Posted on 04/30/2017 9:49:31 PM PDT by pboyington
The War against the Confederacy is a War against America.
The War against the Confederacy is a war on American history.
The War against the Confederacy is a war against all of us and a war on America’s institutions.
The War against the Confederacy is being waged by militant leftists, big government lackeys, aggrieved snowflakes and the hate America crowd.
Since a psychotic young man, who owned a Confederate flag, killed nine parishioners at a black church in South Carolina in June of 2015, the radical left, big government crowd in this country is doing something they’ve wanted to do since 1861, completely eradicate the Confederacy and every last vestige of its history.
For two years, the nation has watched as Confederate flags have been ripped down from city halls and state capitol buildings and have been banned from selling on Amazon, although one may freely purchase a Nazi, Soviet, Italian Fascist or a North Korean flag on the website. The harmless TV show, the Dukes of Hazzard was permanently cancelled by TV Land, even though it is one of the most popular shows in TV history. The reason being that the main characters drove a car named the General Lee that had a Rebel flag on the roof.
Yeah, those Duke Boys were some real racists.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t true. But, this is America in 2017, where cultural Marxists are running wild.
In every corner of the New South, the history of the Old South is being destroyed to placate the wishes of people who are motivated by the 21st Century version of fascism known as political correctness.
There is not a week that goes by now without seeing a news report concerning a Confederate monument that has been vandalized or is being torn down, in scenes that mimic the actions of ISIS in the Middle East or the SA in Nazi Germany. Statues of General Robert E. Lee are being carted off feet first, from Virginia to Texas, as if he was a deposed despot, instead of the most beloved general in American history.
In fact, last week in New Orleans, city officials began removing Confederate monuments that include statues of Lee, General P.T. Beauregard and Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
There is a dangerous trend infesting this country like malignant cancer cells. Anyone on the left who feels triggered or psychologically injured by a book, a speaker, a statue, a monument, a flag or a song, can claim some kind of special candyass status and demand that the speaker or in the case of the Confederacy, the flags, the statues and the monuments are destroyed.
You can’t eradicate history simply by removing statues, but that won’t stop the radical left.
Of course the most common argument for removing symbols of the Confederacy is that the symbols represent racism.
Is the Confederate flag racist? If it is in the hands of members of the KKK who are waving it, yes.
But, what about the person from North Carolina, for example, whose great, great grandfather served in the Army of Northern Virginia? Do they see that flag as a symbol of racism, or as the symbol of military history, or American history? I would assume the latter.
And, who has the right to tell them how to interpret history? When others order you to remove symbols of history, or to think a certain way that is simply fascism; nothing more and nothing less.
Still others would say that Robert E. Lee was a racist because he fought for the Confederacy. But, Lee himself never purchased or owned any slaves. He did inherit slaves from his father in law, George Custis. Some of the slaves were freed in 1857 and the rest in 1862. In fact if you had asked him, he would have told you he was opposed to slavery and that he fought the Civil War because his home state, Virginia, had been invaded by the Yankees.
What many of the wailing little fascists in America don’t know is that General Ulysses S. Grant, the man who prosecuted the war against Lee, the man whom Lee surrendered to in 1865, owned a slave named William Jones, whom he freed in 1859. In fact, Grant’s wife, Julia had four slaves, although they may have officially belonged to her father.
One would think the snowflakes and the liberal whining mayors would be demanding a removal of all Grant statues across the nation.
But, logic has never been a factor in the liberal thought process.
Do the liberal mayors, the PC governors and the little vandals of America know that only six percent of the soldiers fighting for the Confederacy actually owned any slaves?
If asked, Confederate soldiers would have said they were fighting because the North had invaded their land, or they were fighting against big government and the right to be left alone. Big government vs. small government; sounds familiar doesn’t it? It’s almost like it never really got resolved. Very few men were fighting to protect slavery, or the profits of King Cotton.
If asked, most soldiers in the Union Army would have said they were fighting to save the union. Except for abolitionists wearing blue, a majority weren’t fighting to free the slaves.
