Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War over the Confederacy Rages in Texas
The Seattle Times ^ | @/11/07 | Howard Witt

Posted on 02/12/2007 7:40:34 PM PST by BnBlFlag

AUSTIN, Texas — The Civil War ended nearly 142 years ago, for most of the country anyway, but bitter battles over how zealously that war should be remembered are erupting in Austin, the Texas capital.

First, rock musician Ted Nugent wore a T-shirt featuring the Confederate battle flag — a banner sometimes employed by Southern white-supremacist groups — at the Jan. 16 inaugural ball for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, prompting criticism from civil-rights groups.

A few days later, the state's elected land commissioner, arguing for a more "balanced" view of history, marked Confederate Heroes Day — an official state holiday commemorating Gen. Robert E. Lee's birthday — by accepting a donation from the Descendants of Confederate Veterans for an archive-preservation project.

At the flagship campus of the University of Texas, officials said they soon will convene a committee to decide what, if anything, to do about four statues of Confederate leaders, including Lee and Jefferson Davis, that greet visitors at the main campus entrance.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; crud; damnyankees; hate; honestabe; klan; language; lincoln; neoconfederates; politicalcorrectness; rebs; rednecks; rude; slavers; southernheritage; texaswhine; vulgar; yachtsvssubs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,661-1,668 next last
To: righthand man

LOL I'm no General i wish i was but i am a civil war reenactor and a member of the SCV


61 posted on 02/13/2007 1:45:18 PM PST by StoneWall Brigade (THIS IS THE CALL OF THIS GENERATION. THIS IS AMERICA'S HOUR. SEN. RICK SANTORUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: KarinG1
Yankees had slaves, and the Yankee flag flies over almost every government installation in the country. Is it next on the hit list?

"The Yankee flag"? Are you talking about the flag of the United States of America? It sounds like it's on your "hit list."

62 posted on 02/13/2007 2:11:39 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
"I don't think that you can really call what they did "nullification."

"Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the ninth day of January in the present year, for enforcing an act laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the legislature, in many respects, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally binding on the citizens of this state." What do you call that? It looks like nullification to me!

And to show you that you were full of crap about States not being sovereign - "While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

63 posted on 02/13/2007 3:41:48 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Thermo-Nuclear Landscapers Inc. "Need a change of scenery? We deliver!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: x
"The Yankee flag"? Are you talking about the flag of the United States of America? It sounds like it's on your "hit list."

Dude - you're a joke, you always have been and always will be. You support PC by your postings and want only your point of view to be valid. You are a condescending, amoral, uppity snot-nosed Yankee! You and many other imbecilic Lincoln worshipers like you are the reason why the government is as big of a leviathan and as intrusive as its become. If the Founders were alive today they would've picked up their muskets long ago and revolted against it. If you like an all controlling government move about 90 miles south of Florida, you'll find your heart's desire there in Cuba.

64 posted on 02/13/2007 3:52:40 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Thermo-Nuclear Landscapers Inc. "Need a change of scenery? We deliver!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
What do you call that? It looks like nullification to me!

Read the South Carolina nullification act and see if you can detect the difference between "in our opinion this is unconstitutional, but we'll let the courts sort it out" and "this law is null and void and we refuse to allow the courts to look at it." One is actively rejecting federal authority, the other is stating a position to begin a legal discussion. One is nullification, one isn't.

65 posted on 02/13/2007 3:56:23 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45; stand watie
You are a condescending, amoral, uppity snot-nosed Yankee! You and many other imbecilic Lincoln worshipers like you are the reason why the government is as big of a leviathan and as intrusive as its become.

swattie, it looks like the meds are working for you today.

could you share some with pistolboy?

66 posted on 02/13/2007 4:07:08 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: x

You can call it whatever you like. You know to which flag I am referring. Would you like to address the issue of slave ownership among Yankees in the 1800's? How about tearing down statues of such famous slave owners as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? There is no point to such activity. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have never enslaved anybody but am proud of my Southern heritage. We have our heroes and do not wish to see their memories defiled.


67 posted on 02/13/2007 5:52:43 PM PST by KarinG1 (Opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily represent those of sane people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country..."

    You're right about that. And as I'm sure you know, Lincoln and Grant both proposed the relocation of black Americans to foreign shores. Unlike Sherman, they did not view black people with contempt, but both considered integration an unrealistic goal.

