Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
ATLANTA — In a cultural war that has pitted Old South against new, defenders of the Confederate legacy have opened a fresh front in their campaign to polish an image tarnished, they said, by people who do not respect Southern values.
With the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States in 2011, efforts are under way in statehouses, small towns and counties across the South to push for proclamations or legislation promoting Confederate history.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
Don't cherry-pick please. He also said that if he could end the war by freeing all of them he would.
Yeah but they might have a problem bringing back slavery under it though.
I agree. This past Christmas I went home and attended Mass at the Church/school I went to when I was five years old. They no longer teach there and they've 'remodeled' the Church's interior, much to my dismay.
I love the old Churches in Ireland, as I do the older ones here. Where it concerns the Church I am very much a traditionalist.
Actually it's very green, a/c of the prevalence of pine and other assorted types of trees. Then there are the mountains in the western part of the state. Other than that I'm not quite sure what the relevancy of your remark is.
You may call yourself a conservative but you'll always be a arrogant SOB Yankee to me.
True, it's a quarter to midnight for the republic... late, very late....scary. And the arrogant Northern Yankees think everyone in red states are a bunch of hicks. Who killed the republic?, you killed the republic, no such thing as a conservative Yankee.
Can we also surmise that there is nothing noble about being "IrishCatholic" either?
I lay the current state of the republic and the socialism coming at us at the feet of every GD Yankee that crushed the Confederacy. It could of been done peacefully without destroying the 10th amendment. Or, after burning and pillaging the South at least restore the Republic when you have had your self-righteous jollies.
And I'm well aware of that. That does not carry over to the motivations of most other people who partook in the fighting. The Civil War was about more than just Abraham Lincoln.
Now, if you want to argue a different scenario, feel free to make one. But don't try and make me sell a scenario where freeing the slaves during the middle of the war would've ended hostilities. Because it would not have.
Do you think burning half of Georgia to the ground might be an example of "an increase in federal power"?
You keep leaving out the calculus of what the rest of the country was enduring at the time. We're in a middle of a war against ourselves, and General Sherman went about war with the intent to end it. Though it did cripple the South's efforts, it also embittered Southerners against the North. But that's beside my point.
My point was this: during a civil war, you'd be hard-pressed to find a scenario where federal power would NOT increase. The validity of such an increase in power would be dependent upon the origins of said civil war; most would probably argue that were the American Civil War just about naked federal oppression of the states and its denizens, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But you cannot remove the calculus of slavery from the equation, the effect it had on all Americans, and how it formed the very roots - economic, social, and political - of the Civil War. It's impossible, because those roots stem back decades before Fort Sumter.
It's better to spend your time debunking the supposed 'necessity' of, say, the Wilson Administration increasing federal dominion over the nation during World War I. Or the 'necessity' of the New Deal and its supposed 'economic reforms'. Or the 'necessity' of the Porkulus Bill.
You drank the liberal historical kool aid. Try to expand your mind.
Just don't sit there and tell me that I can pretend to remove the issue of slavery from the equation. Because that issue went far beyond just freeing them during the war; it had its hand in interstate politics, the Southern economy, and societal debate long before the Civil War ever began. For me to truly try and remove the issue of slavery from the Civil War, I'd have to envision how things would've gone without the Missouri Compromise. And before that, the Wilmot Proviso. And before that, Nat Turner's Rebellion. And even before that, the Missouri Compromise...and so on.
You see my point? It's too big of a facet of the Civil War to just blithely remove like some historical revisionist. Because without that issue, most of the background for the Civil War loses all meaning, relevance, context, etcetera etcetera...
You would absolve Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush of their expansion of federal government?
Now HERE is an example of a plausible scenario; how would things have turned out had the Emancipation Proclamation included all states, and not just those of the South?
Ok, what you are saying is it was about slavery. So every southerner was a pro slavery bigot willing to die to keep another in chains. Which is it, you can't have it both ways. I guess the North "won" but the "USA" lost, the Republic was turned over to arrogant Northern self-Righteous /expletive deleted/ and we haven't really looked back since.
With friends like you who needs enemies.
Wilson started out OK but jumped the shark when he went to NJ.
No. I just know who tried to stand up to it and who fought for it. Doesn't matter, the Republic is dead. Once politicians, both southern and northern tasted the federal apple it was over. Federal power is very seductive. Republics are not fragile, but don't stand up well to civil war.
What's done is done. It takes blood to destroy a Republic, can one be restored without it?
I direct you to post 46. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.
I guess the North "won" but the "USA" lost
You think a Civil War is something to be won? Of course America lost; we lost 600,000 soldiers. Distrust between the North and South percolated for years afterward. The death of Abraham Lincoln, the incompetence of Andrew Johnson, and the corruption that crept into the federal government under Ulysses S. Grant's nose ruined Reconstruction as a concept, a program, and in the eyes of the public. All over a scenario that could have been peaceably settled had things been done differently in the antebellum years. But they had not been. The blow up of tensions in the Civil War was years in the making. To remove one facet of the war's origin is an impossibility, given how many decades back the roots of those facets stretch.
With friends like you who needs enemies.
???
All I ask is for no historical revisionism, please. Is that too much to ask?
Don't know. We're gonna find out though. One way or another.
What revisionism?
If it was about slavery, then the Southerners were fighting for slavery right? Making all of them evil bigots. The Yankees were fighting against slavery right? Making all of them hero's. You can't clap with one hand?
Let's make sure I have been properly trained: For the South, it wasn't about stopping a federal invasion or states rights, it was all about slavery. You said so. I have been schooled now. Thank you. You really straightened me out.
More than soldiers died, important ideas died also. The concept of a dispersed government, close to the people as possible.
April 1 would be an appropriate day.
Oh no.....The colonel is here...
It seems like only yesterday were engaged in verbal jousting on the other thread. Time flies when you’re having fun. On the other hand, I fear the next four years are going to seem like a billion.
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.