Posted on 05/09/2006 8:33:28 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
WASHINGTON -- Back in the 2004 presidential primaries, when Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, suggested that Democrats should be competing for the votes of young men with Confederate flags on their pickups, politicians from both parties rushed to accuse him of repeating a vile Southern stereotype: the redneck with antiquated views on race. < SNIP >
''Howard Dean knows about as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday," quipped Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat who supported President Bush. ''Sure, we drive pickups, but on the back of those pickups, you see a lot of American flags. It's the most patriotic region in the country. And you see hard-working individuals that want to instill values in their children, and you see a very, very strong work ethic in the South. He doesn't understand the South." < SNIP >
Many Southerners express outrage at Northern depictions of Confederate-loving Southerners, even as they accede to the idea that the flag has a place in their regional heritage. Only those inside the Southern family circle can truly understand the region's complicated relationship with its own history.< SNIP >
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Well, all in all, Grant did very well.
The reason why the south ran out of everything: Something to do with Grant's successful campaigns in the south and west.
The southern economy was regional. Most meats (cured for transport) came from Tennessee. Union victories in Shiloh, Ft. Donnelson, Ft. Henry, took the state from the rebellion. Anti-Confederate sentiment there was always high, as shown in part by refusal of one Tennessee Senator to resign, or to support the rebellion, and the raising of 56 Union regiments from Tennessee.
In response to those Union victories in Tennessee, the South began growing poultry on many small farms throughout the south, to replace the meat no longer available from Tennessee. This permitted Grant to travel without massive supply lines, feeding his soldiers on the poultry found on all small farms.
Grant placed his army south of Vicksburg, maneuver it between Pemberton and Johnston, and defeat them in detail. While Grand defeated Johnston, Pemberton counterattacked Grant's non-existant supply lines. I think of that as the most brilliant campaign of all time, certainly in North America.
Grant's initial assault on Vickburg did not take the fort. It did set up the city for assault, encouraged his men to work diligently during the siege. It also forced the south to stay ready for assault, slowing their ability to dig trenches.
A secondary source of meat was the states of Texas and Arkansas. Vicksburg completed the conquest of the Mississippi river valley, and blocked the shipment of meat from Texas, and Arkansas.
Cold Harbor. Surely, in hindsight the second assault was a mistake. But Lee had no reserves. If he thinned his lines, Grant would break them. If he shortened his lines, Grant would turn them. After Cold Harbor, Lee could not even offer a counter attack. Lee was limited to holding his trenches, accept the pounding, and direct the southern gentlemen to dig ever deeper. Cold Harbor had that effect, but I still morn the loss of brave men.
The south didn't "run out". They were beaten. I am sure this is a coincidence, but they just happened to be beaten, again, again, and again, every theatre where Grant was assigned. Grant beat his enemies in a campaign of maneuver that forced the southern generals to dance to his tune. And those southern generals, and their soldiers, could not keep up.
Lee was frequently the master of a battle, but never rose to the level of managing a campaign. His first assignment was unsuccessful, and he was known as "Evacuating Lee". Sharpburg, Gettysburg ended his only attempts at maneuver campaigns. If Lee could not manage a climactic battle, and win it, he was beaten. Lee was the last of the 18th century Generals, and in that light, he was certainly one of the best. Grant was the first of the 20th Century Generals, and his tactics, maneuvers, and strategems stand up well over time. Whether Grant's battles were win, lose,or draw, his campaign was successful.
And: Grant won. To the saving of the Union, the promotion of Liberty, and the great improvement of the world in general.
I wish to also address a frequent complaint of the Neo Confederates:
The great growth of the federal government came long after Lincoln. Though Lincoln put through an income tax, that was later found unconstitutional, and could not be used as a precedent. The amendment that legalized an income tax came long after Lincoln's death. The unconstitutional activities of the Roosevelt cousins, Wilson, and LB Johnson came long after Lincoln, and can't be blamed on Father Abraham.
Real southern heritige is the property of the US First Alabama Cavalary, who fought bravely for their country.
Your theories aren't even worth debating. You give away your bias with the "neo-Confederate" remark. My theory is you are just another incarnation of Whiskey Papa.
Truly fine post, bumped here.
A couple thoughts:
- If, as you suggest, Southern resentment existed, to what extent was that resentment based upon Republican empowerment of black voters and office holders and to what extent was it from the War itself. That is, absent black enfranchisement, to what extent was there Southern resentment?
