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.
I'm sorry, I thought you wrote "...if any of those inbreds can even read"
And "Southern "culture" and "hospitality" my @ss."
It's possible that it might not have. We'll never know.
Thank you. What I've been saying all along. With the point that the Proclamation was released on Sept 22nd, Lincoln gave the South 90 days to come back in the Union without loss of slaves. If the South had done so, I feel Lincoln would have allowed the passage of the original 13th Amendment since he did not want to be painted with the 'abolitionist brush'.
But all that proves is that Lincoln was willing to rejoin the Union with slavery intact and possibly any elections that might have elected abolitionist politicians would have gone a different way.
My point is Non with all that being said, the war was not(I will concede after 1863 to you) started over slavery
The facts are obvious, no need for schoolbooks.
Lincoln was an unrepentant scoffer and an atheist at the time of his death. Wait and see for yourself when you reach the other side.
Yeah, we'll see where the man who put "In God We Trust" on our money ends up.
"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861
You're right in a way. For the North it was never about slavery.
You and your boyfriend, #3 make everyone from Illinois look like ignorant loudmouths, but if that's what you two like to do, go right ahead. You aren't bothering me at all.
You're welcome to start--or rather continue- on me. ;-)
Walt
All you have left is to try and create some form of moral equivalence between those fighting to maintain the Union (and thereby the greatest nation in history) and those pledged to destroy it (to legitimize the tyranny the Slaveocrats maintained over the blacks and poor whites (who were nothing but doormates under the heels of the Masters.))
This is the same childish argument one gets when a teenager is caught doing wrong "But he did even worse..."
Even the most ignorant can't deny that the North was vastly preferred by blacks fleeing tyranny over staying in reach of the whip, lash and chains offered by the Slaveocrats.
Thus, one dumb thing after the other comes slithering out of their lyin' orifices. It is more fun than watching the Simpsons.
Of course, you are one of the stars when it comes to Defenders of Slaveocracy bilge delivery. Though you can't come close to LadyJD in the ignorance and stupidity catagory keep trying.
Texas is a bit of a special case since it had a seperate existence as a sovereign nation something none of the other states ever had. Even the states of Virginia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, and Georgia had no right to secede since the Union was created to be perpetual. There are arguments for their right to secede which are based on false premises and historical untruths. These are refuted on every one of these idiotic threads but the Defenders of Slaveocracy never allow logic and truth to stand in the way of their lies.
The other states rebelling were created by the U.S. buying their territory from other nations and thus, had even less pretensions to the right to secede.
Just see what Andy Jackson thought about this "right" or Madison.
Article IV, Section 1 says the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which state acts shall be proved and their effect.
Thanks a lot for voting Dem for 120 straight years supporting the likes of Wilson and FDR.
Do you realize that Virginia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, and Georgia all were members of the confederation of sovereign states called the United States of America created long before the the drafting of our current constitution in 1789?
When these sovereign states signed the constitution, they did so under the authority of the existing state government constitutions, which in many cases specifically reserves the right to withdraw.
I have seen no where that state constitutions were vacated at the signing of the constitution, is that what you contend?
Check out New Hampshire and Texas, which of course signed on later.
Or do you concede the point that Texas has/had the right to seceed?
LOL You're the posterboy for ignorant loudmouthing.
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.