Sounds a little racist to me…
And, what about President Lincoln?
In 1861, Lincoln supported the original 13th Amendment or the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would shield “domestic institutions” of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. It was passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay.
The official text of the amendment reads: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
President Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, said of the Corwin Amendment:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Hmm…Sounds a little racist to me. Strangely, Steven Spielberg deleted any mention of the Corwin Amendment in his film, Lincoln. What a surprise.
Before the amendment could be ratified by all states, war broke out. But, the following states did ratify it: Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois and Maryland.
Lincoln was a realist who would have done just about anything to save the Union, including tossing the constitution out the window, which he frequently did. Emancipation was a political legerdemain, to distract the nation from the series of Union Army defeats in the Eastern Theater and a litany of incompetent Union Army commanders. Lincoln needed the abolitionists behind him and something to rally the North; hence, the Emancipation Proclamation. Two years after emancipation, Lincoln was concocting ways for the black population to be relocated to British Colonies in the Caribbean before he was assassinated.
Whoaa…
Dirty little secret lefties, what if Lincoln was more of a racist than Lee?
Oh my God!
I bet your Marxist professor didn’t tell you that.
The victors wrote the history and sold the snake oil that they were the holy saviors defeating those evil slaver holders, even though almost all of the men they fought never owned a slave in their whole lives.
To compensate for their incompetence on the battlefield, the North developed the ‘holier than thou’ attitude. Lee may have run rings around the Army of the Potomac, but so what, he was evil and so was Jackson, Stuart, Longstreet, the entire Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederacy. Also included in the group of white nationalist racists were George Patton’s Confederate grandfather who was killed in 1864, Chesty Puller’s Confederate grandfather who was killed in 1863 and Woodrow Wilson’s father who was a CSA chaplain.
Combine a 150 year arrogant attitude with modern day political correctness and you have the current War against the Confederacy.
Don’t think for a moment that it will stop with Lee and Davis. There is no end to the militant fascism raging among left wing snowflakes.
Those who come for Lee today, will come for Lincoln tomorrow.
Soon, they will be demanding that statues of Jefferson, Washington and Andrew Jackson are destroyed. In fact Jackson has been run off the $20 bill to be replaced by Harriet Tubman.
After they are finished with them, they will go after Custer, Grant, Wyatt Earp, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR; after all he imprisoned the Japanese during WWII. When they’re done with FDR, they’ll come for Ike and Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Don’t think it will just be flags and statues. Next, there will be book burnings and destruction of private property belonging to people deemed enemies of the state.
It won’t stop until Americans put their feet down and say enough is enough. Frankly these people who try and tell us how to interpret our own history are nothing more than tyrants.
The War against the Confederacy is a war on freedom itself.
N.B. I’m not a Southerner. I’m from Northern Illinois and my relatives fought for the Union. In fact, my great, great, great uncle who served in the 2nd Indiana Cavalry, was captured during McCook’s Raid on Atlanta on July 30, 1864 and spent the rest of the war in Andersonville Prison.
He survived. But, it looks like American history won’t.
Douglas Southall Freeman in his Lee biography notes that as early as 1846 Lee owned a female slave named Nancy and her children.
Lincoln did throw away the constitution, as in the case when he arrested the Maryland legislature because it was pro-secession.
He did not arrest the Maryland Legislature. He arrested several members in September 1861 who were advocating a secession vote. Note the date. At that point the Southern states were waging civil war against the government and these people were talking about joining the rebellion. Given that, what should have happened to them if not detainment?
And, here’s Honest Abe’s executive order shutting down NY journalists...
The day before a forged proclamation had been published in the Journal of Commerce, the purpose of which was to manipulate gold prices and make an ill-gotten fortune for one or two of the writers. On the face of it, the purpose was to harm the government, give aid and comfort to the enemy, and that is in and of itself a treasonable offense. So arrests were certainly in order. Once the facts of the matter became clear, the arrested parties were released. Here is a full list of the correspondence on this case: Link
Keep up the hero worship of the tyrant Lincoln.
