Posted on 03/21/2009 5:15:25 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"With The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, by H. W. Crocker III, we are presented with the same old Lost Cause rhetoric in a new bag, a Confederate catechism for the 21st century."
Here's the one quote Smeltzer pulls off the cover to criticize: "You think you know about the Civil War, but did you know: That the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave?"
So, stating that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves now automatically gets you labeled as a "Lost Causer." Really?
(Follow the link and read the rebuttal)
Of course not! If the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, why would we have needed the 13th Amendment?
In any event, supposing one is opposed to slavery, a Constitutional amendment is a good idea simply to cement Abolition into fundamental law. While there is little doubt about the moral, political and diplomatic soundness of the Proclamation, it was of dubious legality.
-Give slaves in Confederate-held areas hope that they would be free, and flee with their families to Union lines, thereby disrupting the Confederate work force dependent upon them for domestic labor since all the young white males were fighting.
-Give the Union the moral high ground in regards to Europe (until then, France and England were sympathetic to the Confederacy because of their rebellion against the U.S.). The public of both nations at that time were strongly anti-slavery, and the EP pretty much put them on the side of the Union.
The 13th amendment abolished slavery for most slaves but allowed slavery as punishment for a crime. It established the double sentencing declarations still in practice today where the punishment is a time and a fine, i.e., 60 dollars or 60 days. The criminal was not afforded the opportunity to pay, he had to serve the time. Factories, sweatshops and businesses needing cheap labor would pay the fine to the court and the criminal would then be owned for the time period involved and all he got was room and board. The practice was gradually abandoned in the early 1900s due to pressure from labor unions who complained that the system was taking the work away from union members.
This sort of offers a solution for today’s prison overcrowding problem. Let’s have an auction.
The tiff is interesting only in that it exemplifies again, for anyone who wasn't aware of it, of the ideologization of American history by the Left, esp. by the Clinton Administration and the Red professors of Columbia University's history department, who colluded with Clinton to rewrite the public displays at Gettysburg to skew public perceptions in a fashion congenial to Clinton's South/Republican-bashing.
Exactly. As I state, if its THAT bad, why not just ignore it. I think the book scores some points against PC.
The main effect of the 13th Amendment was to free slaves in states that didn't join the Confederacy, e.g. Kentucky.
So it appears, that by simply skipping that issue, leaving it up to individual States to put what privileges and immunities they wanted into their Constitution, the Union was formed. But still the work was not done, since for instance, the most obvious short coming, the BOR was not explicitly forced to be recognized by the States. Hence the line of thinking that the reconstruction amendments are of unique importance and I think in many ways they do constitute a second founding of the country. Lincoln had long promised a “new birth of freedom”, and this is likely what that meant.
It looks like the current Chicago gun rights case may prove this out. If this view prevails, it allows for a more expansive view of privileges and immunities with respect to what may or may not be Constitutional.
Lincoln saw it as a military measure which is why he claimed authority to issue it by his war powers as commander in chief. He knew that once the war was over a constitutional amendment would be necessary.
“Actually, if you read the Emancipation Proclamation, it explicitly excludes states not in rebellion, including Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and parts of Louisiana including New Orleans.”
Inaccurate.
West Virginia wasn’t created (illegally) until 1863, June 20 to be exact!
I agree with how you are going at it, but think it is much more direct ... See my post #9
No, but clinging to the rest of the myths in the book cover just might.
"Secession was legal." Unilateral secession was not.
"The South had the moral high ground in the war (and the editorial support of the Vatican's own newspaper)" Highly questionable claim to begin with, and meaningless even if true. Political recognition would have been seen as tangible support of the rebel cause. Such recognition never happened.
"That Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis thought that slavery would fade away eventually." Neither men thought slavery would fade away naturally in their life time, or their children's lifetime. Or their grandchildren's lifetime. Both thought that slavery was the best condition for blacks in the South. Both were slave owners.
"If the South had won we might be able to enjoy holidays in the sunny state of Cuba." And Mexico. And Guatamala. And Honduras. The confederate founding fathers were very keen on expanding south into Central and South America as a way to expand slavery.
Overall I really enjoyed the book. But I've always liked good comedy.
To end slavery altogether. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves but it didn't outlaw the institution completely. Constitutionally it couldn't.
I found it a bit dull myself.
States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
“To end slavery altogether. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves but it didn’t outlaw the institution completely. Constitutionally it couldn’t.”
Slavery was legal and protected by the Constitution according to your statement until the 13th amendment.
Some real un PC events:
Free Blacks who owned slaves
Race riots which killed thousands in the North
Blacks who fought for the Confederacy
The disbanding of the KKK because it became violent
Draftees in the North who paid to get out of the service
The dreadful condition of POW camps in both north and the south
Foreigners who fought in both the north and the south
It was very predictable, yes.
It was.
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.
