Pitts: About the Confederate battle flag, remember this: Nazis have a heritage, too

The Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | 3 March 2008 | Leonard Pitts

[Rebeleye]

They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the so-called "Confederate States of America" both said it was. They will tell you that great-great grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders - not grunts - who decide whether and why a war is waged. They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.

[Racehorse]

What part of the Constitution even implies that?

Prior to 1868 there was no determinant constitutional interpretation to refute the asserttion.

Now, through force of arms between 1861 and 1865 and the 1868 SCOTUS decision in Texas v. White, there is.

Everything was as I said it was.

One has to only read the article and tally up the errors to realize that Williams is no historian. He's no legal scholar. He's not even much of an economist.

Oh well . . .

Been much more enjoyable than playing in the McCain threads. Thanks. :-)

[PAR35]

If North Carolina had banned slavery, a resident of Virginia could go the the state with his slaves and live there regardless of local laws.

As a transient or a sojourner, but not as a citizen. And since you apparently don't know what sojourn means (I take it you aren't a Biblical scholar, either), try Google. http://www.answers.com/sojourn&r=67

The original statement, with which I took issue, was, and is, wrong.

[Non-Sequitur]

And since you apparently don't know what sojourn means (I take it you aren't a Biblical scholar, either), try Google. http://www.answers.com/sojourn&r=67

Instead I tried Merriam-Webster, which defines sojourn as a temporary stay. So by law I could take my slaves from Virginia to North Carolina and stay as long as I wanted so long as I maintained by Virginia citizenship. The inaccuracy of my statement is a matter of opinion only.

[Non-Sequitur]

Prior to 1868 there was no determinant constitutional interpretation to refute the asserttion.

You might want to do some reading on that subject. James Madison, Henry Clay, James Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, and Daniel Webster were only a few of the political leaders who agreed with Lincoln that secession was either completely forbidden by the Constitution or was allowed only with the consent of the other states.

Everything was as I said it was.

Those leaders of the period would disagree with you.

Oh well . . .

Oh well indeed. His statement in the first paragraph, "...abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession," is completely idiotic. I listed a number of prominent leaders who believed the opposite. But then again, he's assuming that DiLorenzo is correct. That was yet another mistake on his part.

[Racehorse]

You might want to do some reading on that subject.

Thank you for your suggestion and comments.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

So. Not. Cool.

[Locomotive Breath]

Woman order:

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insult from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part [yeah, right], it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation [i.e. a prostitute].

Want to guess how prostitutes were treated in that day and age? For starters, pretty much no one bothered to prosecute crimes against prostitutes. It was, in fact, an announcement of "open season" on the women of New Orleans.

[Tallguy]

No. Butler’s order basically put the women of New Orleans on notice that they would be treated without courtesy (at best) or be locked up on Ship Island (worst case).

Did it outrage the sensibilities of the times — definitely. OTOH, it was sensationalized beyond all reality by the newspapers of the day.

[Non-Sequitur]

Want to guess how prostitutes were treated in that day and age? For starters, pretty much no one bothered to prosecute crimes against prostitutes. It was, in fact, an announcement of "open season" on the women of New Orleans.

On the plus side they could earn a little cash...

[highball]

I can understand displaying a Confederate flag as a tribute to the bravery of the men who fought on that side, but all the historical whitewashing is hard to take.

Agreed.

We can honor those men without denying historical fact. Life is complicated, we are able to understand shades of gray.

[Turret Gunner A20]

We can honor those men without denying historical fact.

Some of us do and some of us don't.

Life is complicated, we are able to understand shades of gray.

Some of us can and some of us cn't (or won't).

[RedMonqey]

Grant was the greatest general of the war. He captured three whole armies and beat every commander that the South sent against him

That he did.

But he also had a greater sized army and an greater industrial base to keep him supplied throughout the war. He or any other general the North could provide could afford to lose double, treble or quadtrebble the number of men dead on the battlefield than the South. Same for equipment.

The South gambled England or France would support them and they lost.

The South was doomed to lose a war of attrition and that was the battle Grant fought. In comparsion, Grant was a butcher while Lee was a surgeon.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I've always felt that as a lawyer and constitutional scholar, Dr. Williams makes a pretty average economist.

Hmmmm....Walter Williams vs. some nameless goober on an internet forum. The choice is difficult.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter

So, everything you post is a joke?

[Non-Sequitur]

Hmmmm....Walter Williams vs. some nameless goober on an internet forum. The choice is difficult.

Having read Dr. Williams's stuff it isn't difficult at all. When ever he delves into the Civil War his columns are laughable they're so badly researched. The one that the link was to is a case in point.

[4CJ]

Giving your troops leave to treat women in an ungentlemanly fashion -- which is what Butler was saying -- does not equate to organizing brothels or authorizing rape.

What Butler's order meant was that ANY women of the city could be legally raped, i.e., that then men could claim the women was simply a whore, and that sex was consensual. Butler should have been tried and shot.

[Non-Sequitur]

It that's all it was then any given Union general should have beaten any given Southern general on any given day. But they didn't. Only Grant beat every Southern general sent against him while Lee lost to lesser men.

The South gambled England or France would support them and they lost.

A foolish bet on their part.

In comparsion, Grant was a butcher while Lee was a surgeon.

Absolute nonsense. Grant commanded army sized unites longer than Lee did, yet Lee lost more men in total numbers than did Grant. Lee was very wasteful with the lives of his men when he thought it might accomplish his goal.

[Non-Sequitur]

So, everything you post is a joke?

No, but I can think of some posters where that is true.

[Non-Sequitur]

What Butler's order meant was that ANY women of the city could be legally raped, i.e., that then men could claim the women was simply a whore, and that sex was consensual.

Hey, if the shoe fit...

Butler should have been tried and shot.

But Davis didn't bother with the trial part, did he? He merely issued an order that if Butler or some of his men were captured then they would be executed out of hand. Sort of a Red Queen, Alice in Wonderland, "Off with his head" kind of thing.

[RedMonqey]

...look at Grant's western campaigns which featured lots of movement, flank marches & close cooperation with the Navy.

Grant's movement were basic military tactics, although his river campaigns were notable. His successes at Fort Henry and Ft. Donelson were due more to Southern ineptitude than Grant's Brilliance.


But that is the fortunes of war.


There were frontal assaults like at Vicksburg, but there were good reasons to think that he might be able to punch through.

Vicksburg fell after 11 naval and land assaults. The good reason for Grant's success was the fact he could afford to lose large numbers of men. If Grant and the Union had the deficits the South faced, Grant would have been forced to admit defeat.

Grant was the best Union general. Unlike others(cough, McClellan, cough) He recognized what it took to win the war and had the fortitude to do it. It was the Union's natural superiority in men and industry and he used both to effect. .

He knew the South couldn't match his losses and a war of attrition would be to the North's advantage. .