Posted on 02/27/2006 6:14:47 AM PST by SuzyQ2
I love history. I’m proud of my Southern heritage. But for me to be angry to the point of protesting a moment in Southern history that happened nearly a century-and-a-half ago would be just, well, nonsensical. And would in some ways tarnish that heritage.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
That is the problem...honouring that past has been under whithering attack for about 15 years now. An attack designed to defelct from real more serious reasons for problems in certain communities and to be exploited for identity based political gains.
These fights were unheard of in my youth. You (and others) mistake defending my ancestry with other things
As far as I know, Davis was headed to Texas, not Mexico, but I could be wrong. I think some on the Western front held out hope of continuing the fight as long as Davis remained free. From Confederate Major General J. Bankhead Magruder to his Texas troops on May 10, 1865 [published in The Galveston Daily News, May 12, 1865; bold font is mine]:
Soldiers! Once more I say, let us be united, determined and defiant. Our President is doubtless on his way to the Trans-Mississippi Department. The Flag of the Confederacy will be kept proudly flying. Brave men, from every Confederate State, will rally to its support and swell your ranks.
The enemy cannot send half his force against you in the Trans-Mississippi Department, and whilst you are giving him a warm reception, opposing him at every step, your brethren beyond the Mississippi will again rise in their might and wage a battle, which will force the enemies' troops from this Department, to recover the territory which he occupied but had never conquered.
...the war will be renewed with greater vigor than ever, upon the soil of Virginia, South Carolina and their sister States, made sacred by the blood of a hundred thousand brave men...
My regards to you too Sir.
My apologies too as it was my great grandfather, not my grandfather (as I posted) that fought in the Civil War.
Many of his brothers also fought in Civil War as did many on my mother's side of the family. Some fought for the North and some fought for the South. There was never much discussion of it by my Father and only a little by my Mother so I do not know how many of them died in battle. I do know that my greatgrandfather died at Andersonville and is buried around Evansville, Indiana.
They foisted an unnecessary war upon this country that killed 500,000 men and gave the centralizers the chance they needed to change our way of government. The only positive was the end of slavery. Which would have occurred anyway.
I fault Davis for authorizing the attack on Fort Sumter. Better to shower the fort with food so as not to give Lincoln an excuse to come South.
As I remember, Davis went back to Mississippi before the state seceded and tried to talk the state government out of seceding. Once he saw the futility of changing the state pols minds, he made a long speech to the US Senate of January 10, 1861, that presented a lot of arguments justifying secession. In that speech he asked that the North let the South go in peace with the same rights they had coming into the Union.
I feel secession was not outlawed by the Constitution. You and I probably disagree on that.
I think Lincoln's actions precipitated the war, and he deserves more blame than Davis. He could have chosen peace, but his actions seem to have been calculated to bring war about.
With respect to the centralizers and the freeing of slaves, we agree.
We don't agree about Sherman. What was it Sherman said about the need to exterminate the Southern people? That hits close to home as all my ancestors were Southern. Sherman basically looked the other way while his troops robbed and stole their way through Georgia and South Carolina. Contrast the behavior of Sherman's troops toward civilians to the behavior of Southern troops under Lee when they went North. Sherman's troops come off decidedly second best in that comparison.
Well...said and for what it's worth....I am ambivalent about Davis historically.
Well said.
free dixie,sw
a MILLION people died as a result of his folly & POWER-hungry escapade.
free dixie,sw
the legislature FAILED in their mission to tell the IDIOTS & PC-fools "where to go".
otoh, i LIKE the current location of the flag, BUT we should also fly the THIRD NATIONAL flag over the dome of the statehouse AND in the two legislative chambers.
free dixie,sw
If you are not seeking to satirize the issue by an absurd statement, you have embraced a totally outlandish concept. No one can rationally justify a government composed of opportunistic outsiders working in conjunction with previously socially ostracized natives, exploiting uneducated illiterates, arbitrarily enfranchised by outside conquerors, under any concept of good Government. The fact that up until Reconstruction, the South had been largely governed by followers of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Calhoun, tells us a great deal about what you apparently mean by "best."
For more rational folk, interested in a Conservative Northern perspective on the issues, involved, here:
Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today.
William Flax
as late as the day before the so-called "compromise" there weren't enough votes to do ANYTHING!
then the "chamber of commerce crowd" got involved (that bunch of spineLESS cretins were afraid of a boycott of SC.)& the politicians FOLDED!
free dixie,sw
The people that I talked to about this were hardly spineless.
Nor were they particularly afraid of a boycott from the NAACP - for the simple reason that they knew the boycott would fail.
As did Benjamin Disraeli when he passed the Reform Act of
1867, they wanted to control the compromise, to pass it on their terms - and they wanted to drive a wedge between the NAACP and members of the black community who supported the compromise.
The day before the vote, there might not have been votes to pass the compromise, but everyone around the State House knew that the compromise was going to pass, it was merely a question of the margin of victory.
my staff & i "polled" the members less than 24 hours before the vote & we "had the votes" to do NOTHING.
free dixie,sw
So you prefer the previous government which institutionalized torture, rape, murder, and disarmament based on the color of a man's skin?
Like I said, Sherman was wrong. Grant was wrong. We should have killed off the entire nest of traitors, root and branch. Instead, by a too lenient peace, we let KKK thugs take over half the country and lay the foundation of unconstitutional gun control.
At least Lee freed his family slaves in 1864. When Grant was willed a slave, it took him less than a week to free the man. Lee, was, to put it kindly, more tardy.
Lee freed HER slaves (which was UNlawful. you cannot sell your wife's/husband's SEPARATE property here in VA, then or now! VA has ALWAYS had both CURTSY & DOWER rights for women.) BEFORE the WBTS, rather than in 1864. Lee was an ABOLITIONIST!
had Lee been anyone else, he might well have been charged/tried/convicted/jailed for his CRIME!)before the war even started.(as George Orwell said, "some pigs ARE more equal than other pigs".)
manumitting HER slaves caused him a GREAT deal of MARITAL STRIFE as they desperately needed (Robert E. Lee was so poor that her parents routinely sent the couple "care packages" of dried beans, lard, flour,corn meal & other staples, so that they could feed themselves & their children. fwiw, in those days the military services paid the officer corps VERY little. officers were EXPECTED to have INDEPENDENT means.)the money that she might have gotten had she sold HER slaves.
next time, CHECK your FACTS.
free dixie,sw
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.