to to bring about all sorts of controversial ideas and discussions. I was surprised that they are approaching such subject matter, and I'm more than a little interested.
Some things are better left dead in the past:
For myself, I was more than pleased with the homage paid to General "Stonewall" Jackson in Turner's "Gods and Generals". Like him, I should have like to believe that the South would have been compelled to end slavery out of Christian dignity rather than continue to enslave their brothers of the freedom that belong equally to all men. Obviously it didn't happen that way.
Would I fight for a South that believed in Slavery today? I have to ask first, would I know any better back then? I don't know. I honestly don't know. My pride for my South and my heritage would have most likely doomed me as it did so many others. I won't skirt the issue, in all likelyhood, slavery may have been an afterthought. Had they been the staple of what I considered property, I possibly would have already been past the point of moral struggle on the point and preparing to kill Northern invaders.
Compelling story or KKK wet dream?:
So what do I feel about this? The photo above nearly brings me to tears, as I highly respect Abraham Lincoln. I don't care if they kick me out of the South. Imagine if GW was in prayer over what to do about a seperatist leftist California. That's how I imagine Lincoln. A great man. I wonder sometimes what my family would have been like today. How many more of us would there be? Would we have held onto the property and prosperity that sustained them before the war? Would I have double the amount of family in the area? How many would I have had to cook for last week for Christmas? Would I have needed to make more "Pate De Fois Gras"?
Well, dunno about that either. Depending on what the previous for this movie are like, I may or may not see it. If they portray it as the United Confederacy of the KKK I won't be attending.
This generation of our clan speaks some 5 languages in addition to English, those being of recent immigrants to this nation. All of them are good Americans. I believe the south would have succombed to the same forces that affected the North. Immigration, war, economics and other huma forces that have changed the map of the world since history began.
Whatever. At least in this alternate universe, it's safe for me to believe that we would have grown to be the benevolent and humane South that I know it is in my heart. I can believe that slavery would have died shortly before or after that lost victory. I can believe that Southern gentlemen would have served the world as the model for behavior. In my alternate universe, it's ok that Spock has a beard. It's my alternate universe after all, it can be what I want.
At any rate, I lived up North for many years. Wonderful people and difficult people. I will always sing their praises as a land full of beautiful Italian girls, maple syrup and Birch beer. My uncle ribbed us once before we left on how we were going up North to live "with all the Yankees". Afterwards I always refered to him as royalty. He is, really. He's "King of the Rednecks". I suppose I'm his court jester.
So what do you think of this movie?
REALITY CHECK: " The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." [Confederate Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1]
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERY
Article 1, Section 2. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.Article 1, Section. 9, Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
[Confederate Constitution] Article 1, Sec. 9, Clause 1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
[Confederate Constitution] (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Article 5. ... Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article 1, Section 2 pertains only to the apportionment of Representatives.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, PROHIBITS any governmental interference with the SLAVE TRADE until 1808. It further PROHIBITS any governmental attempt to tax slavery out of existence by PROHIBITING any tax greater than ten dollars.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, known as the FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE, required the return of any escaped slave or indentured servant. This clause has not been repealed and remains in effect today, however, there are no lawful slaves or indentured servants.
Article 5 PROHIBITED government interference with the SLAVE TRADE.
The Constitution EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS interference with the SLAVE TRADE until 1808.
The Constitution provides no mechanism (other than permitting amendment of the Constitution) for the Federal government to abolish SLAVERY.
Lerone Bennett, Jr. is a highly acclaimed journalist, author and executive editor of Ebony. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1949 and began his career as a reporter for the Atlanta Daily World and later served as city editor. Bennett moved to Chicago in 1953 where he worked as associate editor at Jet magazine. The following year he became associate editor for Ebony and is now executive editor of the publication. He has authored many articles and books including, Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, 1619-1962 (1962), What Manner of Man: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964), and Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (2000).