It's more cutting through the manure that keeps being spread about the Civil War, your post being an example, than any sort of hero worship.
Total rubbish once Confederates formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
Then those legislators met the Constitution's definition of "treason":
They are only mistaken for being on the Right because of massive Leftist propaganda designed to sell that narrative. As we demonstrate in the Chapter, supra, all the clear indicators point in the same direction.
I see the confederacy as Nazi-lite, they didn’t want to exterminate a whole race, just keep them as chattel.
And before the lost causers start screaming that America had slavery at it’s founding, most of the founding fathers were embarrassed and bitterly conflicted by it and hoped it would eventually die out. They were so embarrassed they wouldn’t even use the word slavery in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to call it a “hideous blot”.
Not so the confederacy, they proudly proclaimed that blacks were inferior and their natural state was slavery. They proudly used the word slavery in their constitution and their Vice President proclaimed that this was the cornerstone the confederacy was built upon.
Why anyone would want to honor such a government is beyond me.
Sorry for my mistype -- Alois was Adolf's father, Johann Georg Hiedler is now said to be Alois' real father, not the supposed Leopold Frankenberger.
You acknowledged that the Confederacy preferred the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution. The principal difference between the former and the latter is that the Constitution gave more (albeit still limited) power to the Federal government than under the Articles. One doesn’t have to be a neo-Confederate to see that the antebellum South’s preference for the Articles of Confederation makes the claim that the Confederacy was the precursor of 21st century, Obama/Clinton style Democrats absolutely absurd, unless you think that Obama would have supported the Articles of Confederation as a model for the US government.
No argument there, though you should tell that to some of the others on this thread who seem to think that the Confederacy was some sort to model for Nazi Germany.
I agree that picking a fight with the US Military by firing on Fort Sumter was not the best move, and I see nothing dishonorable in Americans who wanted to fight to preserve the Union. Lincoln's big mistake was caving to the radical abolitionist wing of his own party and issuing the emancipation proclamation, thereby turning what had been (rightly) perceived as a war to preserve the union into a war to "free the slaves." Many Americans were willing to sacrifice their lives or their sons for the former, not so much for the latter, and understandably so.
However, as I said in an earlier post, the push to take down statues and monuments honoring the Confederate dead and Confederate leadership isn't about loyalty to the union vs. secession. It's about an attempt to radical black nationalists and their Marxist allies to erase American history and to find yet another excuse to spit on the memory of "dead white males." You don't need to be a "lost causer" to recognize this for what it's all about.
“Regarding flying the Nazi and Confederate flags, absolutely.”
You are, at a minimum, extremely misguided. Crack open a book once in a while. You might be surprised what you might learn.
The Founding Fathers who opposed slavery believed that it would fade over time and be made obsolete by more economically efficient models of labor. This no doubt was true. With the exception of Hamilton, none of them was a radical abolitionist who would have used the power of Federal government to outlaw slavery. Lincoln didn’t start out as a radical abolitionist (he was a non-extensionist), but he certainly had the ear of his party’s radical wing.
However strong a temptation to compare Confederates with Nazis may seem, we here must resist it as not only unpolitical but also anti-historical.
Only in the fact that they both took on forces which, strictly in 20-20 hindsight, they had no chance to defeat.
Otherwise, 1860s Confederates were much closer to 1860s Unionists in character & beliefs than either were to Nazis, Communists or, indeed to today's leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats.
If you're tempted to say, "well slavery was like the Holocaust", no! the opposite since the US slave population doubled, doubled again and redoubled between 1790 and 1860, even after importation of slaves was outlawed.
I have myself compared Confederate generals like Lee and Jackson to Germans like Guderian and Rommel, but only to say these were enemies who fought honorably and capably for what turned out to be a flawed & lost cause.
What “boorishness”? We live in a country where anybody, even a dentist from New Rochelle, can write a letter to the president expressing his own opinion and questioning the president’s decisions and views. When we get to the point where such letters and their writers are simply dismissed as “boors,” for questioning established views, it will be a bad day indeed.
