Posted on 05/12/2015 3:00:03 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
We Sons of Confederate Veterans are charged with preserving the good name of the Confederate soldier. The world, for the most part, has acknowledged what Gen. R. E. Lee described in his farewell address as the “valour and devotion” and “unsurpassed courage and fortitude” of the Confederate soldier. The Stephen D. Lee Institute program is dedicated to that part of our duty that charges us not only to honour the Confederate soldier but “to vindicate the cause for which he fought.” We are here to make the case not only for the Confederate soldier but for his cause. It is useless to proclaim the courage, skill, and sacrifice of the Confederate soldier while permitting him to be guilty of a bad cause.
Although their cause was lost it was a good cause and still has a lot to teach the world today.
In this age of Political Correctness there has never been a greater need and greater opportunity to refresh our understanding of what happened in America in the years 1861–1865 and start defending our Southern forebears as strongly as they ought to be defended. There is plenty of true history available to us. It is our job to make it known.
All the institutions of American society, including nearly all Southern institutions and leaders, are now doing their best to separate the Confederacy off from the rest of American history and push it into one dark little corner labeled “ Slavery and Treason.” Being taught at every level of the educational system is the official party line that everything good that we or anyone believe about our Confederate ancestors is a myth, and by myth they mean a pack of lies that Southerners thought up to excuse their evil deeds and defeat.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
With Lincoln, the war to “save the union” quickly became insufficient due to high union casualties - thus the need for a high moral imperative - “free the slaves.” I know a lot of people have bought into it. You can't turn on the news or watch a movie without seeing a reference. The First Lady talks it quite frequently.
Agree on all points.
The South’s main logistical problem was transport. They had brilliant improvisors for weapons and especially ammo. But their railroad system simply wasn’t up to the task, especially as the war went on and the system just wore out.
Can’t run a massive railroad system without a lot of heavy industry.
One of the more interesting aspects of the war is that if the South had seceded in 1850 (or any earlier year) they would have won their independence. The industrial and railroad and population predominance of the North soared during the 50s. It made the difference in what was a very near thing.
OTOH, if they’d waited till 1870, I suspect the war would have been bloody but short, for the same reasons.
Only in or about 1860 was it possible for us to have a long, bloody civil war.
IMO, of course.
Emancipation was a gradual but more or less continuous process. It started only a few weeks after the war, and continued quite steadily till December 1865.
I put together a timeline once showing this. I’ll try to find it. The point being that this was the only way an issue involving 15% of the country’s population and a very large percentage of the country’s capital could be handled.
Found it!
1861
May General Butler refuses to return three slaves being used to build CSA fortifications to their owner. Concept of “contraband of war” invented.
August Confiscation Act of 1861 declares that any property, including slaves, used by CSA could be confiscated by military action.
September “Contrabands” employed by US Army and Navy paid wages, in addition to rations
November Nathaniel Gordon convicted and sentenced to death in NYC for slave trading (classified as piracy)
1862
February Nathaniel Gordon executed
March Washington, DC slaves freed by Congress, with partial compensation to owners
Return of escaped slaves to their owners by army officers prohibited by Congress. Even slaves escaped from Unionist owners.
April Congress offers compensation to any state that emancipates
May Lincoln publicly entreats the border states to free their slaves
Slavery prohibited in all territories
July Lincoln appeals again to the border states
Militia Act of 1862 frees slaves who enlist in US military, their mothers, wives and children. Initially applies only to slaves from disloyal states or owners.
Second Confiscation Act provides for enticing slaves to leave owners in slave states, thereby becoming free. Authorizes President to issue Emancipation Proclamation as exercise of war powers.
September Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
November Attorney General Bates issues ruling that free blacks are US citizens. Opens door to slaves of loyal states and owners freeing themselves, their mothers, wives and children by enlisting in US military.
1863
January Final Emancipation Proclamation issued
July WV slaves freed by state action
1864
January 13th Amendment introduced
March AR slaves freed by (puppet government) state action
April 13th Amendment passes Senate
June Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Law
September LA slaves freed by (puppet government) state action
November MD slaves freed by state action
1865
January MO slaves freed by state action
13th Amendment passes House
February TN slaves freed by (puppet government) state action
April Lee surrenders. Emancipation Proclamation becomes fully effective in all areas not excluded.
December 13th Amendment ratified
Slaves in KY (~50,000) and DE (~200) freed
That is, BTW, exactly what I believe.
Fail to see why I must believe all my ancestors were on the right side of every conflict.
Some of mine owned slaves. Some fought for the Union, some for the CSA. (One fought for both, switching side after being captured by Yankees. Was sent West to fight Indians, on the theory that it might not turn out well for him if recaptured by his former comrades.)
A bunch of my ancestors came from Germany in the middle and late 1800s. So I'm probably descended from people who massacred people in the 30 Years War and engaged in the witch hysteria, burning many thousands.
Am I for some reason required to defend the righteousness of these causes today?
