Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.
They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.
On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.
The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.
It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.
In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.
But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.
One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.
To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.
After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.
They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.
This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.
But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.
They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.
According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.
Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.
The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.
However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.
White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."
Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.
Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."
Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.
I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.
In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.
Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.
So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.
Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic!
8pm/5pm - Chuck Muth Interviews Lori Waters from the Eagle Forum!
10pm/7pm - Tom Adkins is ON FIRE! If you have never listened to Tom, don't miss his show tonight and watch Tom slice and dice liberals! Tom has been called a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage and his shows are always intertaining and informative!
I'm willing to wait while you look. This should be good.
;>)
This is the 60th anniversary of the attack by units of the 8th air force on ball bearing plants in Schweinfurt, Germany.
Three hundred and twenty B-17 Flying Fortresses were dispatched. Sixty B-24 Liberators were dispatched. The Liberators were not able to make a proper rondesvous and were recalled. Two hundred and ninety one B-17's penetrated German air space.
The B-17's were resolutely and skillfully attacked by units of the German air force. Fifty-nine B-17's were shot down. One ditched in the English Channel. Approximately 35 German fighters were lost in the largest and most savage air battle to date.
Despite the savage and determined resistance of hundreds of German planes bombing results were excellent.
"The brunt of the attack fell solidly on the target area, with at least 100 separate distinguishable hits within factory confines. In addition there are four areas of heavy concentrations of bursts which partially blankey factories. A total of nine large fires are seen and one explosion is noted."
"Mission 115 on the whole, cost the Germans twice the destruction and damage inflicted by any other single attack of the war on the bearings industry, including a heavy blow the next year with more than three thousand tons of bombs."
-- "Black Thursday" p 218 by Martin Caidin
Walt
OK, it's on my to-do list. When I get around to it I'll go look and let you know what I find.
That presumes a conviction in either a court of law or in a properly seated military inquiry, and only then if the civilian courts were not operating. None of that happened in some 99% of all looting, rape, arson, and murder committed by Lincoln's terrorists. In Tennessee Hurst simply brutalized whoever was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. His succeeder Robert Milroy simply formalized the process by drafting their names onto murder lists and arbitrarily assigning medieval punishments to each of them.
Congratulations!
;>)
That presumes a conviction in either a court of law or in a properly seated military inquiry, and only then if the civilian courts were not operating.
Not during war, and not for belligerants. Besides, the Confederacy had the right to seize anything it wanted at anytime, so as an erstwhile supporter of that obscenity you yourself endorse it's legal prerogatives. Just be glad your ancestors didn't get hung by the Confederacy for desertion.
None of that happened in some 99% of all looting, rape, arson, and murder committed by Lincoln's terrorists. In Tennessee Hurst simply brutalized whoever was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. His succeeder Robert Milroy simply formalized the process by drafting their names onto murder lists and arbitrarily assigning medieval punishments to each of them
You are only complaining about the formal policies of the Davis Government from day one. If they didn't like it, your ancestors shouldn't have started it. You can always tell the truth in the mouth of a southerner once you realize that anything he says is a lie.
That at least is my reading. I don't think a state can pull a right to secede out out of the air or the "emanations and penumbras" of the 10th Amendment any more than one can pull a right to scoot away from mortgages, debts or contractual obligations of one's back pocket.
People will disagree about this. It's more a matter of readings and interpretations than of black ink on white paper. That's why it came down to war. A people can overthrow a tyrant, and arguably a country would be within its rights to cast off an ruinous treaty imposed on it. But the condition of the slave states in 1860 was very different from these cases. Moderation, prudence, good sense and a committment to processes that involved all parties were required, not emotionalism and a violent break with the Constitution.
