Posted on 11/21/2001 6:06:07 AM PST by aomagrat
SUMMERVILLE (AP) (--) The Dorchester County Library Board is on the front lines of a fight to put a book refuting current history written about the Civil War on its shelves.
"The South Was Right!," written by Sons of Confederate Veterans members and brothers James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy of Louisiana, states the Confederacy had the right to be a free nation and most of what is taught in this country is false and misleading.
A crowd of about 50 people, mostly members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in St. George and Moncks Corner, pleaded for the board to approve the book Tuesday night.
Library director Mickey Prim is reviewing the book and is expected to make a recommendation to the board in about two or three weeks.
St. George resident Laren Clark said she tried six months ago to donate the book the county library but was told the title was too inflammatory.
"There is no reason for this book to not be in the library," said St. George resident Charles Moorer.
But board chairman Jim Neil asked the group if upon approval, there would be any objection to it being placed at the Summerville branch instead of the main library in St. George because of a space shortage.
Several audience members offered to supply shelves.
Tyranny is when you are governed and controlled by the lash and whip. When your wife or husband can be sold down river 'cause that's what massa want." When your children are ripped from your bosom and sent into the death fields clearing Mississippi swamp land or Louisian canebreaks. That is tyranny not some inconvenience you think you experience in the freest country which has ever existed.
Okay
It would have been rebellion unless the Congress would have worked out terms of separation.
A note on Edmund Randolph
The Constitution of the United States contains the following provisions:-
"No person held to service or labor in another State, under the laws thereof, escaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim ot the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
To the studious attention of those vandals who contend that the above provision requires the rendition of fugitive slaves, we respectfully commend the following resolution, which, it will be observed, was unanimously adopted:-
"On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word servitude was struck out, and service unanimously inserted - the former being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the obligation of free person." - Madison Papers, vol III, p. 1509.
In order to have a peaceful secession, a parting of the ways that was fair and equitable to all, you have to consider settling up the debts incurred in the name of all.
That is one reason the slavers bolted. They knew there was no way they could do that.
They clearly bolted, as the record conclusively indicates, to protect their interest in slavery. Loyal Americans opposed them on the basis that you simply can't walk away from democratic principles just because you lose an election. If a dissatified minority always feels like it can just withdraw when they don't like the way things are going, then people cannot be governed by democratic means.
That is why Lincoln's call for volunteers was met so enthusiastically in 1861. Many, many of those volunteers came forward because they thought they were living up to the standards of the Declaration of Independence. After all, what had the federal government done prior to 1860 that was intrusive or overbearing? Not a blessed thing. In fact, southerners had controlled the national executive and judiciary for decades. They had an effective block on any legislation they didn't like through their control of the Senate. When that lever began to fail them, they tried to bolt.
Loyal Americans, with a respect of the true ideals of democracy, stopped that.
In that sense, the war was fought by the slave holders to protect slavery, and by loyal Americans who refused to allow our democracy to be trampled in the ground.
I often ask this,, amnd it NEVER gets any play at all, and won't now.
Where in the history of the USA from 1776-1860 was the long train of abuses of the type that Jefferson speaks to in the D of I regarding "the present king of Great Britain"? It didn't exist. The slavers tried to rend the best government yet devised to promote and perpetuate humany slavery. Their 'secession' was both illegal and immoral. The record is clear.
Walt
Actually, you should admit that you haven't studied history. If you had, you would know a little about the issues leading up to secession. Your ignorance of Lincoln's actions during the war is appalling, as is your mindless support for his lack of regard for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
No one but God can judge what lies in a man's heart.
"I have not forgotten--probably never shall forget--the very impressive occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, ever been forgotten. In all, it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance on God. I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."
Abraham Lincoln
Letter to Eliza Gurney, September 4, 1864.
"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. Intoxicated with unbroken successes, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."
--A. Lincoln
March 30, 1863
I got this of of FR, but I didn't save the attribution:
"John McCain's assertion that he represents ``the party of Abraham Lincoln'' as opposed to the views of the ``Christian Right'' suggests he doesn't know nearly enough about either.
No other chief executive in this nation's history better personified vibrant faith or was more candid about his need for divine guidance than Lincoln, whose last official act before his assassination was placing the motto ``In God We Trust'' on all our currency.
Imagine if a president suggested that today.
Imagine if a president suggested today, as Dwight Eisenhower did in 1953, that ``under God'' be added to our Pledge of Allegiance.
The ``party of Abraham Lincoln,'' it says here, would embarrass Lincoln today.
``If ever there lived a president who, during his term of service, needed all the consolation and strength he could draw from the Unseen Power above him,'' Teddy Roosevelt once observed, ``it was President Lincoln. If there ever was a man who practically applied what was taught in our churches, it was Abraham Lincoln.''
