Posted on 11/22/2001 6:21:25 AM PST by rebel
Nathan Bedford Forrest
|
November 19, 1863 Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
|
||
| It is Thursday afternoon on a cold and overcast day as Mr. Abraham Lincoln rises to deliver a short speech which will later be called "The Gettysburg Address". A large crowd has gathered to witness the dedication of a cemetery in lower Pennsylvania near Gettysburg. It is an impressive occasion with several dignitaries from Washington D.C. including the President of the United States of American (US). The cemetery is a new one created for the soldiers of the U.S. who died in a great and momentous battle here last July. The U.S. is at war with the Confederate States of America (CSA). They had previously been united in a union with the states of the CSA, but when that union proved to be disadvantageous to the rights and well fare of the people in certain Southern states they instructed their state governments to secede from it and to form another. This new union became the CSA. Mr. Lincoln, the president of the old union fearing the loss of revenue due to the loss of these former members plunged the Southeastern North American continent into the bloodiest war in history in an effort to force these former states back into the old union. The main speaker is a famous orator and prominent politician from Massachusetts by the name of Edward Everett. Mr. Everett has spoken for two hours and enjoyed a thunderous applause. Mr. Lincoln is not on the program as a speaker, but is invited to say a few words because he is the president of the U.S. Lincoln has jotted down a few words on the train ride to this small town in case he is asked to speak. He will speak for a very few minutes and utter 300 words in all. There will be a faint applause as he returns to his seat yet his speech will be preserved with reverence for generations and be elevated to the status of holy scripture. This short speech will be filled with lies and strange logic. The New York World will speak of "Lincoln's gross ignorance" when discussing the address. The Chicago Times (a paper which Lincoln will later close) will call it a perversion of history, and other newspapers will refer to it as "the silly remarks of the President". Lincoln will make several historical errors which will later become "gospel" in the government schools of the US in less than 50 years. The “address” will express Lincoln’s political thought and redefine the cause of the War. It will become one of the most potent examples of propaganda for the promotion of an egalitarian socialist global empire ever devised. Some of its errors will be, . . . 1. He will date the forming of the United States government from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 instead of the Constitution of 1787. He will also try to make the "declaration" the philosophical foundation for the government, instead of the Constitution. 2. He will call the war a "civil war" instead of a war of independence. 3. He will call the war a struggle for the US existence. However the U.S. would not cease to exist when the South won independence any more than great Briton ceased to exist when the 13 colonies won independence. The U.S. was not in danger of dying. It was the CSA that was in danger of dying and was fighting for it existence. 4. He will say that this war is for the preservation of "government of the people", while denying the authority of the "government of the people" to the South 5. The overall teaching of his speech will be that Union soldiers died at the Battle of Gettysburg for the cause of self determination, when actually the Union soldiers fought against self determination of the people of the CSA. Jim Schoolfield |
The legislation in regard to freedmen may be briefly epitomized in a few paragraphs.
North Carolina: March 10, 1866, an act was passed declaring that one eighth part of African blood constituted a person a negro. It provide that , so soon as jurisdiction in matters relating to freedman should be committed to the courts of the state, negroes should have all the privileges of white men in the prosecution of suits, and be eligible as witnesses in cases involving heir own interests. It extended the criminal laws to all persons, making no distinction in punishment except for rape, which, if committed upon a white female, was made a capital crime for a black. It legalized marriages contracted during slavery. All contracts, to which one of the parties was a colored person, for the sale or purchased of any home, mule, jenner, ass neat cattle, hog, sheep, or goat, whatever the value, and in the case of other articles contracts involving the value of ten dollars, were declared void, except when made in writing, and witnessed by a white person who could read and write. :Marriage between whites and blacks were forbidden.
Mississippi: - November 22, 1865, an act was passed to regulate the relation of master and apprentice relative to freedman. It provided for the apprenticeship to suitable person, former masters being preferred, of all freemen under the age of 18 who are orphans, or who are not supported by their parents, or bound in the case of males till the age of 21, and to the age of 18 in case of females. Power was given to the masters to inflict moderate corporal punishments. Where the age of freedman was uncertain, it could be fixed by the judge of the country clerk.
November 24, 1865, the vagrant act was passed.
Section 2 provides that all freedmen, free negroes a mulattos in this state, ever the age of 18 years, found on the second Monday in January 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment of business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either in the day or night time, and all white persons so assembling with freedmen, free Negroes, or mulattos, or usually associating with at free woman, free negro, or mulatto, shall be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of net exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free negro, or mulatto, fifty dollars, and a white man two hundred dollars, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court, the free Negro not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months.