Abraham Lincoln Symposium
and Annual Abraham Lincoln Association Banquet
Sponsored by:
With support from:
Abraham Lincoln Symposium
February 12, 2002, at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois,
The Symposium is free to the public.
Address: Lerone Bennett Jr., Ebony Magazine, Forced Into Glory
The American Book Awards / Before Columbus Foundation
The American Book Awards, established in 1978 by the Before Columbus Foundation, recognize outstanding literary achievement by contemporary American authors, without restriction to race, sex, ethnic background, or genre. The purpose of the awards is to acknowledge the excellence and multicultural diversity of American writing.
2002 Lifetime Achievement: Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Salute to Greatness Award
of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change
Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Among his numerous awards, he has received the Literature Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Association of Black Journalists and was recently inducted into Chicago State University's new National Literary Hall of Fame for Writers of African Descent in December 1998. Bennett is on the Board of Trustees at Morehouse College (Atlanta), Columbia College (Chicago) and the Chicago Historical Society. He is also a member of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.
"they were to be swept away by the hand of God, like the Jews of old.... Then he says 'We are outlawed, and, therefore, not bound by the rules of regular warfare.' But that makes it none the less revolting to wreak our vengeance on the innocent and defenseless...."
He was just following orders. That sounds familiar.
I have not, to paraphrase what Wendell Phillips said in another connection, judged Lincoln at all except by the words of his own mouth and on facts asserted and admitted by his own eulogists and defenders, including Herndon, Sandburg, Randall, Donald et al. I have not claimed here that he should have been perfect, but I have suggested that he should have been consistent and that if government of the people was good for the White majority of Illinois it was good for the Black majority of South Carolina. I have not criticized him for not rising to the level of the Kings and Mandelas of our time -- I have deplored the fact that he didn't rise to the level of the great Black and White leaders of his time.
Lerone Bennett Jr. Chicago 2000
So this is where you start singing the praises of that back-shooting sot, John Booth?
Author: Wesley, Charles H.
Title: “Lincoln’s Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes.”
Citation: Journal of Negro History 4 (January 1919): 7-21.
A certain group of capitalists, whose names are not mentioned, then secured the lease from Kock and entered into contract with the government through the Secretary of the Interior, April 6, 1863. [28] Under this agreement a shipload of colonists from the contrabands at Fortress Monroe, said to number 411-435, were embarked. [29] An infectious disease broke out through the presence on board of patients from the military hospital on Craney Island and from twenty to thirty died. On the arrival in the colony no hospitals were ready, no houses were provided, and the resulting conditions were appalling. Kock was sent along as Governor, and he is said to have put on the air of a despot and by his neglect of the sick and needy to have made himself obnoxious.
Rumors of the situation came to the President and he sent a special agent, D. C. Donnohue, who investigated the matter and made a report. Donnohue elaborately described the deplorable situation of the inhabitants, the wretched condition of the small houses and the prevalence of sickness. He further reported that the Haytian government was unwilling that emigrants should remain upon the island and that the emigrants themselves desired to return to the United States. Acting upon the report, the President ordered the Secretary of War to dispatch a vessel to bring home the colonists desiring to return. [30] On the fourth of March [1864] the vessel set sail and landed at the Potomac River opposite Alexandria on the twentieth of the same month. On the twelfth of March, 1864, a report was submitted to the Senate showing what portion of the appropriation for colonization had been expended and the several steps which had been taken for the execution of the acts of Congress. [31]
[28] Nicolay and Hay, A History, VI, p. 362.
[29] Complete records to substantiate this statement have not been discovered.
[30] Lincoln addressed thus the Secretary of War, February 1, 1864: “Sir; You are directed to have a transport . . . sent to the colored colony of San Domingo to bring back to this country such of the colonists there as desire to return. You will have a transport furnished with suitable supplies for that purpose and detail an officer of the quartermaster department, who under special instructions to be given shall have charge of the business. The colonists will be brought to Washington unless otherwise hereafter directed to be employed and provided for at the camps for colored persons around that city. Those only will be brought from the island who desire to return and their effects will be brought with them.”
