Posted on 03/03/2008 10:37:49 AM PST by Rebeleye
Exactly.
The South should have seen the handwriting on the wall anywise. No society sustained by slavery can maintain itself indefinitely. Indeed, dependence on slavery stifles progress, which is why the South was so far behind the North economically. Slavery was a dying institution in the civilised world by 1860, and the South would have been much better served by getting on board the wage capitalism boat to begin with, even if it meant that they'd probably follow the North in the idiotic desire for tariff protectionism.
Instead, the South had to rattle its sabres in such a way that State's rights and secession are now forever tarred by the spectre of slavery and racism. Because the South couldn't get on board with the rest of the Western world, a legitimate constitutional principle designed to AUGMENT and PROTECT liberty is now viewed in low and stupid minds as being AGAINST those very things.
Emperor Palpatine
He’s got a point. Different people pushing different causes has used that photogragh. I’ve seen the same photo on an History channel and they said it was evidence of post Bellum lynching.
I myself read many years ago it was indeed of a slave that ran away but got caught and whipped each time he tried for freedom.
Amen.
Well? Make up your mind, darn it. Was it or wasn't it? Largely means it is part of something more. :-)
And finally - Texas, not to be outdone, wrote its own declaration.
Texas should have simply renounced the 1845 Treaty and reclaimed its status as a Republic. That unique status kinda separates us from everybody else except Hawaii.
You make an interesting legalistic argument as to the nature of Lee’s alleged offense against the Constitution. Lee’s lawyers would have made those very points if it came to that. Nevertheless, the thing that save Lee was his willingness to surrender his forces intact rather than to disperse them for guerilla warfare. That is why he is honored to this day (by most Americans).
You haven't got a clue either. Slaves couldn't be killed at their owner's discretion anymore than you can be killed at another's discretion now. You would seem to be the victim of a public school education. Slaves were property, it's true. But why would a (non-maniacal) owner beat his slaves. Lots of people own horses now. Do you think these owners beat their horses, or do you think they mostly treat them with TLC? And it's true that slaves were bought and sold, but so are baseball players. I wonder if this bothers you too.
ML/NJ
That CONSTITUTIONALLY a part of it. Or aren’t you aware of what rights that document contained at the time?
Grant and Sherman finally figured out that the North could win a war of attrition. So they set about a series of costly battles that they could afford but the South could not.
They also figured out that making systematic aggressive war against an undefended civilian population would work. Today they would be condemned as war criminals. Despite plenty of opportunities Lee and the rest of the Southern generals never did.
So you have to ask yourself. Did the civilized side win?
At that time flogging was common in the Navy. Plenty of free white sailors had backs that looked just like that.
I’ve wondered how much Lee’s genius was enhanced by the sheer incompetence of the Union generals he was up against. Plus, he had some of the best subordinate generals a man could ask for, most notably Stonewall Jackson.
I always likened Lee v. Grant to Rommel v. Montgomery. There’s some interesting parallels between the four men, both personality-wise and in their history as opponents.
}:-)4
Was not comparing them. Just stating a fact. No military historian would argue that if Lee had had Grants resources the war would have turned out differently. This thread will last a long time and nothing will be settled. Lee and Grant were excellent Generals and were mutually respectful of each other as well they should have been. I have no desire to re-fight the civil war It was a terribly divisive part of our history and there was gallantry and bravery on both sides. There was cowardice and brutality as well. All of us should be proud of our ancestors as they sacrificed for what they believed to be a just cause.
Fly it proud..And stand up for the Constitution.
Boy oh boy!!! You're really in for it now.
Lock and load.
Uh huh. Time for you to take a deep breath, FRiend.
So are you saying federal intervention ended up being good after all?
The civil war was about slavery, but the vast majority of Rebels never owned a slave and didn’t live much better than slaves.
I honor the flag for the sacrifice of the average soldier who fought out of patriotism. The slave owners were Generals or didn’t fight at all.
Not as much so as that statement.
quotes: “It is worth mentioning that Robert E. Lee was morally opposed to slavery”
“This is, for the most part, a myth propogated by southern historians after the war. His family owned slaves and, while he opposed secession prior to the war, he wasn’t speaking out in opposition to slavery.”
It’s true, he didn’t speak out against slavery, although he wasn’t a political orator who would have spoken out. But you omitted the fact that Lee freed his slaves before the start of the war.
As far as I know, Pitts wrote one good column in his life, published on 9/12/01. After that, he picked himself up and hurried along as if nothing had ever happened. His effort today inspires me to say, "Like, wow, a liberal kid in a liberal town denounces the Confederate battle flag. How courageous. The Redneck Nation kids, um, shouted at him." Kid, write me again if they put you into the hospital like the six "youths" did that white boy in Jena, La., and then call in million-dollar Yankee lawyers to argue that it was okay.
Is the Confederate flag offensive, and its heritage otherwise meaningless, because some Southerners were slave-holders? Gosh, wouldn't that make the Stars & Stripes similarly offensive because most Northerners at that time were what we would consider today to be anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic bigots, who had laws on the books in many states to persecute those groups? Never mind what they thought of the folks in the next town. P.S.: The ancestors of those Northerners also owned slaves. If you read the newspapers of the time, it appears that to the average reader, the Stars & Stripes stood at least as much for those attitudes as the Confederate flag did for slavery.
Yet, as a Northerner and a loyal American, I have reverence for both Union and Confederate flags, because at their core, they represent what is noble and heroic about our nation. I would go further, and say they are both essential to our national identity. My observation is that the people you hear whining loudest about Confederate flag of 160 years ago are least inclined to sport the Stars & Stripes on their car bumper today.
The phoniness on this issue looms so large, you could mistake it for the sky. Tell me, is anyone currently in danger of being enslaved in America by white Southerners? Nosir. So, what exactly attracts liberals to this issue? I'd submit it does have to do with slavery, but of a different kind. Liberals believe in slavery all day, as long as it is slavery to their welfare state—in education, taxes, religious expression, moral life, number of children, firearms, broadcasting, political advertisements, smoking, drinking, automobile choice . . . did I leave anything out? What flag-waving Rednecks represent to liberals—no matter what the flag—is the plain-spoken, unflinching, flinty-eyed, masculine (Eek!) ability to see through the Leftist con-game and push back.
God bless the South and their flags. Without them, we'd be subjects of Gore or Kerry, and would be obeying Sharia Law as adjudicated by Chief Justice Ginsberg.
Gooolllleeee!!!
Ummmm. There were a few small-scale incidents like the Burning of Chambersburg (PA) in 1864. This was a subsidiary operation of Early's Raid on Washington. The Confederates ringed Chambersburg with artillery & attempted to extort ransom on the town. When the town refused, it was shelled until it burned. I believe the Confederate calvary commander on the scene was named McCausland (sp?).
The point is that the South was capable of the same type of atrocities, but lacked the means by that stage in the war to exchange tit-for-tat. IOW's the North was no longer constrained by the possible reaction to things like Sherman's March to the Sea.
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.