Posted on 02/26/2005 9:53:22 PM PST by SmithL
Hi Cyborg.
:-)
How have you been? Long time no type.
I'm okay. How are you?
This is a speech given in 1910. It's pretty fascinating reading.
Cyborg, I found the bookmarks. Go to your profile then click on the links tab. :-)
With Bob Byrd in the Senate from WV, I'd like to know if he's still a member of the KKK.
Busy Busy. But at least it's a job. :-)
Speaking of which, back to work I go.
TTYL
I note that in the second to last photograph the supposed black C.S.A. veterans are relegated to the back of the group - even behind what appears to be a white Boy Scout (not a Vet) at the left end of the front row. Did all the black women in the picture also serve under the Stars and Bars? The C.S.A. version of the WAC's?
I note that in the second to last photograph the supposed black C.S.A. veterans are relegated to the back of the group - even behind what appears to be a white Boy Scout (not a Vet) at the left end of the front row. Did all the black women in the picture also serve under the Stars and Bars? The C.S.A. version of the WAC's?
It wasn't about slavery per se. It didn't matter what the particular precipitant was. The fact was that the South was being smeared in the North, and in the four way division at the polls in 1860, a purely sectional party--entirely non-Southern had captured the Federal Executive. What were the "smears" against the South, that the plantation owners held slaves? That the slaves who refused to accept slavery were often treated with incredible cruelty? I daresay that if I held you in the kindliest form of slavery imaginable: requiring little or no work from you, feeding you "three squares a day", seeing to your health and welfare, allowing you to go where you please, and demanding only that you acknowledge my ownership of your person and the "fact" that all your "privileges" have been granted by me, you would find that situation truly intolerable and rebel. Haven't you seen the pictures of slaves with there backs covered with layer upon layer of scars, or the photographs of slaves shackled and collared for the hideous offense of attempting to run away to freedom? Or are you a Holocaust denier in your spare time?
If you are not aware of the viciousness of the Abolitionist assault on their fellow Americans, read Daniel Webster's comments on the same: Webster Address. I am surprised that you cited this Webster extemporaneous speech, not because Webster was pro-abolition "Yankee" (in the original sense of that word), but because it defeats more of your argument (i.e. that the looming Civil War was not primarily about slavery) than it supports. Yes, as a stickler for law and Constitution (as then construed), Webster was not happy with the "illegal" excesses of the abolitionists. When we read the rest of the speech, however, we learn that when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, Southern lawmakers unanimously agreed on the principles of no extension of slavery North of the Ohio, elimination of the slave trade and no expansion of slavery into the territories (all of which would in Webster's time become the very "bones of contention" for Southron hotheads who believed that the aforementioned principles had been "imposed" on them by Northern abolitionists). Indeed, Webster in this speech you so happily cited speaks of a new wave of Southern enthusiasm for slavery which coincided with the a massive increase in the popularity of cotton fabric in the US and other countries, and the resultant expansion of the plantation system to meet the higher demand for Old King Cotton. (Parenthetically, for the longest time it was an article of faith amongst the Henry Steele Commager-era historians that had it not been for the Yankee ingenuity of Eli Whitney in inventing the cotton gin, slavery might have died in the South long before the Civil War.)
Now, since you choose to use the words of the consummate Yankee to bolster your arguments, I will go you one better as to your contention that slavery was not at the root of the Civil War. The citation is from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. How anyone can read this, or any of the other Confederate state declarations, for that matter, and conclude other than that slavery was (at the very least to the Confederate States) the "root" cause of the Civil War, defies logic as the ancient greek philosophers taught it.
BUT those FEW were the EXCEPTION rather than the rule.
free dixie,sw
frankly, i get really tired of refuting the same old (TIRED) lies from the damnyankee REVISIONIST propaganda machine.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Why bless your heart! You aren't one of those who believes "Gone With the Wind" is a documentary now, are you?
free dixie,sw
It will take you to the "Black Confederates Heritage" page.
And here's another site for Black Confederates.
In all fairness few of the hard core southron contingent hold up "Gone With The Wind" and documentary-level material. Now "Gods and Generals", on the other hand...
Yes the South talked about the slavery issue, in seceding. That was because it was attacks on them over the slavery issue, that led to their perspective--and I believe correctly--that the Abolitionist fanatics had induced a sizeable group in the North to turn their back on the fraternal affection that had brought the new Americans together originally, and that that group were ready to betray an honorable commitment to the principles of the Union. [The compact had taken slavery off the table as an issue. But suddenly there were those who insisted on putting it back on the table.]
The angry Southern rhetoric--angry in that it ignored the deep philosphic question, that had been freely discussed in the South in earlier generations--was in response to dishonorable behavior on the part of many Northerners--not a majority, by any means, but a loud and growing minority. As Webster explained, in the speech, I gave you the link for; that actually strengthened the institution in the minds of the men who were being insulted.
And some of those insults were in the form of deliberate violation of Federal Law, adopted pursuant to the Constitution, to protect Southern rights.
The test is not whether you or I agree with the institutions in another State. The test is whether you or I keep our honorable commitments. And the South had some reason to believe that the North was not going to continue to do so. Were they right? We will never know now, but the 600,000 brave Americans (on both sides) taken out of the American gene pool, was a terrible ongoing price to pay for fanaticism.
William Flax
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.