[31] Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works, II, p. 477.
On July 2, 1864, Congress repealed its appropriation and no further effort was made at colonization. [32]
The failure of this project did not dim the vision of the successful colonization of the freed slaves in the mind of President Lincoln. As late as April, 1865, according to report, the following conversation is said to have ensued between the President and General Benjamin F. Butler “But what shall we do with the Negroes after they are free?” inquired Lincoln. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace unless we get rid of the Negroes. Certainly they cannot, if we don’t get rid of the Negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us, to the amount, I believe, of some 150,000 men. I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. You have been a staunch friend of the race from the time you first advised me to enlist them at New Orleans. You have had a great deal of experience in moving bodies of men by water-your movement up the James was a magnificent one. Now we shall have no use for our very large navy. What then are our difficulties in sending the blacks away? . . . I wish you would examine the question and give me your views upon it and go into the figures as you did before in some degree as to show whether the Negroes can be exported.” Butler replied: “I will go over this matter with all diligence and tell you my conclusions as soon as I can.” The second day after that Butler called early in the morning and said: “Mr. President, I have gone very carefully over my calculations as to the power of the country to export the Negroes of the South and I assure you that, using all your naval vessels and all the merchant marines fit to cross the seas with safety, it will be impossible for you to transport to the nearest place that can be found fit for them-and that is the Island of San Domingo, half as fast as Negro children will be born here.” [33]
[32] Statutes at Large, XIII, p. 352.
[33] Butler’s Reminiscences, pp. 903-904.
Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 554
Lincoln's emigration aide, the Rev. James Mitchell, said the Proclamation "did not change Mr. Lincoln's policy of colonization, nor was it so intended." On August 18, 1863, seven months after the signing of the Proclamation and three months before the Gettysburg Address, Mitchell said he asked Lincoln if the "might say that colonization was still the policy of the Administration." Lincoln replied twice, he said, that "I have never thought so much on any subject and arrived at a conclusion so definite as I have in this case, and in after years found myself wrong." Lincoln added that "it would have been much better to separate the races than to have such scenes as those in New York [during the Draft Riots] the other day, where Negroes were hanged to lamp posts."
ON NOVEMBER 30, 1864 WE FIND EDWARD BATES REPLYING TO A QUESTION POSED BY ABRAHAM LINCOLN ABOUT HOW TO KEEP JAMES MITCHELL ON THE PAYROLL TO AID IN THE MATTER OF EMIGRATION OR COLONIZATION OF BLACKS.
Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.
Transcribed and Annotated by
the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
From Edward Bates to Abraham Lincoln, November 30, 1864
Washington, Nov 30 1864.
Honored Sir,
I beg your pardon for having overlooked, in the pressure of business, in my latter days in the office, the duty to give formal answer to your question concerning your power still to retain the Revd Mr Mitchell as your assistant or aid in the matter of executing the several acts of Congress relating to the emigration or Colonizing of the freed blacks.
It is too late for me now to give a formal opinion upon the question, as this is my last day in office. I can only say that, having examined all the acts referred to, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the act which repeals the appropriation contingently, you still have something to do, under those acts; and therefore, that you have the same right to continue Mr Mitchell that you had to appoint him originally. And I hope it will be done, for he seems to be a good man, of zeal & capacity.
Most respectfully Sir
Your obt servt
Edwd. Bates
American Scoundrel, The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles, by Thomas Keneally, 2002, First Edition May 2002, ISBN 0-385-50139-0, Chapter 8, pp. 309-317
[Note: Keneally is also the author of Schindler’s List]
[309]
Dan, in his restlessness, wrote on December 9 [1864] to the newly reelected President: "I beg respectfully to remind you that I am still unassigned. ... I hope to be spared the humiliation of being dropped from the rolls amongst the list of useless officers." The President was motivated by Dan's part at Gettysburg to find another task for him, and asked him to undertake a taxing mission. Lincoln needed an emissary to go on government business to Panama and Colombia. Greater Colombia, or New Granada, as the Federation of Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama styled itself, formed one loose federal state ruled from the highland capital of Bogota, Colombia. He was to leave by January with the purpose of persuading the Panamanian authorities to allow Union troops to cross the Isthmus of Panama, something they had recently prohibited. He was then to travel to Bogota and raise, with the federal authorities there, the possibility of Colombia's offering a home to freed black slaves, who were now pooling in Washington and in Northern cities.
