Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
How tragic that such a man was blind to the evil he served when he could have done so much good in helping remove that evil. Had he stayed with the Union the Slavers' insurrection could have been ended earlier with the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives.
But Jackson's tragedy, like all tragic heroes, was that he was blind to the realities of the political world. Blindly following the path of destruction as surely as Oedipus did.
I expect the DSers to start claiming the Jews actually fought the allied troops coming to the camps to liberate them.
But I hear they want to replace it with a moose.
The Jews were not under the protection of the Nazis. If the Nazis had evacuated the country clearly any and all Jews desiring to escape would have done so. Lastly, the Southern people did not round up blacks, put them into concentration camps and gas them to death.
Again, MILLIONS of able-bodied blacks left behind would have easily escaped if such was their inclination, or raised up in revolt against their masters. That they did neither is a testament of their friendship and devotion, and refutation of the relationship that yankees continue to attempt to paint.
Mrs. Stowe spent much time in Florida during her declining years and became more fully acquainted with her brother in black. She found him less desirable than she once thought. An intimate friend of hers is quoted as saying, in her own words, and of her own great book, "That story had its origin in the brain of a romantic girl, fired by the stories told by my father and my uncle. I did not know the negro then, or it would never have been written [empahsis in original]." An able editor and devoted friend of the black race, in commenting upon this declaration, sagely remarks — "In the harsh attitude of her old age, when she is said to have reached a point where she would not allow a negro to do anything for her, she was about as far from really knowing the negro as in the romance of her youth." And he is surely correct.Imagine that, a yankee racist </sarcasm>
John R. Deering D. D., Lee And His Cause Or The Why And The How Of The War Between The States, New York, NY: The Neale Publishing Co. (1907), p. 109
LOL! I don't think so, justices are certainly infallible. But in this case I'm QUOTING the legal opinion of two FOUNDERS - those men that debated and wrote the Constitution.
Your selection of quotes from them in any case is likely totally different than you pretend unless you have changed your cherry picking methods of deception.
Prove it.
Post 666 BUMP
Yeah, tell it to Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner and all the others who tried. What was the function of armed slave patrols again?
And let's not forget that whenever a slave did manage to escape to the north, there was a slave owner demanding that the forces of the law return him to bondage. At least when a Jew escaped Nazi territory, the Nazis didn't go to court to demand his return.
Imagine that, a yankee racist
Nice use of the non-sequitur. Shall I post some examples of southern racism? I've got lots. And pictures, too.
What are you, about twelve years old? Or one of the old geezers, standing around the cracker barrel going on and on about Northerners and "outside agitators." In any case, that's not an especially adult remark for an American today.
Your quotes about Stowe have all the fishiness of those attributed to U.S. Grant. "An intimate friend of hers is quoted as saying, in her own words, and of her own great book ... An able editor and devoted friend of the black race, in commenting upon this declaration, sagely remarks ...": that sounds a lot like the rhetoric of anonymous -- perhaps fraudulent -- denunciation.
I can't say what Stowe's attitude to Blacks in her old age was, but I do know enough not to trust unattributed denunciations. Based on his text, I'd have to wonder what Deering's own attitudes towards African-Americans were. Beyond that, Stowe was more complex than her detractors admit. She was never a simple South-basher in the way that you are simply a North-basher:
“A day of grace is yet held out to us. Both North and South have been guilty before God; and the Christian Church has a heavy account to answer. Not by combining together, to protest injustice and cruelty, and making a common capital of sin, is this Union to be saved -- but by repentance, justice and mercy; for, not surer is the eternal law by which the millstone sinks in the ocean, than that stronger law, by which injustice and cruelty shall bring on nations the wrath of Almighty God.” Harriet Beecher Stowe
Unfortunately, for you, the Treaty of Paris is quite clear.
Stomp your feet and yell all you want. Funny, though, that you used the same words as the treaty in denying what it says.
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Your imagination knows no bounds. According to Stephen Ambrose in his book "Nothing Like It In The World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad" the land in question was owned by Norman Judd. Lincoln's only connection was that he loaned the money to Judd, who was a legal and political associate. Your tale is very colorful, but unsubstantiated.
What you said was:
Since citizenship was granted through the federal government it did create a new people, the America people. One could not even be a citizen of a state without first being an American. States were subordinate in ALL important matters to the federal constitution. -- Fakeit
Now you're saying something different, presumably because what you originally said, highlighted above, is patently false. Why not just fess up? So important is it to you that you be right all the time, even when faced with the lunacy of what you posted twice now?
The perhaps you should have said that the school resumed under Jackson. Your claim that he 'started' it makes it sound like something he established which is nowhere near to being true.
Contrast that to Lincoln, who wanted to deport/expatriate blacks from the states.
And Jackson and Lee, of course, wanted blacks to remain right where they were, as property. Something to be bought and sold. Lee said slavery was necessary and the best condition for blacks in the south. Jackson himself owned slaves, seeing nothing wrong with selling some to buy property or in buying children as young as 5 to be trained as household servants, and is on record as saying that slavery could well cause a conflict between the sections and that he would come in on the side of slavery. It would be impossible to say that either man had the best interests of blacks in mind at any time.
As to Mr. Lincoln's religious views, he was in short an infidel, was a universalist, was a Unitarian, a theist.
And there are numerous other quotes attesting to Lincoln's belief in God and his reverence for the Bible, more evidence of faith for Lincoln that for Jefferson Davis. But I digress. You criticize Lincoln for his religious beliefs, unorthodox as they may have been. Lincoln did not believe the same things men like Lee and Jackson did. He faith was different, that is true. Lee and Jackson, for example, believed that slavery was ordained by God. They believed that it was His will that human beings were bought and sold like animals, and neither man had any real problem with it. Jackson believed that since God ordained slavery then it was God's job to end it, and that no mere mortal should take any steps to hasten it's end. Lee believed the same. Lincoln, on the other hand, could not accept that God promoted slavery so he was opposed to the institution all his adult life. So why is a belief that God wanted men to be bought and sold as chattel, to be treated as something less than human any better than Lincoln's doubt in many of Christianity's tenets?
Jackson owned as many as 9 or 10 slaves at a single time. Some became his property through his second marriage to Anna Morrison, some he bought prior to that marriage, and some he bought after he married. One he bought was a four year old orphan, who Jackson thought Anna could train as a ladies maid. Jackson sold two or three to buy a house for his new bride. Heck of a guy.
Hey!
Sorry to enlighten you, but 1/2 of the country disagrees.
Interesting you would say slavery crippled "intellectual abilities".....Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, John Calhoun, Roger Taney, and the list goes on and on.......all of these men were slave owners, and intellectual giants.
Your argument doen't hold up.
It is no small wonder you worship your "God" Lincoln.....
Is that the reason you forsake your native Arkansas?
(For the "Land of Lincoln", no less)
You are in NO position to call anyone a clown, Sir.
You haven't made a lucid argument yet, other than to adulate and fawn over Lincoln, Pontifex Maximus. If we Sir, are traitors, then YOU are a traitor to the Republic that was originally founded.
When do you take YOUR place on Air America Radio?
(a perfect position for a staunch Unionist like yourself)
If Jackson had lived, you would be reading a much different story.....He would have whupped some major Yankee *ss......
So you are claiming one could be a citizen of a state without being an American citizen?
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.