No, I'm saying Democrats then and now were exactly the same in supporting oppressive Federal powers which benefitted Democrats and opposing any which did not.
In, let's say 1800, the oppressive Federal power benefitting Democrats was its national support for the institution of slavery generally, and especially in its Fugitive Slave requirements.
So Democrats supported that.
Today Democrats support massive Federal powers except when used against their own voters in, for example "sanctuary cities".
Agreed.
The South, by contrast, was led by people who demonstrated a sentimental attachment to their servant class, and were in turn treated with respect by the poorer members of their communities, both White & Black. Were it otherwise, the Confederacy could never have held together, much less hold off the North for four years.
Incidentally the Confederate States were represented by two Jewish Senators in 1860, at the time secession started. They were the exact opposite of either Communist or Nazi-lite.
Your error is in failing to acquaint yourself with the actual cultural context of the historic events. There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence of my points--for one interesting example, Stonewall Jackson--pre-war--ran a Sunday School for slave kids. It was no stretch, either, that Mammy in "Gone With The Wind" was a sort of ethical agent whose attitude towards other characters was a clear indication of whom was good & whom bad. Margaret Mitchell based the book on extensive interview with elderly people who had lived through the war.
They don’t care that it’s an assault on all of us slippery slope wise by The progressives
I’ve been here forever
Most of these guys have been zotted in time proven as libs
This bunch on this thread are in it for personal reasons as being black which they are too cowardly to admit
Or they are fringe folks especially with all this Hitler was Jewish talk
And some are just virtue drunk smug yankees
They are either James B Macpherson at best which is bad enough or Howard Zinn at worst in their historical perpsiective if they read t all
The fact that they are now allied with ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter bothers them none
The fact Jefferson and Washington and so forth are also under assault as well again is of no concern to them even they’ve seen it coming my nearly two decades here
Almost none say one word about who they are or where and they always show up enmasse to south bash which always made me think they fly from the same nest like Rush’s seminar callers do
You expect this from the hipster progressive nihilists.
But not from folks claiming to be conservatives
I understand there is a National Review Jonah Goldberg Rich Lowery branch that grew up from after WFB purged the paleos
The same folks who fired Derbyshire
I assume that’s where they get inspiration from or Mark Levin and his neovonfeferate obsessions although he would not cotton to the quasi anti Semitism on here today
It’s kook talk some of it to be honest Hitler is a Jew stuff
I do business from a Traverse City to Jackson Miss to Seattle to Asheville and I don’t know anyone like these folks
My daughter one lives in hipster lefty east Nashville and I don’t see this there either
The virtue signaling sated only by such vitriol towards the South
But these folks are here and this is what they do
It’s like when a kid drives his motorcycle too fast and gets killed and so many here scold and laugh
The internet gives folks an outlet to act out how they really are
They do not respond to logic and magnanimity
Hat tip u!
The fact so many of these guys baring the two exceptions I mentioned were neverTrump is no surprise
They don’t care that it’s an assault on all of us slippery slope wise by The progressives
I’ve been here forever
Most of these guys have been zotted in time proven as libs
This bunch on this thread are in it for personal reasons as being black which they are too cowardly to admit
Or they are fringe folks especially with all this Hitler was Jewish talk
They are either James B Macpherson at best which is bad enough or Howard Zinn at worst in their historical perpsiective if they read t all
The fact that they are now allied with ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter bothers them none
The fact Jefferson and Washington and so forth are also under assault as well again is of no concern to them even they’ve seen it coming my nearly two decades here
Almost none say one word about who they are or where and they always show up enmasse to south bash which always made me think they fly from the same nest like Rush’s seminar callers do
You expect this from the hipster progressive nihilists.
