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.
Yes, tell us again about your great aniti-slavery leaders for the North. It wasn't Grant or Sherman, they were to the right of Lee on the issue.
By the way...when are you planning on paying reparations? Send your first check straight to me, every Southern person should support and call for reparations for the North's role in the slaveocracy. You should be ashamed, and you should have to pay. I am soooo tired of the North being self-righteous on this issue.
Likewise, my collectivist friend. The hive needs diligent little worker bees such as yourself in order to flourish. You, sir, are to be applauded. It is difficult, even in this forum, to find such strong devotion to the state.
Yassa, you know so much. Thank you for coming down heah and saving us and burning down our homes and such. Thank you for freeing the slaves the second you came down. Wait a minute. You didn't free anybody did you? Wait a minute, slavery was still allowed in northern occupied territories of the South because Mr. lincoln thought it would be unconstitutional to free slaves in the United StateS. But if he thought it would be unconstitutional to do that, why what would he have done if the South had not seceded? Let's see from his own words
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—Hmmmm... he said this in 1861 before the War, only a month before the War. Guess he wasn't so all fired up to free the slaves then, what caused him to have a change of heart? Well in 1862(and I shouldn't have to point this out to a what was it in your words, a MAN WHO KNOWS HISTORY AND HISTORICAL LIES), the north had begun to lose interest in the war. Believe it or not, if you would bother to read the papers of the time, the northern editors that lincoln hadn't shut down began to rail against the war. British(remember the country the United StateS seceded from?) and French papers were reporting the abuses lincoln was effecting. So lincoln, himself who was quoted that he didn't want to be painted with the 'abolitionist brush'(his own words, but you knew that didn't you?) gained support for the abolitionists to continue the warI have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
Now this shouldn't be hard for even you to understand. Look at the Emancipation Proclamation. LOOK AT IT!! The document was released on Sept 22, 1862 and only went into effect if the Southern stateS did not return to the union. Basically, slavery would still be constitutional and accepted by lincoln. That's not a lie, that is exactly how the document reads. If it was over slavery, could you tell me, exactly why lincoln would allow the South back into the Union with slavery still intact?
But you're a smart man, you figure it out
Didn't John Wilkes Booth believe and act on this same premise?
They can't carry every other silly book and not this one.
Certainly it is a scandal that the book wasn't reviewed and criticized more widely. The marketplace of ideas relies on full public scrutiny and criticism to separate truth from falsehood.
Speaks volumes about those who shoot others in the back, also.
Have at it. I, too, would be interested to see just how an underfed, ill-equipped army of cowards staved off Lincoln's invading juggernaut for four years. I would also be interested to know how the war would have turned out if the armies of the South stopped being cowards and took their vengeance out on the civilian population like Sherman did in his march to the sea. Yeah, they don't make brave soldiers like that anymore.
You're delusional, lady. Lincoln was an atheist and a scoffer at religious people. You really should go back and try for an education. It appears that you spent many years pursuing education and that you've had a very extensive indoctrintation inflicted upon you instead. I think you've been defrauded. Get a lawyer.
Imprisonment in a pre-emptive move to prevent a crime.
Please, be careful what you are calling an 'excellent move.'
When your stupid arguments are shot full of holes then the name calling starts. Such an appellation is just as incorrect as your historical knowledge and political theory.
Your conception of history is as accurate as your description of my sex. I know you are proud of that 12th grade diploma (or is it GED?) but really it doesn't qualify you to dispute with those who have actually studied REAL historians as opposed to the Crackpot Top Ten.
Human rights did not even exist for the black third of the south even freedmen were subject to outrages of every imaginable nature.
Yet, you prefer to whine about some of Lincoln's tough measures necessary to impose on traitors. Typical hypocrisy by Defenders of Slaveocracy.
Don't stand next to me on Judgment Day please. :^)
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.