Posted on 03/28/2015 5:52:00 AM PDT by C19fan
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments re Texas’s refusal to allow Confederate flags to be stamped on license plates as part of a “Sons of Confederate Veterans” design. I wouldn’t ask sons of Confederate veterans to disown their ancestry; in fact, my mother’s mother’s family was Southern, and four of my great-great-grandfathers fought in the Confederate army. And I know that lots of Americans sincerely see the Confederate flag as a symbol of states’ rights — particularly because virtually no Confederate soldiers actually owned slaves. But, personally, I see the Confederate flag as the symbol of men who, as Lincoln put it, wrung their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; who, “to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend” slavery, were willing to “rend the Union, even by war.” And I’m a very reasonable man.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
There’s nothing “healthy” at all about dilorenzo and his historical (hysterical?!) revisionism.
You might want to look up the Morrill Tariff.
Ya know, a statement such as this is generally not considered to be a very effective argument.
Nobody in 1860s America fit very well into the political world on 1900. So it's more than a little silly to try to force them in.
For instance, were the Democrats the conservative party in 1860? Well, that more or less depends on what you're trying to conserve.
The ideals of the Founders, or American society as it had developed by 1860?
By that point seven states had already seceded and presumably their senators and representatives had already left Washington and didn't vote. The Confederate Congress had already been formed and Jefferson Davis had already been sworn in. So I doubt people in those states were that mad about tariffs in a country they'd already decided to leave.
It should be noted that the tariff passed in 1861 was lower than the tariff passed later to pay for the war. It was generally recognized that the tariff -- which went down when the Democrats took over -- would go back up when the Democrats left power, but Southerners in Congress would have had an important role in determining how much tariffs would change, if they decided to use their influence in Congress, rather than just give up on the country.
I couldn’t find a list, just mention of some of the larger and more well known papers.
“You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . The editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers. (Order of Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864)”
GOP who do this are usually soft on culture or young or vested in something that makes them anti Southern
They use South bashing as way to be conservative but claim to “care” or not be a “racist”
They fall for the lefts design
That still leaves us 298 newspapers short.
And the reason why the Journal of Commerce and the World were ordered shut down was because it was believed, erroneously as it turned out, that they were complicit in a financial fraud and not for political reasons.
Instead of secession and war, the South would have done far better to have remained in the Union and gotten the best deal possible. A long delay in and compensation for emancipation would have avoided the worst economic losses and permitted the creation of new arrangements in which the slaves were freed, educated, and given a start as sharecroppers, small farmers, and tradesmen. Given the human and material costs of the Civil War, not just the South but the entire country would have been better off if secession and military conflict had been avoided.
Why didn't the South seek to make a deal instead of going to war? The prideful and unrealistic slaveholder planter class insisted that slavery was a positive good and led the South to the catastrophic folly of secession and toxic dreams of an expansion of slavery. As the saying goes though, it was a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight, and in Appalachia, the Alabama hill country, and other areas inhospitable to plantations, popular sentiment was pro-Union.
After the war, Southern memoirists, propagandists, and historians spun the great tale of the Lost Cause and of the antebellum South as the land of content, well-cared for slaves owned by refined, aristocratic planters -- done in by the grubby, industrialized North and a scheming, tyrannical Lincoln.
Notably, Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government were also accused of grabbing power at the expense of the Confederate states. The resistance to central power was effective enough to hamper the full mobilization and deployment of the South's resources. As one Southern general warned, the Confederacy's obituary would read that it had died of state's rights.
Rebels rarely used cartridge boxes even though they were supplied with them, instead they preferred to keep cartridges in the shirt pocket or pants pocket. It is pretty esy to see soldiers loading their weapons from a shirt or pants pocket.
Vermont never did.
“As mentioned above, I realize troops under Lincoln’s authority burned towns and districts, although they seldom, if ever, massacred civilians.”
You are wrong to say they “they seldom, if ever, massacred civilians.”
There are many documented accounts of Northern troops killing civilians. Their tactic was to accuse then of helping the confederacy and killing them on the spot.
Yes the democrats were the conservative party.
I see the roots of progressivism in Lincoln if you don’t then that’s alright no harm no foul I just think you are wrong.
As far as trying to fit anyone into a different era politically I have no idea what you mean. Your intellect must be so far above me I’m not worthy to discuss it with.
If States rights had been preserved we would most likely not be in the mess we are in right now in my opinion.
Yes, Union troops killed civiliansthey believed were aiding the enemy. As did Confederate troops.
I said massacred, not killed. There were few large-scale mass killings of civilians, which is remarkably unusual for great civil wars.
\I was not trying to be snide when I said IMO it’s difficult to directly compare political positions in one era with those in another.
For instance, the Democratic Party in 1860 was the party of those who saw themselves as outsiders in America: slaveowners, immigrants, poor people. The Republicans and the Whigs before them, OTOH, were in general the party of those who saw themselves as insiders: wealthier, better educated, etc.
The Democrats were on the side of the “common man,” but it was the common white man. Meanwhile at least some segments of the Republicans were better able to side with blacks because they didn’t see themselves as in potential competition with them.
The political issues in 1860 or 1865 had little in common with those of 1900. Or of today, FTM.
The notion that slavery was just a side issue is amazingly weird and counter-historical.
In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, 21 hours if I remember correctly between two of the most effective politicians in America, they talked about almost nothing else. Odd for a backburner issue.
In Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural, he talked mostly about slavery and the possibly approaching war. Strange if slavery wasn’t really an issue.
The Democratic Party split, twice, in 1860 specifically over the issue of whether a federal slave code should be imposed on the territories. But that was really a minor issue compared to tariffs and such.
