U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites

Reuters via Lycos.com ^ | 12/22/2002 | Alan Elsner

[The_Media_never_lie]

To borrow from a radical, bias is as American as apple pie.

Why this, why now?

[aristeides]

Does the National Park Service preside over Stone Mountain?

By the way, if Stone Mountain goes, can Mount Rushmore be far behind? As I learned from listening to C-SPAN's Booknotes a week ago, the architect of Mount Rushmore was a former Klansman (he also was presiding over Stone Mountain until he was dismissed because of Klan politics.)

[Keith]

I understand what you are saying...since Lincoln was CIC in a case of open rebellion he had to act. If this was such a craven theft of Congress' powers,why didn't Congress act upon Taney's ruling? I'm just saying that in a situation where if Maryland had seceeded, DC would have been surrounded by enemy territory, Lincoln did what he had to and Congress was grateful for his prompt action in those circumstances. Which is why both the Executive and Legislative branches were all to happy to ignore Taney's ruling. In a final word on this whole mess, I hardly ever hear anyone cite how unconstitutional the south's action was. How so, you say? Again, look to your constitution... Article I, Section 10...No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; " I just think that for a document which covers so much, procedures for leaving the Union are never covered... This is fun guys, thanks for the intellectual exercises.

[wasp69]

You'll find nothing in the record to support that Lincoln mentions colonization after 1/1/63.

I'm guessing that you forgot about the conversation between Gen Butler and President Lincoln just a few days before he was shot?

[aristeides]

Lincoln could have called the Congress into special session, something he quite deliberately neglected to do.

[stainlessbanner]

I smell a rat.

"In preparation for this report 28 Civil War sites were asked to review their current park programs and media with an eye towards how the causes of the Civil War were presented especially slavery as a cause. All media products, exhibits, wayside exhibits, films, Internet sites, and public programs were given a cursory review.

"Each product or services was rated for causes of the Civil War and slavery in a descending scale from “A Great Deal” to “Not at All.” All 28 sites reviewed their programs and returned the survey. "

Source: Interpretation at Civil War Sites: A Report to Congress March 2000.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

No BARF ALERT??????????????

[x]

One could say that wars between Britain and France, France and Germany, Germany and Russia or the US and Japan were inevitable, given the interests of those countries and the way nations behave, but the actual reasons for specific wars are what really matters. There was certainly a disagreement about the relations between the federal and the state governments lying at the roots of the Civil War. Perhaps war might have been fought around another issue relating to federal-state relations. Or perhaps, without an issue as divisive as slavery, there would have been no war. But for making this particular war at this particular time, slavery was essential.

[stainlessbanner]

The Southern states seceded and then joined the Confederacy. The article does not apply here.

[Missouri]

>>I think what is missing in this disscusion is why the average Confederate soldier fought so hard. He had no plantation, no slaves, and was poor.

Poor whites were fighting for white supremacy.<<


Back in 1861, I'd bet 90% on the whites in the free states thought they were better than Blacks so what kind of answer was that.

[wasp69]

he's no god...just the greatest president we ever had.

I must ask, are you a public school teacher?

[stainlessbanner]

Excellent post, sir. Thank you for including the names of the panel - the usual suspects, I see.

[wasp69]

Of course, the breeding and trading of slaves was allowed in the confederate states.

As well as the Union.

[x]

Hard core secessionists in the Deep South welcomed Lincoln's election because it would strengthen secessionist sentiment in the Southern states. Since secessionism was already in the air, and since many secessionists thought that Lincoln's election might help them to win others over to their cause, secession must have had deeper causes than either Lincoln's election or his economic policies.

[aristeides]

Yes, the fire-eaters welcomed Lincoln's election, but a lot of the leaders of the South acceded to secession with extreme reluctance.

[Ohioan]

There is no Southern bias at Gettysburg--none at all. What this panderer to Leftwing theory is attacking is the balanced view of an historic period, which arose after the passions of the War died down, and Americans North & South looked more objectively at their history. Now the leftwing academic theorists are taking over, and we are going to have historic revisionist propaganda of the worst order.

To put this all in perspective, one needs to recall that the South, which was in the minority at the time of the War was in an even more outnumbered position in the 1890s, when Americans, in general moved towards better feelings. It is patently absurd to suggest that the South, ruined and impoverished in this period, would have been able to propagandize sites run by the Federal Government.

This is just one more example of the viciously intolerant mindset of the Academic "Liberal." These people will not be happy until they erase every trace of traditional American culture. If we let them prosper in this endeavor, we deserve the "1984" version of the "Brave New World," they have in mind.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[aristeides]

This is just one more example of the viciously intolerant mindset of the Academic "Liberal." These people will not be happy until they erase every trace of traditional American culture.

They are overreaching and ensuring their own defeat. Any fairminded person, who might otherwise not have cared one bit about something that happened 150 years ago, will rebel against this sort of stuff.

[x]

Wars require passion.

Very true. I think that gets left out of a lot of the arguments made here. The war was midwifed by the excited, irrational mood of the day. Just looking at it as a rational conflict of principles doesn't explain why it happened.

[wasp69]

The other whining complaint is that Lincoln was unconstitutional in suspending Habeas Corpus. Again, read your Constitution...Art. I, Sec. 9... "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So are you saying he had the right to suspend habeas corpus or not?

[flyer182]

The application of force is derived from the political goal.Unconditional surrender, bomb the hell out of them. What Sherman did would be labeled a war crime today, regardless of the political goal according to the current Laws of War.