    Alexander Stephens reports that when Lincoln was asked (at Hampton Roads near war's end) what provision he would make for integrating the freed slaves into society, he replied that they would just have to "root hog or die." Lincoln did not seriously propose ending slavery until political pressure forced his hand and, even then, he worded his proclamation with his usual lawyerly care. These attitudes reflected those of the great majority of Americans at the time. People like Sumner and Garrison were definitely in a small minority, even in the North.

"... was by far the single most important reason..."

    Until the Emancipation Proclamation, the chief sticking point for the South was not so much fear of slavery's abolition, as it was the restriction of slavery in the territories. As they saw it, that would have put them at a distinct competitive disadvantage to northern economic interests. The odd thing in all this is that in many parts of the South, slavery was becoming less feasible economically. Exceptions to this included places like Texas, where the same field hand was worth far more than he would have been worth in, say, the Virginia tidelands. Olmstead and others commented extensively about this trend.

    Had the issue not been forced by war, it would have been interesting to see how the gradual but inevitable extinction of slavery would have played out.


68 posted on 02/13/2007 6:45:23 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
And as I'm sure you know, Lincoln and Grant both proposed the relocation of black Americans to foreign shores.

And I'm sure that you are also aware that Robert Lee and John Breckenridge also proposed relocation of black Americans to foreign shores, too. Lee paid passage for some former slaves to Liberia.

Alexander Stephens reports that when Lincoln was asked (at Hampton Roads near war's end) what provision he would make for integrating the freed slaves into society, he replied that they would just have to "root hog or die."

Like virtually all other Southern tales, this one is taken completely out of context. Henry J. Raymond wrote about his discussions with Lincoln where he asked about that very tale:

"You see," said (Lincoln), "we had reached and were discussing the slavery question. Mr. Hunter said, substantially, that the slaves, always accustomed to an overseer, and to work upon compulsion, suddenly freed, as they would be if the South should consent to peace on the basis of the 'Emancipation Proclamation,' would precipitate not only themselves, but the entire Southern society, into irremediable ruin. No work would be done, nothing would be cultivated, and both blacks and whites would starve!"

Said the President: "I waited for Seward to answer that argument, but as he was silent, I at length said: 'Mr. Hunter, you ought to know a great deal better about this argument than I, for you have always lived under the slave system. I can only say, in reply to your statement of the case, that it reminds me of a man out in Illinois, by the name of Case, who undertook, a few years ago, to raise a very large herd of hogs. It was a great trouble to feed them, and how to get around this was a puzzle to him. At length he hit on the plan of planting an immense field of potatoes, and, when they were sufficiently grown, he turned the whole herd into the field, and let them have full swing, thus saving not only the labor of feeding the hogs, but also that of digging the potatoes. Charmed with his sagacity, he stood one day leaning against the fence, counting his hogs, when a neighbor came along.

"'Well, well,' said he, 'Mr. Case, this is all very fine. Your hogs are doing very well just now, but you know out here in Illinois the frost comes early, and the ground freezes for a foot deep. Then what you going to do?'

"This was a view of the matter which Mr. Case had not taken into account. Butchering time for hogs was 'way on in December or January! He scratched his head, and at length stammered: 'Well, it may come pretty hard on their snouts, but I don't see but that it will be "root, hog, or die."'"

It's clear from this that Lincoln was reacting to Hunter's fears for the white population and what they would do once they lost their slaves. Hunter believes that without slaves no work would be done, nothing would be harvested, and whites would starve. It was these fears Lincoln was addressing, not the fate of the black population. They were used to work, they could fend for themselves. It was the white population, unused to hard work on their own, that would have to root or die. They're the hogs, not the former slaves. If Lincoln was expressing any lack of sympathy it was towards the former slave masters and not the slaves. Lincoln Story to the Peace Commissioners.

The odd thing in all this is that in many parts of the South, slavery was becoming less feasible economically.

Can you identify these many parts and the reason why slavery was becoming less feasible?

Had the issue not been forced by war, it would have been interesting to see how the gradual but inevitable extinction of slavery would have played out.

In all our global history slavery has never died out on its own. In each and every case slavery was ended by government action and over the strong opposition of the slave owners themselves. Since the South showed that it was willing to launch a rebellion to protect their institution from what they saw as government interference in it in 1860, how long do you imagine it would take before they would be willing to sit back and let the government tell them what they could do with their slaver property?