But not from folks claiming to be conservatives
I understand there is a National Review Jonah Goldberg Rich Lowery branch that grew up from after WFB purged the paleos
The same folks who fired Derbyshire
I assume that’s where they get inspiration from or Mark Levin and his neovonfeferate obsessions although he would not cotton to the quasi anti Semitism on here today
It’s kook talk some of it to be honest Hitler is a Jew stuff
I do business from a Traverse City to Jackson Miss to Seattle to Asheville and I don’t know anyone like these folks
My daughter one lives in hipster lefty east Nashville and I don’t see this there either
The virtue signaling sated only by such vitriol towards the South
But these folks are here and this is what they do
It’s like when a kid drives his motorcycle too fast and gets killed and so many here scold and laugh
The internet gives folks an outlet to act out how they really are
They do not respond to logic and magnanimity
Hat tip u!
The fact so many of these guys baring the two exceptions I mentioned were neverTrump is no surprise
You focus on the motives of the South haters; but I have a hard time getting past their abysmal demonstration of a total lack of any rational perspective. That they are filled with hate, and seek to market hate against the very roots of our civilization is obvious. But in their demonstration of oblivion to the actual context of what they hiss over, they never rise past a level of half baked opinions, served by intellectually underdone enthusiasts.
Let me point out some obvious errors, which should be clear to any student of history, but which the current crop of South haters ignore:
1. Of all the places in the world, where people were being held in involuntary servitude in 1860, such as Brazil, the Islamic nations, much of tropical Africa, Imperial Russia--although there about to be freed--can anyone name any place where the "bondage" was more humanely administered than in much of the Old South?
How about in non-bondage States, here or in Europe, were there many low paying, industrial jobs, where the laboring men & women were as humanely treated by their employers, as the bonds men & women in the Old South?
2. Why do not those who feign inveterate horror at the idea of anyone held in bondage ever consider how much of any worker's time, in an alternative "free" system, is really his or her own; and how much absolutely dictated by the complex context of circumstances linked to the needs of survival, in any system? And how much actual free time was allowed to the "slaves" of compassionate Southern Christian Plantation owners?
Just why were ex-slaves behaving in the manner Booker T. Washington describes, if their lives had been the hellish experience that the rabid Abolitionists claimed? (Booker T. Washington Address)
3. One encounters a "pecking order" in all social species on the planet. It is a given that personal liberty, where everyone is put on their mettle to be responsible; that such brings out the best in a society. Yet, both in the "loyal & faithful servant" in the Bible, and in such honored bondsmen in the classic age in Europe as Aesop, many slaves have been honored through the ages. Who, in Biblical times, or in Medieval times, with kindly intent, ever felt the need to go into an endless hissing fit over the fact that some people were for a time in a position to direct the lives of other people, unless there were other factors involved.
4. A great many Southerners wanted to see the slaves emancipated--Jefferson for one. But they recognized that there had to be careful preparation for the change in status. The fact is that that preparation was never made; and the reasoning behind the recognition of the need for that preparation has surely been vindicated by the ongoing racial conflicts, 152 years after emancipation.
Now, while we are all victims of the gross mishandling of that emancipation, the greatest victims have been the ex-slaves. Why? Because the South haters in the 1865 era, promised the new freemen what they could not deliver; and should never have promised. But those promises ushered in an age of dependency, since refurbished by new generations of demagogues, intent on preserving that dependency.
The reality is that no two of us have exactly the same combination of talents & weaknesses, motivations & inhibitions, etc.. And the egalitarian absurdity of the Jacobins & Marxists, down through the generations, leads to utterly & demonstrably bad results for the pretended beneficiaries--those being "equalized" by Government. One size does not fit all. One format does not work for every child.
I would suggest that instead of treating the Confederate leaders as somehow abhorrent, we look at the skills developed on those great plantations, under the tutelage of Christian employers, and study how contemporary schools can achieve a similar result, before another generation of Black youth are misled to their own destruction by the Pied Pipers of the Left.
yes that's the rub isn't it....
Yes it is the “rub,” and the faux “conservatives,who would demean the historic image of the Conservative South, are a serious impediment to any remedy.
Check out post #97 - a FReeper defending the Peculiar Institution.
*SMH*
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.