Southerners looking to share their Confederate holiday

Hartford Courant ^ | March 22, 2009 | Dahleen Glanton

[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.

[Rustabout]

“I hates the glorious Union
tis drippin’ with our “

Sounds true?

This is my favorite

Tis Old Stonewall the rebel who leans on his sword
And while we are mounting praise low to the Lord
Now each cavalier who loves Honor and Right
Let him follow the feather of Stuart tonight.

Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure who goes riding a raid!

Now gallop, now gallop to swim or to ford
Old Stonewall’s still watching, praise low to the Lord
Goodbye Dear Old Rebel, the river's not wide
And Maryland's lights in her windows to guide.

Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure who goes riding a raid!

There's a man in the White House with blood on his mouth
There are knaves in the North, there are Braves in the South
We are three thousand horses and not one afraid
We are three thousand sabers and not a dull blade.

Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure who goes riding a raid!

[Non-Sequitur]

Sounds true?

I've no doubt that it's all true. If you Southron know one thing it's how to hate.

[Rustabout]

GENERAL ORDERS No. 11.
HDQRS. 13TH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Holly Springs, December 17, 1862

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.

No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.

By order of Maj. Gen. U.S. Grant:
JNO. A. RAWLINS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. 17, Part II, p. 424.

…) I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization. And yet I wish to say there is an objection urged against free colored persons remaining in the country, which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious.

It is insisted that their presence would injure, and displace white labor and white laborers. If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity. Is it true, then, that colored people can displace any more white la­bor, by being free, than by remaining slaves? If they stay in their old places, they jostle no white laborers; if they leave their old places, they leave them open to white laborers. Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even without deporta­tion would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and, very surely, would not reduce them. Thus, the customary amount of labor would still have to be performed; the freed people would surely not do more than their old proportion of it, and very prob­ably, for a time, would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their labor into greater demand, and, conse­quently, enhancing the wages of it. With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market-increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor (…).

The Living Lincoln.New York, 1992. p.516-518, 521

That whole humanatian & equality argument jest left the building YANKEE

[Rustabout]

Looks like more of that Northern hypocrisy {Racism} to me

My dear Sir:

Your letter of the 7th. was placed in my hand yesterday by Gov. Randall.

To me it seems plain that saying reunion and abandonment of slavery would be considered, if offered, is not saying that nothing else or less would be considered, if offered. But I will not stand j upon the mere construction of language. It is true as you remind me, that in the Greeley letter of 1862, I said: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some, and leaving others alone I would also do that.” I continued in the same letter as follows: “What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall be­lieve what I am doing hurts the cause; and I shall do more when­ ever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” All this I said in the utmost sincerity; and I am as true to the whole of it now, as when I first said it. When I afterwards proclaimed emancipation, and employed colored soldiers, I only followed the declaration just quoted from the Greeley letter that “I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The way these meas­ures were to help the cause, was not to be by magic, or miracles, but by inducing the colored people to come bodily over from the rebel side to ours. On this point, nearly a year ago, in a letter to Mr. Conkling, made public at once, I wrote as follows: “But Ne­groes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us they must be prompted by the strongest motive-even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept.” I am sure you will not, on due reflection, say that the prom­ise being made, must be broken at the first opportunity. I am sure you would not desire me to say, or to leave an inference, that I am ready, whenever convenient, to join in re-enslaving those who shall have served us in consideration of our promise. As matter of morals, could such treachery by any possibility, escape the curses of Heaven, or of any good man? As matter of policy, to announce such a purpose, would ruin the Union cause itself. All recruiting of colored men would instantly cease, and all colored men now in our service, would instantly desert us. And rightfully too. Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them? Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, nor any coming administration, can save the Union. Take from us, and give to the enemy, the hundred and thirty, forty, or fifty thousand colored persons now serving us as soldiers, seamen, and laborers, and we can not longer maintain the contest. The party who could elect a President on a war & slavery restoration platform, would, of necessity, lose the colored force; and that force being lost, would be as powerless to save the Union as to do any other impossible thing. It is not a question of senti­ment or taste, but one of physical force, which may be measured, and estimated as horsepower, and steam power, are measured and estimated. And by measurement, it is more than we can lose, and live. Nor can we, by discarding it, get a white force in place of it. There is a witness in every white man's bosom that he would rather go to the war having the Negro to help him, than to help the enemy against him. It is not the giving of one class for another. It is simply giving a large force to the enemy, for nothing in return.

