Posted on 02/03/2010 8:57:04 AM PST by cowboyway
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (S.C.V.) is a fraternal organization composed of male descendents of the men who served in the Confederate Armed Forces during the War for Southern Independence. Their emblems include the controversial Confederate battle flag. Their core responsibility is articulated in a charge given to them by Lt. General Stephen D. Lee which calls on them to defend the heritage, honor, and reputation of the Confederate soldier and the Cause they fought for.
The Cause they fought for was individual liberty, state's rights, the original Constitution and the right to secede. In essence, Confederates fought an aggressive Union which would not allow the states to exercise an accepted right of secession. This right had been exercised by all the original states when they withdrew from the government of the Articles of Confederation, and entered the present day United States of America. Further, the Tenth Amendment reserved all powers not addressed in the Constitution to the States and people respectively. And lastly, the new union was formed as each individual state entered the union.
(Excerpt) Read more at nolanchart.com ...
March 21, 1861 -- CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856: "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..."In other words, black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.
1. It’s not known who owned the slaves Julia Grant had around. She stated they were freed “at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation,” not by it, as I stated in the earlier post. This was sometime between August, 1862 and January 1, 1863.
2. Lee freed the slaves he had control of on 29 Dec. 1862.
It is quite probable “Grant’s” slaves were freed before Lee’s. Or at much the same time, anyway.
You seem perfectly willing to make excuses for Lee delaying the freeing of more than 1000 slaves in his control, but cut no slack for Grant, whose control of four was at best marginal.
Nobody has ever claimed Grant was a fervent abolitionist. But then neither was Lee. It seems likely their attitude towards the institution was rather similar, although AFAIK Lee never made a great financial sacrifice to free a slave. Grant did.
Here’s a quote from a letter Lee wrote to his wife in 1856:
““ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
Sounds to me like Lee was not in any hury to get rid of the institution. Ready to put off abolition to the presumably distant future.
Very late in the war - January 1865 - Lee wrote the following on that subject:
"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population. "
Lee's opposition to slavery was tepid at best.
At least the Honorable Lee didn't follow after your horrendous,Conduct Unbecoming an Officer,torturous act's by your Union buffoons.
Jefferson Davis writing to General Robert E. Lee
We find ourselves driven by our enemies in their steady progress towards a practice which we abhor and which we are vainly struggling to avoid. Some of the military authorities of the United States seem to suppose that better success will attend a savage war in which no queer is to be given and no sex to be spared. For the present we renounce the right of retaliation on the innocent and shall continue to treat the private enlisted soldiers of General Pope's arny as prisoners of war, but if, after notice to the govenment in Washington, these savage practices are continued we shall be reluctantly forced to the last resort of accepting war on the terms chosen by our foes, until the outraged voice of the common humanity forces a respect for the recognized rules of war.
You are therefore instructed to communicate to the Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States the contents of this letter — to the end that he may be notified of our intention not to consider any officers hereafter captured from General Pope's army as prisoners of war
You mean winning?
Jefferson Davis writing to General Robert E. Lee
General Grant writing on William Sherman:
"Sherman is not only a great soldier, but a great man. He is one of the very great men in our country's history. He is an orator with few superiors. As a writer he is among the first. As a general I know of no man I would put above him. Above all - he has a fine character - so frank, so sincere, so outspoken, so genuine. There is not a false line in Sherman's character - nothing to regret."
If you feel that attacking civilians is necessary - In order to Win. With all due respect to General LEE - He should have stepped down.
Shelby, Forrest or William C. Quantrill - may have had the stomach to Rape and Pillage the Yankee populace. I don't it though. They should of hired the German and Italian mercenaries first. Befriended Marx before Lincoln planted his lips on Marx's man toy.
If war is fought by your standards, We will always be second place. Murder of noncombatants in not our cup-of-tea.
If you feel that attacking civilians is necessary - In order to Win. With all due respect to General LEE - He should have stepped down.
Shelby, Forrest or William C. Quantrill - may have had the stomach to Rape and Pillage the Yankee populace. I don't it though. They should of hired the German and Italian mercenaries first. Befriended Marx before Lincoln planted his lips on Marx's man toy.
If war is fought by your standards, We will always be second place. Murder of noncombatants in not our cup-of-tea.
"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"
In this case, the soul of the nation and that is the point of the article that I posted.
Lincoln's war was the first step in centralizing the powers of the federal government which was opposed by the Southern states citing the 10th Amendment. Lincoln ignored the 10th Amendment (and many other parts of the Constitution) in his quest for power which eventually led to the monster that is growing at an exponential rate in the nations capital today and threatens to 'enslave' an entire nation.
You and yours seem to prefer this form of totalitarian government but there are those of us, just as in 1860, that are against the continued centralization of power in Washington and the point of the article is that if there were more people like us, rather than you and yours, with a seat at the table then perhaps we could avoid a repeat of the first War of Northern Aggression.
But, sadly, as long as the non-sensicals of the world exist that will never come to pass.
Of course he would have. Then I take it that you view men like Curtis LeMay or Arthur Tedder as vile criminals along the lines of William Sherman?
Delusional to the very end.
And you are stuck on the river of denial.
A) you admire Lincoln
B) you constantly post that 'we won' referring to the War of Northern Aggression (doesn't our current president make this very same boast?)
C) Lincoln and out current president were/are large, central government proponents
Conclusion: IF you admire Lincoln and believe that the best thing that could happen to the Constitution was a northern victory in the War, THEN you are a centralized big government proponent and, obviously, an Obama supporter.
Or not blessed with your vivid imagination.
A) you admire Lincoln
True. And you hate everything about him. So what?
B) you constantly post that 'we won' referring to the War of Northern Aggression (doesn't our current president make this very same boast?)
The South lost their rebellion. Deal with it. Sorry if the truth offends you.
C) Lincoln and out current president were/are large, central government proponents
I'll grant you the current president but your claim that Lincoln was a large, central government proponent on the level of Obama is flat out ridiculous.
Conclusion: IF you admire Lincoln and believe that the best thing that could happen to the Constitution was a northern victory in the War, THEN you are a centralized big government proponent and, obviously, an Obama supporter
And there is where you drift back in to Lost Cause Fantasyland again.
it sounds like you have a wonderful family history. The SCV headquarters is in an ancestral family home of my family. I think both sides fought courageously for their land, their families and their honor and we should let them rest in peace.
Pretty pathetic,you are.
Do you support the bombing of Japan?
D!CK Sherman would take that price. Just for the simple fact that his kin were also maniacs - Insane asylum ring any bells? The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!
Pretty pathetic,you are.
Do you support the bombing of Japan?
D!CK Sherman would take that price. Just for the simple fact that his kin were also maniacs - Insane asylum ring any bells? The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!
You are one to talk.
Do you support the bombing of Japan?
It helped end the war without an invasion and possibly saved hundreds of thousands of lives, so yes I support it. I assume that you do not? Or are you just mad that the U.S. won?
Just for the simple fact that his kin were also maniacs - Insane asylum ring any bells?
So now you're mad because a lunatic beat you?
Whoa,nasal voiced Yank
“So now you're mad because a lunatic beat you?”
Why don't ya - Load up your Toyota Prius, 5th Ave high heels, Jackson five album, and just remind us about that beating!
Whoa, slurring Southron accent.
Why don't ya - Load up your Toyota Prius, 5th Ave high heels, Jackson five album, and just remind us about that beating!
Back to dreaming you won the rebellion?
Did I mention anything about The Cause? Nope.
I pointed out what is obvious to everyone that reads your pompous postings: that you are a Big Government blowhard.
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.