I guess this was "photoshopped"....
Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
Of course it is.
Interesting footnote: the colored troops in the South were integrated. I always thought that was ironic....
And mythological. When the rebel government got around to authorizing black combat troops they mandated separate units for them Link. Prior to that any blacks attached to a rebel unit were there unofficially as servants, laborers, teamsters, cooks, musicians, and the like. Kind of hard to have someone waiting on you if they weren't right there with you.
Probably an acquired taste.
"Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
Frederick Douglas reported,
"There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."
Wrong verb -- Lincoln couldn't "order" Scott. But he certainly asked Scott to come down hard for reinforcement, and he did.
There was a struggle in the Cabinet over the policy to be followed toward South Carolina. Buchanan favored "non-coercion" but the Unionists were all for coercion and force. (After all, it wasn't their State that would burn, and they hated Southerners anyway, as witness Nicolay's purple prose.)
Eventually, when Secretary of War Floyd resigned under a cloud brought on by his prosecution for official theft of some Indian Trust bonds (the court action being brought by Attorney-General Black, a stout Unionist who nevertheless had penned for the President the "non-coercion" doctrine, and then, after the Cabinet turnover of mid-December, by Edwin M. Stanton, a hard-line Abolitionist and would-be South-burner), the Unionists gained a near-monopoly of influence on Buchanan and began to steer him toward a hardline policy, including reinforcement (the Star of the West incident -- she had troops aboard, concealed belowdecks).
They had a constitutional right to their property.
The North could not make money from slavery and was against it.
ROTFLMAO!!! The damnyankees made huge fortunes on the slave trade and only turned against slavery when the slave trade was outlawed.
End of discussion.
The importation of slaves into this country was illegal by 1840. I am talking about the period around 1860.
Federal Official Records, Vol. XIII, Chapter XXV, pg. 688, September, 1862 -”... We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the rebellion. “
Federal Official Records Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138, report of the Union commander: “Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements.”
Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XVII, Chapter XXIX, Pg. 635-637 - December 28, 1863 - “...It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy’s sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle pits; but the enemy and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire and did serious execution upon our men... The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed. 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. - Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding”
“The damnyankees made huge fortunes on the slave trade and only turned against slavery when the slave trade was outlawed.”
You are making my point. There was no money in it for the North. Q.E.D.
You all love that part of Steiner's report, and you all completely ignore the sentence that comes right after it: "The fact was patent, and rather interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the national defense." Link
If black soldiers were included in combat positions with rebel regiments, then why the horror at the idea of black Union soldiers? If blacks were respected members of the rebel army then why did they, time after time, refuse to take blacks as prisoners but instead shot them when they tried to surrender? Fort Pillow, Olustee, Poison Spring, the Crater, Saltville, Plymouth, the history of killing black soldiers rather than accept their surrender is clear. The idea of black combat soldiers was an anathema for the rebel soldier - and their leadership - up until the very end.
I guess this was "photoshopped"....
Nope, misidentified. Those are Union uniforms.
You blind?
Is that 'Old Glory' pinned upon his chest?
There were also sham companies, various screens to hide true beneficial ownership, and so on. Ships seized and auctioned off might be bought back by the former owners through nominees, etc.
The U.S.S. Constitution was part of the U.S. squadron, and the complaint was made that she was inappropriate for the duty. She was fast enough to run down any slaver, but a larger squadron of smaller, fast steam-assisted sloops and packets like those the Royal Navy used would have been a more-efficient deployment of resources. It was alleged that Southern influence in the Navy Department was responsible for the inefficiency of the American operation compared to our British counterparts.
The need for an American squadron was dictated by the American policy of not permitting foreign navies to board U.S.-flagged vessels. Lots of foreign slave-ships liked to break out the Stars and Stripes when a British ship appeared, so it was checkmate when the Constitution appeared and broke her own colors in reply. Ooops.
No, but you're badly informed.
Here's the original photo, uncropped and taken in a Philadelphia studio[:
Here's the United States Army recruiting poster that used that image:
And here's a long article about the photo and its misuse: Retouching History: The Modern Falsification of a Civil War Photograph
Because free blacks and "sponsored" freedmen and slaves in Confederate ranks were not the avenging legions of Dessalines and Toussaint L'Ouverture come to America to slaughter Ol' Massa in his bed?
How about that one?
Or does your ideology exclude the possibility of subtlety in Southern political thought?
You seem to be missing my point. In 1860, Slavery was hugely profitable for the South and it was mere chump change for the North.
Lerone Bennett made waves when he charged that numbers of prominent Jewish East Coast families were involved in the slave trade. Scholars looked into it, and whaddayaknow ....
Hey, business is business. It has no morality and no allegiance except to the bottom line. That's why the values of the forum have to be checked by "blue laws". Otherwise, the Chicago Board of Trade would be trading virgins right along with their other commodities.
Pardon me for laughing when a southerner accuses the north of practicing segregration.
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.