If we go back far enough, we're all descended from slavers and slaves, from villains and victims.
So what?
And at the insistence of the southern ones, those same people got 0/5ths of the vote or representation in Congress.
Still, many people say the north can never be forgiven for having participated and profitted from slavery - for slave transport, financing, actual use of slaves for hundreds of years, and for agreeing to write a constitution permitting slavery. No one can condone this. We must condemn the north in the strongest possible terms.
I managed to scan right passed this point, and it’s a good one. It’s entirely disingenuous to suggest that the 3/5ths rule came at “the insistence of the northern states”. Both parties had a hand in the compromise. Helpful hint: that’s why it’s called a compromise.
The only revenue system available to the newly formed Confederation was basically a “head count” as the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and therefore its tax obligations. The north wanted to count a man as a man. The south bitterly complained that counting slaves unfairly burdened the southern states and didn’t want them counted at all. This first 3/5ths compromise failed but formed the basis for the second go-round.
The second time was after the ratification of the US Constitution and a count was to be made for determining representation in congress. The north said, “you don’t even recognize them as people and you certainly won’t let them vote” so they shouldn’t be counted. This time the south bitterly complained that they were being cheated out of proper representation by omitting the slave population. This time the 3/5ths compromise was successful and the south dominated American politics right up until they attempted mass suicide.
Those people don’t matter.
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, 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 slaves."
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. When I said “newly formed Confederation” I was referring to the Articles of Confederation of the United States. But it is interesting to note that they added that formula into their “constitution” after rejecting it for ours.
Of course they kept it. It gives an advantage to slaveholders. The more slaves in your State, the more representation you get in Congress, without the problem of the people being “represented” having any actual representation besides whomever their owners vote for. For every 5 slaves you own, you get 3 free points toward having more Congressmen.
I’m endlessly amused at people saying Lincoln was a tyrant, then damning him for not being more tyrannical.
Lincoln was the biggest fraud ever elected president. Obama follows in his footsteps. Big government frauds of the first degree.
The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and most famous oration in American history. . . Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—“that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into the battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.~ H. L. Mencken
I doubt you meant to say what you did. The 3/5 rule was put in place during the Convention, not after its ratification, which would have made it an amendment.
The states where slaves were dominant (I believe that at the time all except MA were slave states) wanted slaves counted as people for purposes of taxation and as property for purposes of representation. The rest wanted the reverse.
The two sides compromised on 3/5 for both. The net effect was to reduce the representation of the South if you thought of congressmen as representing population, and increase it if you thought of it as representing voters.
Since franchise requirements were all over the place at the time, no state, I believe, yet having white male suffrage, I think it’s just a little weird to assume the lack of voting by the slaves was that big an issue.
I’ve been reading and listening to books about Lincoln for some time now, and I’m really curious what incidents in his past you think would have led the South to this conclusion.
I believe the reason Lincoln was objectionable was not anything in his past or known character, at least I’m unaware of anybody voicing such, but rather his being the candidate of an explicitly anti-slavery, or rather anti expansion of slavery party. The first to win, that is. Previous anti-slavery candidates had mostly just split the opposition and elected Democrats.
If you have evidence of southern opposition to him based on his conduct or character, as opposed to his appearance and what they thought were his qualifications, I’d like to see it.
I know of no reason at all to believe that any other Republican candidate would have been any more acceptable to the South.
Sorry, but Mencken in this, as in many instances, was entirely wrong.
Lincoln himself said it. In one of his speeches, I can’t seem to find it right now, he said that republican government had proven it could be set up and run and resist attack from outside. The war was determining whether such a government could resist an attempt by a powerful regional minority to break it up.
If it could not, no such government could long endure, since any powerful regional minority that felt sufficiently aggrieved would just secede,
Which is why Lincoln was right and Mencken was wrong.
Not to mention that those controlling the southern states seceded not to protect their own human rights, but to protect their “right” to eternally strip those same rights from others.
“but to protect their “right” to eternally strip those same rights from others”
Lincoln despised blacks and thought the white man was superior, both morally and intellectually. He said time again that the white man should always be the master of the black man. Lincoln was a racist of the first degree. His so-called Emancipation freed no one because he has no authority in the Confederate States and of course didn’t say a word about slaves held in union states. He had to have a “moral” reason to continue the slaughter of Americans so he came up with the phony slavery issue. He also said time again he has no qualms at all with slaveowners. Slavery was a dying institution and was on it’s last legs. But this madman orchestrated a war that killed 600,000 Americans, destroyed the Constitution in the process, and expanded the Federal government to where we are all slaves of the masters in Washington, DC.
Not on the Northern side. It was about slavery for the South.
It is a puzzle, isn't it?
Since you insist on judging people by modern standards of racism then wouldn't you agree that Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and any other Southern leader you care to name was also a racist of the first degree as well?
Slavery was a dying institution and was on it’s last legs.
Then it was really kind of stupid of the South to launch a war to protect an institution that was dying and on its last legs, wouldn't you agree?
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.