[312]
Having crossed to South America by steamer, Dan wrote to George describing, for his entertainment, the important Colombian port of Cartagena, with its old Spanish forts. From there, he and his aides caught the steamer up the coast and into the broad mouth of the Magdalena, the river path to the capital.
[313]
The president, Manuel Murillo, as well as having been the Colombian ambassador in Washington, had visited it as late as the winter of 1863-64, negotiating recognition of the new Colombian government and looking for guarantees against the possibility that clients of Colombian companies might sue the country for nondelivery because of the federal blockade of the South. Murillo authorized a considerable number of ceremonial events to honor the famous visiting general. In meetings at the presidential residence near the cathedral, Murillo explained to Dan that New Granada's various regional components had such power that they could, as in the case of Panama, make decisions bearing on foreign relations, such as banning the transit of Americans and American troops. It was an issue, said Murillo, on which Bogota could not give absolute guarantees or dictate Panama's policies. But important advice and reports could be prepared in collaboration with Dan to minimize future problems. Dan found, too, that in principle Murillo was open to the concept of American freed-slave immigration to Colombia. But the matter would need to be discussed in his cabinet and subjected
[314]
to the advice of the Colombian bureaucracy. In the end, no final arrangement was ever reached, and little came of the concept. Yet representing its virtues and arguing its value occupied Dan and his staff for three months.
Dan relished life in that high Hispanic capital. He spent his time in conferences and social visits and in excursions into the surrounding country with trappers. But sometimes he had too much leisure, since the mail came only once a month or even less often, given that the river was full of bars of mud and the steamer schedules problematic. On May 2, [1865] he wrote to Stanton that he would be back in Cartagena to leave by steamer for the United States on June 1, unless there were more instructions from the Secretary of State waiting for him in Panama. "I shall have the honor to report to you for duty before the 1st of July. I trust you may then have occasion to employ me usefully in the field. You and I burnt the first powder in this war, on our side, and so I wish to be with you, 'in at the death' of the rebellion." Dan, knowing nothing of the final days of the war or of the national tragedy that had overtaken the people, told Stanton that he would report to him on two legs, because in that mountain capital, he boasted, he had made progress in the use of his prosthetic limb.
Let's check the parts that happy, happy Nolu Chan neglected to highlight.
" The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."
Suddenly we see that the confederate constitution specifically protected the slave trade.
As did every southern state, all designed to ensure that any blacks who lived in the boundaries of the state were property and not people.
The main intent of abolishing slavery was to rid the "Free States" of the "stink of the Black man".
Ah, we're back to that again. Last time you posted that quote you also lied as said that it came from de Tocqueville. Are you attributing it to someone else now? Or are you accepting ownership for it this time?
Confederate constitution, article 1, section 9, clause 4, PROHIBITS any governmental interference with SLAVERY at ANY TIME by prohibiting ANY LAW that DENIES or IMPAIRS the the right of property in NEGRO SLAVES.
Happy, happy Nolu Chan overlooked that part.
Those you say the "stink" would find you're comments most interesting.
U.S. CONST, Amendment 10 states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This prohibited any FEDERAL government interference with SLAVERY at ANY TIME by prohibiting ANY LAW that DENIED or IMPAIRED the right of property recognized in any SLAVE STATE.
That is why, after the war, Constitutional amendments were required.
Happy happy Minister of Propaganda overlooked that part.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERY
Article 1, Section 2. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article 1, Section. 9, Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article 5. ... Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Union victory in the war destroyed the southern vision of America!