Lincoln, like too few leaders today, possessed the courage of his convictions at a time in our nation's history when it was needed most.
``As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master,'' he said. ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.''
In his final public address Lincoln insisted, ``Important principles must be inflexible.''
If he said that today he'd surely get an argument. p> But would he be wrong?
Lincoln knew what he believed and why, and didn't shrink from it.
The ``Christian Right'' is comprised of men and women who also believe, as Lincoln did, that some things are not negotiable, indeed that certain truths endure to all generations and cannot be compromised, political correctness notwithstanding.
That's why the Secular Left had such a predictable field day with the aberrance espoused by fundamentalists at Bob Jones University, implying every conservative Christian bore responsibility for the school's policies, a charge as scurrilous as suggesting Father Charles Coughlin spoke for every Catholic or Rabbi Meir Kahane spoke for every Jew.
Faith in public life invites hostility these days, which is why political candidates are so timid in expressing it. But to run from faith in the name of Abraham Lincoln is laughable.
In the middle of the Civil War Lincoln confided to his secretary, ``I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction I had nowhere else to go.''
In 1863 he told a Baltimore audience, ``I have often wished I was a more devout man. Nevertheless, amid the great difficulties of my administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance in God, knowing all would go well and that He would decide for the right.''
When asked if he believed ``the Lord was on the Union's side,'' he replied, ``I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the right side. It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on His side.''
John McCain, of all Republicans, given his horrendous wartime experience, ought to identify with Lincoln's comforting confession to a wounded general at Gettysburg: ``When everyone else seemed panic-stricken, I went to my room, got down on my knees and prayed. Soon a sweet comfort swept into my soul that God Almighty had taken the whole business into His own hands.''
To run from the ``Christian Right'' out of fear of offending the Secular Left is a political decision McCain is certainly free to make. But to explain that separation by saying he'd rather be identified with Lincoln is to bring to mind another of Honest Abe's memorable observations:
``It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.''
[end]
Walt
"I am glad to see you so profitably engaged," said Speed.
"I am profitably engaged," replied Lincoln.
"Well," said Speed, "If you have recovered from your skepticism (of religion), I have not."
Lincoln replied, "You are wrong, Speed. Take all of this book upon reason that you can and the balance on faith and you will live and die a happier man."
Claims that Lincoln was an athiest or scoffed at religion or people who were religious are not supported by the facts.
So you have no problem with states withdrawing from the Union so long as they do it via an amemdment per Article V? That any secession attempt that breaches the constitution would not be a valid secession it would be a rebellion, is that about it or do you have more conditions?
But I say let them have it, if any of those inbreds can even read. I think a lot of libraries have copies of Mein Kampf, so why not this one?
That is a typical liberal argument, and total Barbara Streisand.
Historical knowledge is second nature to me having studied it extensively and intensively for decades. However, it requires almost no knowledge to refute the stream of misrepresentations and lies which stream from the keyboards of the Defenders of Slaveocracy. What passes for historical knowledge among yawl is a mismash of amateurish pseudo-history which fits the mythology you wish to promote to reality. Give it up it makes FR look very bad. Why not defend the Flat Earth Theory of the shape of the Earth, that at least is plausible on its face?
Lincoln might have been slow to come around and put an end to slavery, but he did it--which is more than you can say about any of the South's leaders--and it took more guts at that time than anyone in this day and age can imagine.
I find it funny how so many conservatives here speak disparagingly of Lincoln. Wasn't he the founder of the Republican Party?
To try and say that Lincoln was just as bad as the Southerners on slavery is just ignorant. When do you suppose that Jefferson Davis would have freed the slaves? Never. When do you suppose the South would have granted blacks citizenship and equal rights? I think we'd still be waiting. It took additional military presence just so blacks could go to the same schools and vote.
Southern "culture" and "hospitality" my @ss.
Bookstores, on the other hand, have no need to fulfill every niche group's need for books. They only need to have available what sells. I'm sure if you asked for the title to be ordered, it would be in your hands within a week or so.
Bookstores, on the other hand, have no need to fulfill every niche group's need for books. They only need to have available what sells. I'm sure if you asked for the title to be ordered, it would be in your hands within a week or so.
If you paid attention you would have seen my earlier listing the northern states which banned slavery, not that facts mean anything against arguments concocted on the fringe for the fringe.
Nope. This mistake is practically tought in the public schools, so it is common. The EM is clear, and can easily found with commentary on Google. Freed slaves in the south while slavery existed in the North. Note the timing also, the EM was well after the start of the war, and was simply a tactic of war.
The war for southern independence was about control and money, with slavery as an ignition source, IMO.
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.