Section 5 provided that all Negroes failing to pay an fine or forfeiture imposed should be hired out, or, if that were impossible, should be treated as paupers.
Section 6, provided that a tax not exceeding one dollar should be levied upon every negro between the ages of 18 and 60 to make up a 'freedman's pauper fund."
November 25, 1865, an act was passed to confer civil rights upon freedmen.
Section 1 provided that All Negroes might sue and be sued, and acquire personal property, but should not be allowed to rent or lease any lands or tenements except in incorporated towns and cities, in which place s the corporate authorities be the controlling powers.
Section 2 provided for the intermarriage of negroes, the clerk of probate to keep separate records of the same
Section 3 declared intermarriage between whites and negroes a felony, to be punished by imprisonment for life.
Section 4 gave Negroes the right to five testimony in cases where Negroes where plaintiffs, or defendants.
Section 5 provided that on the second Monday of January, 1866, every Negro must have a lawful home of employment , and must have either a license to do irregular and job work, or a written contract for regular labor
Section 6 provided that negroes quitting the service of employers without good cause before the expiration of their written contract should forfeit their wages.
November 29, 1865, an act was passed prohibiting negroes not in the military service of the United states to "keep or carry arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife." Upon conviction for this event, the penalty was a fine of ten dollars and a forfeiture of the weapons. Section 4 of this act provided that all the penal and Criminal laws in force in that state 'defining offense and prescribing the mode of punishment for crimes and misdemeanors committed by slave, free negroes, or mulattos," were thereby re-enacted , and declared in full force as against freedmen.
Georgia - December 17, 1865, negroes were made competent witnesses in cases to which freedmen were parties, and marriages between person of color were legalized.
March 12, 1865, all vagrants or persons leading an immoral or profligate life were made subject to fine, imprisonment, or forced labor for one year, or to bound out for one years in apprenticeship.
March 17, 1865, it was enacted that person of color should have the right to make and enforce contracts, to use an be sued, to give evidence,to inherit, purchase, lease, sell hold, and convey real and personal property, and that they should not be subjected to any other or different punishment for the commission of any offense than such as were prescribed for white persons committing the same.
Alabama, - December, 1865, a bill was passed "making it unlawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of color to won fire-arms, or carry about his person a pistol or other deadly weapon," under a penalty of one hundred dollars fine or three month's imprisonment.
December 9, 1965, it was enacted that negroes an mulattos should have the right to sue and be sued, and to testify in cases in which negroe were parties.
Early in 1866, Governor Patton vetoed three bills. One of these provided for the regulation of contracts with freedmen, for which the governor though no special law was necessary. "Information" said he, "from various part of the state shoes the Negroes are every where making contracts for the present year upon terms that are entirely satisfactory to the employers. They are also entering faithfully upon the discharge of the obligations contracted. There is every prospect that the engagement formed will be observed with perfect good faith. I therefore think that special laws for regulating contracts between whites and freedmen would accomplish no good, and might result in much harm.": He also vetoed a bill extending the criminal laws of the state (which were applicable to free persons of color) to freedmen. The bill applied to the freedmen a system of laws enacted for free negroes in a community where slavery existed. "I have" said the governor "carefully examined the laws which , under this bill would be applied to the freedmen, and I think that a mere recital of some of their provisions will show the impolicy and injustice of enforcing them upon the negroes in their new condition" Govern Patton also vetoes "a bill entitled an act upon the Negroes in their new condition.": Governor Patton also vetoed "A bill entitled an act to regulate the relationship of master and apprentice as related to freeman, free Negroes and mulattos," because he deemed the present laws amply sufficient for all purpose of apprenticeship without operating upon a particular class of persons.
I'm glad I did not grow up in a feudal society ruled by landed aristocrats accustomed to bossing people around.
I'm glad I don't have to scratch a subsistance out of some burned-out piece of land, especially knowing I'd give the better half of my labor to the aristocrat.
In short, I hail Lincoln and the liberty he brought. I think we should finish the project and expunge Washington of all Democrats--they have always served the interest of the Southern planters.
But in 1861 your movement saw it as the primary reason for trying to illegally secede from the country. I have no doubt that none of you want to see slavery reestablished, but you seem to be trying to ignore that which was so important to your movement 140 years ago while at the same time trying to paint Lincoln and the North as the sole villains. I'll oppose that every chance I get.
