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.
And what an impotent party it would be without southern conservatives, which you love to bash.
So much for the 'slavery only' rouse as the cause of the war.
From NARA.gov
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.
Also has image and transcrpit of original EM.
That's an interesting way of putting it. At any rate, i think the 13th and 14th amendments took care of the rest. I still wonder when the confederates would have granted such rights to blacks, had they prevailed. I think it would still be worse than apartheid South Africa.
The EP was more than just a "tactic of war". Lincoln was taking a pretty big risk, as far as alienating those Union states that still had slavery.
We could go back and forth all day re the reasons the war was fought. I would say "all of the above". I hate to think what the world would be like today had the Union not been preserved. We'd probably all be speaking German right now.
Joseph Lewis quoting Lincoln in a 1924 speech in New York: " The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by the joining of the Free Soil Party with abolitionist elements of the Democrat and Whig Parties. They called themselves Republicans because of their commitment to equality and their close idealogical ties to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. In 1856 John C. Freemont was the first Republican Candidate for president. He was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan.
I think everyone has to admit that the political parties have pretty much traded names--a conservative southern republican today resembles an old southern democrat a lot more than an old northern Lincoln republican--and vice versa.
The Lincoln bashing you see here pretty much confirms this.
True enough.
My assertion is that Lincoln acted outside his authority.
Ahh...dreaming if the South had won its independence. Probably would have allied with the Brits along with the North. I wonder what taxes would be like? The size of the central government?
The fate of the slaves is the one aspect that bothers me. Slavery is/was abhorrent. The United States of America was late abolishing slavery, and the states located in the Southern region contributed greatly to this delay.
As I indicated earlier Slavery was not legal for most of the states in the north. Should you really care you could compare the number of slaves in the North to that of those in the South. But such a comparision would make your ignorant comparision look even more ignorant and cause you to face even more facts to explain away. Probably no more than 2% of slaves were owned by non-southern owners.
So, your position is that the Southern states did not have the legal authority to seceed?
I suggest you read the New Hampshire or Texas state constitutions. Both states clearly retained the right to seceed. There are other examples.
Would the U.S. and the confederacy ever have allied together with anyone? You assume friendly relations between the two countries and I doubt that would have happened. Look at the revolution. Relations between the U.S and the U.K were strained through most of the 19th century. Confederate independence won through war would have led to an armed border, large armies and navies and probably more wars down the road. Alliances. Its more likely one side side would have allied with the British and the other side would ally with the French or Germans or anyone else as an offset.
As for what it would be like considering the precedent set by Davis in conscription, income taxes, forced government levies on agricultural products and slave labor I doubt that it would have wound up the small government, low tax paradise you imagine.
So where Missouri, Deleware, Kentucky, and Maryland part of the accursed Slaveocracy? They remained in the Union throughout the duration of the war while maintaining legalized slavery. Why jump all over the South? It seems that if the War Between the States were fought over slavery, Lincoln's first order of business would have been to eradicate slavery from the North before invading the South.
Along the same lines, why didn't his Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves in the North? Most Lincoln defenders would say, "Well, because slavery was still constitutional and only a constitutional amendment could have outlawed it." If that was the case, how could his proclamation affect the slaves in the South? "Well, the South was in rebellion." But according to the Northern invaders, the South never left the Union in the first place. If it had, it would have been a sovereign nation, and Lincoln certainly did not recognize the sovereignty of the South. The end result was that Lincoln's actions affected states still under the constitutional umbrella of the United States, and therefore his Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional as far as the rest of the country was concerned.
In other words, if the South was indeed a sovereign nation, the proclamation meant nothing. If, on the other hand, the South was merely in rebellion but still under the authority of the U.S. Constitution (as Lincoln believed), the proclamation still meant nothing. The unconstitutionality of Lincoln's actions are apparent no matter how you look at them.
Make that "So WERE Missouri, Deleware, Kentucky, and Maryland..."
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.