In addition to what I have said, allow me to remind you that no one, having control of the rebel armies, or, in fact, having any infiuence whatever in the rebellion, has offered, or intimated a willingness to, a restoration of the Union, in any event, or on any condition whatever. Let it be constantly borne in mind that no such offer has been made or intimated. Shall we be weak enough to allow the enemy to distract us with an abstract question which he himself refuses to present as a practical one? In the Conkling letter before mentioned, I said: “Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free Negroes.” I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, or for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and reunion, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me (…).
The Living Lincoln.
p.613-615

[Rustabout]

King Lincoln the great humanitarian said this? What say you...Yankee?

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.

. . . I give. . . the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last, stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.

From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858. From http://www.afrocentricnews.com

[Trailerpark Badass]

I was responding to your reply to this:

I'd be willing to bet that there are people in Africa today that would trade years of servitude for life in America.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume that his "years of servitude" would come to an end, but, yes, I am aware of the differences between slavery and indenture.

[4CJ]

The state of Illinois placed blacks into indentured servitude for periods of up to 99 years. A fact that the state legislature apologized for.

[Non-Sequitur]

Where is the quote saying Lincoln favored the extermination of the Indians? Or were you just lying about that?

[Non-Sequitur]

From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858.

(*yawn*) The old "Lincoln was a racist" routine. So let's set the standard here. How bad was he? Was he as bad as Douglas? Worse than Douglas? How about some quotes showing how Douglas felt about equality of the races? Or how about some quotes from Southern leaders? Got any of those? Anything showing that Lee or Jackson or Davis believed that the black man was his equal in any way? Anything? Anything at all?

The fact that you would pull the racism card is not surprising at all. All of you do. Not a single one of you Southron fanatics can avoid calling Lincoln a racist, and not a single one of you has ever been able to show where Lincoln's position was worse that Lee's beliefs. Or Jackson's. Or Davis's. It's the best you got, and shows just how pathetic your clinging to your lost cause is.

[central_va]

The fact that you would pull the racism card is not surprising at all. All of you do. Not a single one of you Southron fanatics can avoid calling Lincoln a racist, and not a single one of you has ever been able to show where Lincoln's position was worse that Lee's beliefs. Or Jackson's. Or Davis's. It's the best you got, and shows just how pathetic your clinging to your lost cause is.

Because the "Southern Leadership" made it about slavery as you say? I would imagine that slavery was the excuse, like I said, any excuse. The Jeffersionian Republic was an uneasy relationship at best between North and South, southern independence was a cause looking for a reason, not the otherway around. Can't imagine fighting to keep somebody in slavery. Although I wouldn't put that past any Yankee's ability to project their prejudices on others.

"I won't be reconstructed" make a good tag line.

[Non-Sequitur]

Because the "Southern Leadership" made it about slavery as you say?

And what, exactly, is wrong or racist about the truth? Prior to and during the rebellion, the South and its leaders were very clear that defense of slavery was their primary reason for their actions. And so what? Slavery was essential to the South. Their economy was dependent on it, their society and culture was built on it, there was nothing illegal about it. And when they saw Lincoln as a threat to its expansion and their disproportionate level of power in Congress then they seceded. And later resorted to war to achieve those aims. I may not agree with their reasons or their actions but I don't attribute it to racism or dismiss them as inherently evil. If the situation was reversed and I had been born and raised in the South I might well be agreeing with you. Nobody calls the South or it's leaders 'racists'...until you initiate it by trying to judge Lincoln by 21st century PC standards. And if you want to do that, fine. Just have the integrity to first admit that your own leaders were as bad or worse.

Can't imagine fighting to keep somebody in slavery.

Then your imagination is conveniently selective.

"I won't be reconstructed" make a good tag line.

From what I've seen, some of Randolph's other lines would be more approriate for you. "I hate this Constitution, This great Republic too" or maybe "For this 'fair land of Freedom' I do not care a damn" or possibly "I hates this Declaration of Independence too". Something along those lines.

[cowboyway]

Better property than freedom? Milton would smack you upside the head.

I'm bettin' Milton never lived like this:

That's an incredible display of hubris for someone who takes 9 words out of the letter and then ignores the rest of it in order to claim that Lee was opposed to slavery.

If you know anything about Lee you'll know that he was a reserved man. He wasn't prone to dramatic outpourings of emotion like, say, the French or yankees. Given that, the letter makes it clear that Lee was opposed to slavery.