Three cheers for the Union!
But happy, happy Nolu Chan, you forget that the confederacy couldn't limit slavery in any way, shape or form because of the confederate constitution. And such a constitutional amendment ending slavery down south would be virtually impossible to pass, wouldn't it?
Well that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. But, considering the source....
Here is how Brigade Commander Wlat defended this piece of human crap:
"Now, Mitchell was a very loyal and capable Union man." -- Wlat 7/20/2003
Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States Showing the Necessity of the Colonization of the Latter
Addressed to President Abraham Lincoln
May 18, 1862
Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home. This suggests that the tropical lands of our own hemisphere should be devoted to their use, and that all available means should be seized to pour a flood of Anglo-African civilization on the tropical lands of the old hemisphere most accessible to us (Western Africa.) In doing this we take from imperialism its temptation to tamper with our republicanism; for by preserving the heterogeneous character of our population, we perpetuate our republican equality in social and civil life.It further suggests that our legislation should cover the wants and well-being of both races, and that statesmen should consider, first, the good of the white race, then, the good and well-being of the black; making at least as liberal appropriations for the colonization of the Indian, upon whom millions on millions have been expended with but imperfect success in the cause of civilization, whilst the slender means of the friends of the African civilization have produced lasting results. Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic. If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then. The more intelligent men of color can now see the necessity that rests upon us, and they will aid us in this work. We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" -- as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment. But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.
U. S. Department of the Interior (RG 48): African Slave Trade and Negro Colonization, Records of, 1854-1872. M160. 10 rolls.
Roll 8: Communications relating to Rev. James Mitchell, emigration agent of the Department of the Interior, Apr. 8, 1862-June 6, 1865
The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress
Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916.
James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln, May 18, 1862 (Pamphlet)
It was impossible to pass in the United States under the Constitution except by force of arms, wasn't it?
Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
We of the South contend that slavery is right
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.
Let's read this line once again. We of the South contend that slavery is right..
Try reading it again.
SOURCE: James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 860-61 "The North -- along with a few countries of northwestern Europe -- hurtled forward eagerly toward a future of industrial capitalism that many southerners found distasteful if not frightening; the South remained proudly and even defiantly rooted in the past before 1861. Thus when secessionists protested that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct.
My #2058 is a quote of James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, in response to M. Espinola #2051, and, in the stated words of M. Espinola, "The work is impressive, in terms of layout, maps, graphics, and as far as I could detect, content as well."
That is the content that M. ESPINOLA stated was "IMPRESSIVE."
I'm glad you find Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson, IMPRESSIVE in CONTENT.
SOURCE: James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 860-61
The North -- along with a few countries of northwestern Europe -- hurtled forward eagerly toward a future of industrial capitalism that many southerners found distasteful if not frightening; the South remained proudly and even defiantly rooted in the past before 1861.Thus when secessionists protested that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to protect their constitutional liberties against the perceived northern threat to overthrow them. The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the founding fathers -- a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession to power of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening, revolutionary future. Indeed, the Black Republican party appeared to the eyes of many southerners as "essentially a revolutionary party" composed of "a motley throng of Sans culottes . . . Infidels and freelovers, interspersed by Bloomer women, fugitive slaves, and amalgamationists." 7 Therefore secession was a pre-emptive counterrevolution to prevent the Black Republican revolution from engulfing the South. "We are not revolutionists," insisted James B. D. DeBow and Jefferson Davis during the Civil War, "We are resisting revolution. . . . We are conservative." 8
Union victory in the war destroyed the southern vision of America and ensured that the northern vision would become the American vision. Until 1861, however, it was the North that was out of the mainstream, not the South.
7. New Orleans Daily Delta, Nov. 3, 1860; Steven A. Channing, Crisis of Fear: Secession in south Carolina (New York, 1970), 287.
8. DeBow's Review, 33 (1862), 44; Rowland, Davis, VI, 357.
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.