- The materialist line sees secession and post-War disfranchisement/ Lost Cause myth as black-belt rich white landowners manipulating upcountry, poor whites who otherwise would have been more reasonable on race. I find this view, if I've presented with any accuracy, ludicrous. Poor whites were as or more racist than wealthy whites. The difference was in access to political power. Thus the reform movements impacted Southern politics by empowering poor whites -- and just as readily as their rich bretheren, took to white supremacy.
- The question, then, is if there was some "middle way" between radical Reconstruction and easy reconciliation such as that "mild" path you say Lincoln might have followed. To me it seems clear that a Reconstruction based on black votes and black reprsentation would lead to white backlash and resentment. Perhaps there was no other way. Still, results would say that it was a bad choice, if only because it couldn't be sustained. The Foner school would see that military Reconstruction should have been kept up. I wonder if they'd say the same of U.S. support of Vietnam?
Just a few thoughts.
If you are offended by the term "Neo-Confederate" that may mean that you are one.
Sorry 'bout that.
They fought their "country". The government of their home WAS their country. They were traitors all.
Loyalty to one's home is the highest loyalty there is.
I recommend to you a movie:
"Decision at Daybreak"
A German soldier, captured by the US breaks from the line of prisoners, and tells the supervising US officer that he is a US agent. That there is a trap set for the US ahead at a river crossing. The supervising US officer wants to put him back in the POW cage where he would be murdered. Fortunately, cooler heads prevail. Though he has a set of code words that would confirm his identity at Army headquarters, because of the problems with war, chaos, and radio communications, the Brigade commander has to make up his own mind on the truthfulness of the soldier/agent.
A key aspect is why he would be helping the Allies against the Germans. He had infiltrated an SS unit, who would have cooked him over a slow fire if they had known.
No, my dear, loyalty to home is not the highest. When your home government has been taken over by murderers, perverts, thieves, and psychopaths, as the German government had been, and as the Confederate Government had been, there is no loyalty owed to them. In like manner, when State governments disregarded their obligations, and their limitations under the US constitution, they lost any legitimate claim to the loyalty of their citizens.
Even the so called "Confederate Government" did not hold that State loyalty was paramount! They assigned Pemberton, from Pennsylvania to command of Vicksburg, which they would not have done if State Loyalty was paramount.
The leaders of the Confederates had no legal case. They knew it, and didn't make one. They thought, in their cowardice, that all men were cowards, and tried to frighten the US government from making the effort to end their rebellion. All men are not cowards, and so they lost.
Another movie you may check is "Winchester 73" with Jimmy Stewart, that discusses the matter of loyalty and justice.
Now that's a home run! :)
Your comparison is ridiculous. The Confederate Government was NOTHING lke the German/Nazis. If you are trying to be insulting, then you have succeeded. Robert E. Lee felt that loyalty to one's state was paramount, and so do I.
"Psychopaths, Murderers" etc, ? You seriously need to study some real history, and not the propaganda you are spouting.
Maybe he is offended because you obviously MEANT it as an insult, as do a few other Lincoln worshippers on this forum.
So my subdivision governing council is where I should concentrate my loyalties? I think that George Washington had something to say about that. But hey, what did he know?
And after consistently kicking the crap out of every southern general he had been up against, capturing two rebel armies, cutting the south in half at the Mississippi, relieving Chattanooga, etc. etc. Nah, not much of a general at all.
Louisiana French and Cajun and Damn proud of it.
But that is besides the point I have been trying to make, I've yet to hear one legitimate reason why The Democrats who have once used the confederate flag and symbols to promote and condone racism in the south and now use the confedrate flag and symbols to codemn racism in the south should be allowed to do so in either case without being attacked for their blatant duplicity.
Especially when they are the ones behind the attacks on southern heritage today, if you are defending southern heritage shouldn't you know who is attacking you? Or are you too embarassed to speak out against the Democrats for being the real racebaiters?
Yes they did.
Lincoln acknowledged the Constitution's expressed right to have slaves returned, must, by default, include the implied right to own them in the first place.
See post #262 *The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1858
The north was obligated by the Constitution to return escaped slaves, but refused.
As President, Lincoln refused to fulfill his duty and uphold his oath to enforce the terms of the Constitution.
Once the compact was breached, the South was no longer obligated to adhere to it, and gave legal notice to the federal government of their intention to withdraw from the Union. (This is the procedure of the law of contracts).
Lincoln used the issue to whip to north into a frenzy based on the MORALITY of slavery, and forced the South to remain in the Union. That action was in total contradiction to the entire purpose of the Founders. A 'free and independent State' could not be forced into anything.
The South fought based on the LEGAL issue of slavery.... a right Lincoln knew FULL WELL that they possessed!