69 posted on 02/14/2007 3:56:02 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

That is absurd. Show one post where I have made such a statement toward any soldier in the civil war. I can show 100's where you have. N-S, you are one pathetic individual. I truly feel sorry for you.


70 posted on 02/14/2007 4:01:59 AM PST by catfish1957 (Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Remember those names as you firmly hold on to your pocketbook and rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You didn't even answer my question!!! If a foreign power, (and it was at that point) was trying to invoke a system that impacted your standard of living... would you fight back?

This time don't use the talking points rhetoric to reply.

71 posted on 02/14/2007 4:06:18 AM PST by catfish1957 (Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Remember those names as you firmly hold on to your pocketbook and rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade
Stonewall... People like N-S, x, and Declaration have made me so angry that I want to join the SCV in a few a years after I retire. This vilification of our ancestors has to end.

Freep mail me with details if you have a chance.

72 posted on 02/14/2007 4:16:32 AM PST by catfish1957 (Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Remember those names as you firmly hold on to your pocketbook and rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

These Leftists shouldn't have any say so in Southern Culture. Afterall, they didn't support the Confederacy and they didn't support the Union either. The show their disdain by not supporting anything American even to this day.


73 posted on 02/14/2007 4:22:22 AM PST by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957
You didn't even answer my question!!! If a foreign power, (and it was at that point) was trying to invoke a system that impacted your standard of living... would you fight back? This time don't use the talking points rhetoric to reply.

The United States is not a foreign power, thus your 'question' has nothing to do with the Civil War.

The South attempted to secede because they did not like the results of an election and then thought that they could break the nation's laws by revolting and attacking Federal property.

As for a foreign power, I would not have to consider it it was 'impacting my standard of living' to resist it if it invaded the United States.

74 posted on 02/14/2007 4:24:19 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Nevermind, I don't want to discuss matters with those who can't answer simple questions.


75 posted on 02/14/2007 4:27:40 AM PST by catfish1957 (Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Remember those names as you firmly hold on to your pocketbook and rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957
Nevermind, I don't want to discuss matters with those who can't answer simple questions.

Good, since your question had nothing to do with the Civil War and Southern Secession.

76 posted on 02/14/2007 4:29:33 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
First, the reason that the South seceded was over slavery." Wrong it was over taxes(protectionist tariffs) and Northern Aggressive policies that hurt the Southern economy. Its about power, and all the lies you quote about "its about slavery" will never hold water in the light of history. Look at Jefferson Davis' inagural speech - he does not talk about slavery, rather he mentions other factors. Lincoln wasn't about to let the South go, he wanted his tariffs, and he wanted to consolidate power in Washington in direct contravention to the Founder's belief in federalism - which by the way does include States Rights. You are deluded by the Lincoln cult, and just think - Lincoln was all about denying States Rights. He is in some pretty notorious company there - Lenin, Stalin, Bismarck, Hitler! Study history, not the lies the "official history cult" prints.

Wrong.

Jefferson Davis stated to the provisional Confederate Congress that the reason they were seceding was because a 'great Party had been elected that was going to stop the spread of slavery'.

The Southern Democrat Party split their own National Democratic Party over slavery, not tarriffs.

Stop trying to rewrite history to hide what the Confederate's were really fighting for-the expansion of slavery.

77 posted on 02/14/2007 4:35:57 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

Carpetbaggers and copperheads OUT of Texas!


78 posted on 02/14/2007 4:41:03 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life ;o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
"Those fighting for the Confederacy were fighting on the wrong side for the wrong cause." Robert E. Lee stated that his reason for fighting was to defend his people and his state, not to uphold the institution of slavery. He further stated that he disapproved of slavery. (The slaves on his property, btw, were owned by his wife.) I don't see how these facts square with your contention that everyone fighting for the South was in it to preserve and extend slavery.

Because Negro slavery as a right, was what was in the Confederate Constitution and that would have been the result had the Confederacy won.

As for Lee, he also did not believe secession was legal either.

79 posted on 02/14/2007 4:46:37 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

FYI,the first indentured blacks were brought to America by the Puritans in the 1600's.
Lincoln id not free the Nothern slaves.
There were many different battle flags.
Dixie is derived from the French word for the their money known as the Dix bill.
Checked the Mobile census for 1860 and 32 blacks owned slaves.
One black in Miss.owned 400 slaves.


80 posted on 02/14/2007 4:46:50 AM PST by hubno (hub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,661-1,668 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson