Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
The answer to that question is obvious. Those four years saw a massive loss of human life. It was a traumatic event that pitted brother against brother and was followed by years of federal occupation and exploitation by greedy Carpetbaggers. The war was fought mostly on our soil so we remember it in a way that only a few Northerners do (folks around Gettysburg, maybe, but how much direct war trauma did most Yankee territories receive?). It's only reasonable that we would remember all this. It's furthermore only reasonable that as the federal leviathan (much of which is the legacy of the Union victory) continues to grow, that Rebel Flags and other symbols of rebelliousness would remain cherished.
As for these four years being a too narrow definition of Southern history, you may have something of a point. But what other aspect of the South would we be permitted to celebrate? We can't celebrate the period before the war because it was the SLAVE ERA. We can't celebrate the century after because it was the JIM CROW ERA. We can still (to an extent) honor Southerners who were among the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson, but the only reason that's still permitted is because the left hasn't yet completely broken through the Confederate firewall. If we completely gave up on defending Dixie, and said, "yeah, yeah, you're right, the Confederacy was an evil, racist slave empire and its symbols and leaders and soldiers aren't worth honoring," what do you think would happen?
In other words, are you aware of any time when liberals have won a decisive victory, and were satisfied with it? I'm not. They celebrate each decisive victory by using it as a base to launch another attack on some other American institution. So if we took down the Rebel Flag and raised the white flag, we wouldn't all live happily ever after singing Kum Ba Ya. The left would simply use the precedents established in their victory to go after Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and the American Flag. The fact that they still have us "Southrons" to contend with keeps them from yet being able to launch the full scale attack on our nation's very foundation.
And still furthermore, why do you think the left has launched this war against the Rebel Flag and Confederate history? Aside from the politics of it (it splits the GOP when cowardly Republicans tuck tail and run when confronted with the issue), why is the left at war with the Confederacy? Is it because they're deeply patriotic and are outraged that a section of America tried to secede? Nope, they aren't patriotic or pro-American at all. It's because the South is the largest conservative electoral vote base in our nation, so it has to be trashed. And it's icing on the cake for them if by trashing it they establish as gospel that any leader who supported slavery is evil and any flag that flew over slavery is evil, because they can then set their sights on the Founding Fathers and Old Glory down the road.
Is it really a question of the focus at Gettysburg being put on slavery, or just of slavery getting more attention? When I was there years ago as a child, there was a picture of slaves that you couldn't miss, but there was the usual "Some people say the war was about slavery. Others talk about state's rights ..."
When I was a schoolkid (1964-1976) we had plenty of discussion about slavery in history class. It was given the amount of attention it deserved. It was treated as an unfortunate event, a throwback to earlier times when slavery was universally accepted in an era when slavery was increasingly seen as oppressive and outmoded. But it was balanced by discussion of the many good things in our nation, and (horror of horrors) we were even told that many slaveowners treated their slaves very well and took care of them in their old age when they could no longer work. We were taught that there were dueling Biblical views of slavery, and that many thought it to be a great evil.
There is no similar treatment today. It's all slavery all the time. All evil all the time. You guys think we're obsessed because we want to celebrate Lee's birthday every year or slap a Rebel Flag sticker on a truck. Imagine how you'd feel if we dwelled on the Confederacy the way many blacks (and their white liberal masters) dwell on slavery. Some months ago I mentioned an article I saw where people were complaining that the audience for opera was too white. It was suggested that some new operas need to be written focusing on the horrors of slavery to attract a black audience. Can you imagine us doing anything like that? "I'd go to the opera, but only if I could hear a fat lady singing about the horrors of Reconstruction." And you think it's our side that's obsessed?!!
But however they handle the beginning of the war, I can't imagine that lecturing about slavery is really going to displace what happened on those three days in July 1863 in the displays and tours.
Maybe not, but given the fact that we're inundated with lectures about the evils of slavery, why do we need any more? It's just a constant browbeating and people get tired of it. Think about this. Among the many exhibits in the Smithsonian is one on crime & punishment. It highlights famous trials, spy cases, notorious murderers, etc. Should there be a special exhibit there focusing on the massive black crime rate over the past forty years? How about big letters and numbers showing that a white person is many, many times more likely to be raped or murdered by a black than vice-versa. What do you think would be the reaction to such a display? It would be absolutely true and historically accurate. Should the Smithsonian add it? What would be the reaction if they did?
As I said in a previous post: "Yankees are loud-mouthed, boastful, arrogant pieces of human dung. What's not to hate?"
You've been around here long enough so that you should have know that.
A straigtforward remark, that deserves a straightforward answer on my part. You want to know why I feel how I do about Southerners? Fear.
It goes back to my Navy days, my second division officer tour. The Captain, the XO, and the Supply Officer were all Southerners, from Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama respectively if memory serves. By order of the captain, every morning for breakfast grits were served. Every day, without exception. And also by order of the Captain, every junior officer would have grits with their breakfast. Every day, also without exception. And with the Supply Officer in on it there was a never ending supply of grits. I lived onboard the ship at the time so I had all my meals in the Wardroom and at every breakfast for almost a year I had this big, disgusting lump of grits placed in front of me. And I had to eat them. I tried them with butter, with salt and pepper, I tried to sugar them, tried them with hot sauce, mixed them with maple syrup, any which way possible, and they were still disgusting. And for every breakfast at sea, and many in port, either the CO, the XO, or the Porkchop was there to make sure we cleaned our plate. The Captain's reasoning for force-feeding us grits was that it would make a true Southener out of us. And oh how he tried. But about mid-way through my tour the Captain rotated out and the torture ended. Bastard ended up an admiral, by the way.
So that's why, cowboyway. I live in terror that all those grits might have a delayed effect and turn me into a Southerner after all this time. And so every morning for the last 30 years I try to locate that little bit of Southerner that's growing inside me. And when I find it, I tell it to say "Hey" to the boys down in Richmond. And then I flush.
Very funny. I love grits. Cheese grits are my favorite.
That is apparently your province rather than the GOP's.
In his First Inaugural Address he declared, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” He was championing the right of free speech here, but also the right of secession.
Actually what he appears to be saying, by describing their views as "error of opinion", is that let those who are crazy enough to suggest secession blabber on because reason will overcome their foolishness.
In a letter to James Madison in 1816 Jefferson reiterated his support of the right of secession by saying, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.”
The devil is in the details, in this case the words you left out. What Jefferson said, in context, was:
"The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
So apparently you are suggesting the South stood for "licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many..." An opinion I wonder how many of your fellow rebs share?
And what you also ignore is that in Jefferson's letter the decision to separate is clearly a mutual decision. One reached by both sides. Nothing in that could possibly be misconstrued to support the idea of unilateral secession, like that practiced by the rebel states.
Get off your high horse, kernel.
You yanks have been holding Lincoln up higher that Jesus Christ and as the years have passed he has become a northern mythological cult figure.
When some politically incorrect historians began to expose the inconsistencies between the real Lincoln and the mythological Lincoln portrayed in history books (written by northeast liberal yankees from Ivy League schools) you yanks attacked the messenger and anybody else that challenged the Lincoln mythology.
Then you have the utter cheek to become indignant and say that your 'reservoir of sympathy and goodwill has dried up'. Truth be known, you never had either. Patronizing is more the yankee style.
I don't know about the rest of my Reb brothers, but I don't want your f'n 'sympathy' anyway.
Words not found in a yankee dictionary: honor, loyalty, honesty, modesty, bravery, piety, independence, liberty...............
I promise you that if grits ever get in short supply it won't be because of me.
I'd wonder what the heck you would know about any of those?
It is you that has a narrow minded view of history. The north and South have been fighting in one form or another since the countries early beginnings. The War of Northern Aggression was the South's Thermopylae; a very defining moment.
The fact that you yankees don't get it is not surprising. You probably don't get Thermopylae either.
Μολὼν λαβέ
You mean that you actually know those words?!?
I get it! You have a Southern dictionary with you in your basement.
I promise you that if grits ignorance ever get in short supply it won't be because of me.
There. Fixed it.
I do have an English-Southron, Southron-English dictionary at home, and all those words are missing from it. Which is why I wondered what you would know about them.
I would agree with that too.
Go back and re-read it. Carefully.
Kind of makes you wonder about the mindset of a people who consider their high-point in history losing a rebellion, doesn't it? You'd think it would be creating the Constitution, writing the Declaration of Independence, or providing 4 of our first 5 presidents. But no, losing is their defining moment.
Yup, I can imagine there was a time when such a thing would have been scowled upon by my Pennsylvania ancestors, which include George Gordon Meade. I guess things are different now.
But have you noticed how this type of thread seems to pick the scab off a wound that's trying to heal? All it seems to take is one person showing disrespect to another's great-great grandparents and suddenly we're fighting amongst ourselves...
It's too bad, that's all. We've got real enemies to defend against, and breaking up into squabbling factions like this is counter-productive, IMHO.
As long as you and your posse are around there will be an abundance of ignorance.
If ignorance ever gets in short supply we can deduce that you have departed.
Not as much in abundance as when the Southron contingent gather.
If ignorance ever gets in short supply we can deduce that you have departed.
Finally figured where you went wrong the first time, huh?
Still up to your old tricks; taking a statement out of context and purposely rewording it to fit your agenda (you must have been a propaganda officer....), but yet you claim to know the word 'honesty'. You're just another yankee liar in the mold of Lincoln, Schumer, Obama, et al.
I said that the WBTS was a defining moment, not the defining moment. And the context was from a post by your butt buddy, x, that claimed that our total focus is on those 4 years, which is a typical yankee moronic statement.
More words not found in the yankee dictionary: ethical, integrity, honesty
Hey, thanks for that nice list of Southern accomplishments!
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.