-----
Mr. Douglass Speech
(snip)
Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln and the Abolitionists of this day had prevailed when the Constitution was made, what would have been the result? Imagine for a moment that Mr. Lincoln had been a member of the Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States, and that when its members were about to sign that wonderful document, he had arisen in that Convention as he did at Springfield this summer, and addressing himself to the President, had said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand; this Government, divided into free and slave States, cannot endure, they must all be free or all be slave, they must all be one thing or all the other, otherwise, it is a violation of the law of God, and cannot continue to exist;" suppose Mr. Lincoln had convinced that body of sages that that doctrine was sound, what would have been the result?
Remember that the Union was then composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding and one free. Do you think that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have secured the abolition of slavery? On the other hand, would not the twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one free State, and thus have fastened slavery, by a Constitutional provision, on every foot of the American Republic forever? You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had prevailed when the Government was made, it would have established slavery as a permanent institution, in all the States, whether they wanted it or not, and the question for us to determine in Illinois now as one of the free States is, whether or not we are willing, having become the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on the minority, which we would have resisted with our heart's blood had it been attempted on us when we were in a minority.
How has the South lost her power as the majority section in this Union, and how have the free States gained it, except under the operation of that principle which declares the right of the people of each State and each Territory to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. It was under that principle that slavery was abolished in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it was under that principle that one half of the slaveholding States became free; it was under that principle that the number of free States increased until from being one out of twelve States, we have grown to be the majority of States of the whole Union, with the power to control the House of Representatives and Senate, and the power, consequently, to elect a President by Northern votes without the aid of a Southern State.
Having obtained this power under the operation of that great principle, are you now prepared to abandon the principle and declare that merely because we have the power you will wage a war against the Southern States and their institutions until you force them to abolish slavery every where?
-------
Lincoln was the one who paved the way for our 'Nation of Laws, not of Men' to become a country where a stroke of the pen becomes the law of the land.
And Americans remain clueless to the damage he wrought to the Republic.
Looks like everything you know about the South, you learned from the movie Deliverance. Pity.
Salt and Beef were from FLA, the "breadbasket" of the CSA.
Then obviously the original intent of the Constitution is beyond your comprehension, as the Constitution doesn't 'enumerate the rights of the States', nor was it ever intended to.
I've shown you where even Lincoln acknowledged the right to own slaves.
----
and if you feel so strongly about defending slavery, why don't you and your little confeder-buddies attempt to repeal the Thirteenth amendment and return this country back to the days of slavery...
Good grief. 'Defending slavery' and pointing out that the people in the South had the LEGAL RIGHT to own slaves as per Lincoln and the Constitution are two totally separate issues.
I'm sorry you have so much trouble wrapping your tiny little mind around the differences between a MORAL issue and a LEGAL one, as they are not now, nor have they ever been the same.
Speaking of constitutional authority, can you show me where the Constitution gives the government the ability to tell the People what they may (or may not) own?
----
Could it be because you know it was as wrong then to enslave others as it is today
ROFLMAO!
Since you never bothered answering my repeatedly asked question, it's obvious you DON'T know what a 'Nation of laws, not of Men', means.
It means the Law is based on the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded, NOT on whatever moral concept of Men holds sway at the time.
----
and that only the worst sort of racist would champion such a cause?
Racist? Pointing out the facts of history is racist?
You don't even know which race I am. Does that means I'm racist if I'm white? What if I'm black, am I still racist?
I submit you are suffering from some form of self-imposed guilt about your Southern heritage, as you remark itself was racist.
----
Perhaps you should read more history. If you do, you will find Lincoln's brand of 'equality' not much different than their original enslavement.
For all his pomposity of basing his actions on 'all men are created equal', he was NOT willing to accept the slaves AS equals himself-
So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races.
Abraham Lincoln
But he was willing to destroy the original intent of the Republic for the sake of the 'union', and be the instrument of death to hundreds of thousands of Americans who had broken no laws.
Not exactly a place I'd call the moral high ground.
Not entirely true. The federal government met it's obligations to enforce the Constitution through legislation like the Fugitive Slave Acts and the legal steps it took to enforce them. Individual states may have refused to abide by those laws in violation of the Constitution, but the courts were the place to take that to and not rebellion. Of course, if your earlier claims are correct then the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Laws began and ended in the District of Columbia.
A 'free and independent State' could not be forced into anything.
Would that include being forced to deport runaway slaves to southern states?
Are you condemning Lincoln for such a belief? If so can you point to a single southern leader, military or civilian, who believed otherwise? If you can't then they are to be condemned as well. Right?
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.