Would you? Would you sell yourself, give up control over you life and future

Your reading comprehension is getting worse.

What did I say, NS? From post#1087: "I'd be willing to bet that there are people in Africa today that would trade years of servitude for life in America. "

People in Africa. See above photo.

You would do that? You Southron are truly a pathetic lot.

What's pathetic are your chronic and sophomoric attempts to spin the words of others and misrepresent what was actually said.

We all know that you think that you're being clever and so we just laugh at you.

[PeterPrinciple]

“I’d be willing to bet that there are people in Africa today that would trade years of servitude for life in America. “

---

I’ve been there and would agree. As a point of history many of our ancestors did such a thing.

[cowboyway]

Who was worse? Lee, who believed slavery was right? Or Lincoln, who believed it was wrong?

You gotta be kiddin me!?!

Lincoln didn't give a tinkers damn about the slaves and you know it!

Two words: emancipation proclamation.

And he only wrote that out of political expediency..................

[Non-Sequitur]

Looks like more of that Northern hypocrisy {Racism} to me

Everything looks like racism to you.

But by all means tell us what is racist about it? Lincoln was reaffirming his oft-stated position that his goal in the conflict was to preserve the Union. He repeats his position that he is opposed to slavery. He defends the steps he has taken against slavery. And he closes by making it clear that if Jeff Davis thinks that he can rejoin the Union and resume his slave ownership then he's sadly mistaken. Where's the hypocrisy, much less the racism?

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm bettin' Milton never lived like this.

Or like this:

But of course that's sooooo much better.

If you know anything about Lee you'll know that he was a reserved man. He wasn't prone to dramatic outpourings of emotion like, say, the French or yankees.

Not even to his wife?

Given that, the letter makes it clear that Lee was opposed to slavery.

Sure. My sister says that she would never and could never get an abortion. But by the same token she feels that such a decision should be between a woman and her doctor, and she's opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade or limiting a woman's right to choose. My sister considers herself to be against abortion. Other's would say she's pro-abortion. I would say she opposes abortion in the same way Lee opposed slavery; something he wouldn't do himself but wasn't about to let anyone say someone else couldn't do it. So would you say Lee was pro-choice or pro-life?

What did I say, NS? From post#1087: "I'd be willing to bet that there are people in Africa today that would trade years of servitude for life in America"

A lifetime of servitude for them and their children and their children's children. Let's be clear.

What's pathetic are your chronic and sophomoric attempts to spin the words of others and misrepresent what was actually said.

Then answer the question. Would you do it? Put yourself in that position in Africa and would you be clammoring to get onto that slave ship for a lifetime of bondage for you and your posterity? Would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln didn't give a tinkers damn about the slaves and you know it!

How many quotes from the man would you like showing otherwise?

Two words: emancipation proclamation.

Two words: 13th Amendment

And he only wrote that out of political expediency..................

He issued is as a military necessity. And it worked.

[central_va]

It is pretty clear in your mind, if the issue of slavery is moot, i.e. both sides equally rascist/ not-racist (which seems to me true, very balanced ) then the North's action towards the South become nothing but a brutal invasion by a Federal Army to "preserve the Union", hardly justifiable, but I would at least listen to your arguments then. I think if you actually could see that it was more than "all about slavery", you would go insane. The kool-aid you drank out of a Federal Boot was very tasty to you, it is clear. It's also clear from the contemporaries of the time, that even they were confused, but not you buddy boy, everything is cut and dry. If you had been in the direct charge of Lincoln, he would probably think you odd and dispatched you to server under Sherman the Torch. Even Lincoln had more tolorance than you.

It's not often I run across anyone so rigid in their thinking; it's altogether scary, arrogant and bullying (i.e. The Yankee syndrome). I can imagine somebody with these same "qualities" burning down a church in Ga. circa 1864 with a smile on their face. I now understand how something like that could happen. Thanks for the living "history" lesson FRiend.

[cowboyway]

So would you say Lee was pro-choice or pro-life?

Can't say for sure, even though one could make logical assumptions based on his character.

But I can say for sure that he was very pro-death...............for yankees. :~)

Would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?

See post 1047 for clarification.

[cowboyway]

How many quotes from the man would you like showing otherwise?

All that you care to create...........

Two words: 13th Amendment

10th Amendment.

He issued is as a military necessity. And it worked.

Wrong. Purely political.