In Bleeding Kansas they were really shooting at each other over tariff rates. John Brown hacked up five proslavery settlers encourage passage of the Morrill Tariff.
I believe every single state that seceded proclaimed the protection of slavery to be its primary reason. Several, I believe, mentioned nothing else. But of course there were really other, unmentioned, far more important reasons behind secession and war.
/s
Ping
All good points. After the Civil War, with slavery discredited, Southern partisans were at pains to find other grounds on which to justify the catastrophe of the secession and ensuing war. As with the South’s prewar efforts to justify slavery, there was an air of unreality to these explanations and they do not bear up under scrutiny.
I don’t drop by FR much anymore, but to come by and see the same old WBTS thread as used to rage here warms the cockles of my heart.
The only thing missing is standwatie rambling on incoherently about something.
Ping
Many of the newspapers were attacked or suppressed by Northern mobs and in some cases Northern troops. The problem in counting how many newspapers were destroyed, suppressed, or bullied into submission by arrests ultimately becomes how do you count things like the blockage by Union Army order of all Democrat newspapers from coming into a state prior to an election. How many Democratic papers might that have been? There were Democratic papers throughout the North.
Here is one chilling account I found in the old Brooklyn Eagle, the largest evening newspaper in the Country during the war [Source: Brooklyn Eagle, August 16, 1861]:
Freedom of the Press
Mr. Marcellus Emory, editor of the Bangor Democrat, published an account of the outrage on his paper, in the Portland Argus. Being already apprised of the purpose to attack his office, he says:
I caused a written notice to be served on the mayor by two of our prominent and leading citizens, informing him of the fact that my office and property were threatened with destruction by a mob, and claiming and demanding of him protection for them. In the notice I tendered him for that purpose the services of able bodied men to the number two hundred. The mayor made neither response nor reply to this notice, nor did he give to the citizens by whom the notice was served, or to me, or to any of my friends the least assurance or encouragement that he would attempt to give the protection claimed and demanded.
On Saturday morning a call appeared in the Whig and Courier for a “Union” Meeting in Norombega Hall, to be holden that evening. I was not present, but am credibly informed that Wm. H. McCrillis, representative to the Legislature from this city and Charles S. Crosby, County Attorney, made inflammatory speeches. And here it should be said, to the honor of Henry E. Prentiss, Esq., that he attempted to make a speech opposing the effort there being made to create a mob spirit, but his voice was powerless amidst a tempest of hisses. The meeting accomplished the object for which it was designed by those who originated it.
On Saturday and Sunday nights it became evident that my property was to receive no protection from the Mayor. I took such precautions as were necessary for its security. To-day I proceeded as usual on Mondays to print and mail my issues for one week. During the forenoon there were no indications, that I saw, of mob violence. I left my editorial room about 12:25, to go to my dinner, my boarding place being about a half of a mile distant. Whilst eating, the fire bells were rung. After finishing my meal, I set out to return to my office. Soon after I met two gentlemen in a buggy, who informed me that my office had just been sacked, and all my property thrown into the street. Proceeding directly forward, on coming out of Central street, I saw the work of destruction, and there too, I saw the first mob that had ever met my eyes. West Market Square and surroundings were filled with nearly two thousand people. In the middle of the Square was a large fire, on which the multitude were engaged in heaping my tables, stands, cases and other material. The Wheelwright and Clark blacks were surrounded with the wreck of what had, an hour before, constituted one of the largest and finest printing offices in the State.
I made my way through the crowd to the stairway, which I found filled with the mob. They made no resistance to my ascending the long stairway. I found my office door besieged by a large number of persons armed with crowbars and like implements. As I approached the door they fell back. Whilst feeling for my key, one of their leaders, a man who has been honored with a position on our city police, demanded that I should instantly open the door. I then turned round and faced the mob, telling them that that office was rightfully under my control, but that if they saw fit to resort to violence, they could probably overpower me. I was unarmed. Before opening the door I told them that my object was to secure my account books, notes, bills, and private papers, and that I should give them the feeble protection in my power. I then opened the door and set about my business, the mob following me in, and seizing indiscriminately whatever they could lay their hands on, and throwing it out of the windows into the street. The work of destruction was soon complete. I then left the office, the mob following me down the stairs. As I reached the sidewalk, there arose from the infuriated mob, “Hang him! Tar and feather him! Kill him!” It was then felt, for the first time, how little there is in the terrors and threats of a mob for him who is conscious of having discharged his duty to the public and himself. The mad crowd were thirsty for the blood of one who had been long and incessantly toiling to save them from the fetters that are being forged for their free limbs. His works may yet bear their fruits.
As I made my way through the dense crowd, friend after friend gathered around me for my protection. Their words of sympathy sank deep into my soul, whilst the demonic cries for my blood fell unheeded on my ears. But one circumstance disturbed my equanimity, and that was like the sting of an adder. When I was beyond danger and among friends, the Mayor, who, regardless of his oath of office, would give me no protection for my property, who made no attempt to disperse the mob, who did not even order the reading of the riot act, who did not even lift a finger to preserve the peace of the city, although days and hours before warned of the threatened attack – when I was beyond danger, he suddenly conceived an anxiety for my personal safety, and suggested that I had better hurry away.
Thus hath the freedom of the press been stricken down here in Maine, not from any patriotic impulse, but through the wicked instigation of a band of politicians who would willingly subvert all law and order for the maintenance of a mere party dogma.
Though anarchy seems to be coming down upon our unhappy country like night, yet I do not despair. I still believe there is yet virtue and intelligence enough in the people to maintain their liberties and protect a free press, which is their best guardian.
By this act of mob violence my all, the result of four years of unremitting toil, has been swept away; but I still have health, strength and youth, and a heart to struggle on in defense of the people’s rights.
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.