On the other hand, one thing that has not changed is the effort of people who get money from government to support a a strong central government with increasing power, free of any firm constraints on the exercise of its power.
2. He will call it a 'civil war' instead of a rebellion. Rebellion would have been more accurate.
3. Acutally the United States would have died, torn apart by a rebellious section engaged in an illegal act.
4. Read some of the compromise proposals offered by Toombs and Davis in 1861. No interest in 'government of the people' in those. More 'government of the people so long as the southern states agree'.
5. The Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union. The southern soldiers fought to destroy it. Simple as that.
Actually, the proportions are very much the same. The unique events of the Civil War only by chance let into power in Washington a unique set of men who did believe in the notions of the founders, and who were enabled, by the absence of the southerners, to control Washington long enough to let freedom ring enough so that a hundred years later, the promise was able to come true.
On the other hand, one thing that has not changed is the effort of people who get money from government to support a a strong central government with increasing power, free of any firm constraints on the exercise of its power
John C. Calhoun when asked how the South could manage to control the country for so many decades when Northern Democrats objected to slavery: "The consensus of the plunder of the public purse." Thaddeus Stevens caused a bit of row one day by simply pointing out the plain unvarnished that Southern Democrats were in fact traitors, and Northern Democrats were 'parasites.' After strenuous objections and a rush of dozen democrats to get at old Thaddeus which was stemmed by the mere presence of Roscoe Conklin, they retook their seats, and Thaddeus agreed to change the word 'parasite' to 'satelite.'
Great moments in the House.
It was some of the states deciding that they no longer wanted to be part of the United States. Just like the 13 colonies had earlier decided to no longer be part of Britain. There was no "illegal" conduct. Read up on jus gentium.
Some of the Union states had slavery - were you aware of that? Only during the war did Lincoln change his mind about slavery.
Final question: pre-Civil War: some 100% free, some 100% slave. Now: all are taxed equally at rates that make every one of us 50% slave. How is this an improvement?
One question I always have about this sort of thing is what nature of country do latter day Confederates think there ought to be these days? I certainly decry the constant infusion of power to the Federal Government. I personally think the only thing that alters that is really loud, sometimes threatening protests that force the godless to toss us the occasional bone.
However, there was a sort of glue that sealed the big picture in 1865. If modern Confederates had their way, obviously, that would never have happened. Yet we wouldn't have had two nations ultimately. Didn't Georgia threaten to secede from the Confederacy in 1864 or 1865? Maybe eventually, Macon County would have had to secede from Georgia. And so on and so on. This could have been played out all over the continent. Is that a good thing?
If you think so, you must really feel encouraged by the liberal tactics of these days. The folks like Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) want to do everything in their power to balkanize this continent to the nth degree. They are slowly succeeding. At this rate, the first new nation won't be called the Confederate States of America, but the affect will be the same. You'll have Latin Noth America in a large part of the old US. California will likely need to be split in two. You can have Liberal Land in the North East. We can likely think of at least two or three other ways to split this baby up. The best part is, however we split it, it will only be the beginning.
To me there isn't any part of US history more interesting than the Civil War Era. What I like about it is it was an ERA that produced great people, giants really, on both sides. I suppose if I could wave a magic wand, there are some aspects of it I would like to revisit and change. Since I can't do that, I will continue to take refuge is some of the great thousands of stories that came out of the area, some tragic and some exhilarating.
Lincoln took liberties that were theoretical abuses of power. He DID want to win. I wish people who hate him would tell me what they would have done differently if they were in his place.
It was some of the states deciding on arbitrary secession. It was illegal. Read up on Texas v. White.
Some of the Union states had slavery - were you aware of that? Only during the war did Lincoln change his mind about slavery.
You're new here, aren't you? Obviously you have never read any of these civil war forums before. Of course I knew that some of the Northern states were slave states. Four to be exact - Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. When West Virginia was admitted with a constitution that allowed some slavery that made 5. I also know how many southern states were slave states - 11. As for Lincoln, he was personally against slavery before and during the war. He also recognized that he lacked the authority or the political support to do anything about it until well after the war began.
Final question: pre-Civil War: some 100% free, some 100% slave. Now: all are taxed equally at rates that make every one of us 50% slave. How is this an improvement?
Lincoln enacted conscrition and an income tax. Jefferson Davis did all that, too, with levels of taxation far higher than anything Lincoln ever proposed. Davis enacted forced levies on farm produce for the war effort and conscripted personal property in the form of slaves to work for the war effort for free. What makes you think, given this beginning, that the south today would have been any better that the United States today had the south won?
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.