The evidence I've seen is that the Framers of the Constitution wanted something more than a mere league of independent states, and that the rise of a national interest wasn't unwanted or unexpected. There was much freedom for the states to run their own affairs. The federal government was quite small, but nationhood was a reality and one cherished by those who had established it. They certainly didn't picture how their child would grow, but they didn't want to throttle it in the cradle. Of course there were Anti-Federalists who opposed such developments and complicated the picture.
Confederates and Unionists seem to be looking through different ends of the telescope. Confederatists seem to view the union or nation in light of today's giant federal bureaucracies. Unionists understand the sentiments of nationhood and their importance to Americans, and consider the dangers of disunity. These were very important concerns in the 19th century, though they might seem trivial now. It's because the union held that the idea of union has little appeal for us. If we were divided into many smaller countries perhaps hostile to each other, we'd have more of a feeling for the consequences of union and disunion. I don't underestimate the dangers and bad effects of bloated goverment, but the other side of the argument tends to get ignored.
Indeed during war and that includes POW's. Aside from them, non-combatants are generally considered off limits to as much of a degree as is practical and possible. That means the civilian southerners.
Just be glad your ancestors didn't get hung by the Confederacy for desertion.
Considering that no record exists of any of them deserting, I need not worry about that.
You are only complaining about the formal policies of the Davis Government from day one.
The Davis government did not burn their houses and murder them without cause or trial. The Lincoln government did.
If they didn't like it, your ancestors shouldn't have started it.
They didn't start it. Lincoln did when he invaded their homes and states.
I dunno, Mort. Perhaps you can look it up in your AFL-CIO handbook.
Did the states in question no longer have republican governments? Were they invaded? Was this a case of domestic violence? Just wondering.
Oliver Ellsworth, in the Connecticutt debates said,
I am for coercion by law -- that coercion which acts only upon delinquent individuals. This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity.Justice James Wilson said this in the national convention,
If the minority of the people of America refuse to coalesce with the majority on just and proper principles, if a separation must take place, it could never happen on better grounds. The votes of yesterday agst. the just principle of representation, were as 22 to 90 of the people of America. Taking the opinions to be the same on this point, and he was sure if there was any room for change it could not be on the side of the majority, the question will be shall less than ¼ of the U. States withdraw themselves from the Union, or shall more than ¾ renounce the inherent, indisputable, and unalienable rights of men, in favor of the artificial systems of States.In Federalist No. 6, Hamilton noted,
Even in those confederacies which have been composed of members smaller than many of our counties, the principle of legislation for sovereign States, supported by military coercion, has never been found effectual. It has rarely been attempted to be employed, but against the weaker members; and in most instances attempts to coerce the refractory and disobedient have been the signals of bloody wars, in which one half of the confederacy has displayed its banners against the other half. ... It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested through the medium of the courts of justice.In Federalist No.81, Hamilton observed,
It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. ... The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will.Time and time again, in the federal convention, in state conventions, in the Federalist Papers, and in the Constitution itself, the founders refused to grant the federal government the power to coerce a state by force of arms. They instead stated that it must be via the courts, and that the states could REFUSE to be a party.
Posting the exact details would simply provide you with my name, which I choose to withhold. But I have posted everything else, while you have posted nothing verifiable regarding the terms of service.
The records are contained in the Compiled Confederate Service Records, he served in 3 different units between May 1861 and 1864, when he was killed in battle near Atlanta. I still don't understand why you dispute that he was a volunteer, or that his term were not 3 years. This is from the CSA Provisional Act of 28 Feb 1861,
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President be authorized to receive into the service of this Government such forces now in the service of said States as may be tendered, or who may volunteer, by consent of their State, in such numbers as he may require, for any time not less than twelve months, unless sooner discharged.
i didn't think you really meant "seems", unless it was some sort of a play on words.
free dixie,sw
today, be butler would face a international war crimes tribunal & hang for his CRIMES.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
you're on a roll, FOOL.
PLEASE keep posting this NONSENSE. YOU too serve the TRUE CAUSE of dixie LIBERTY, by showing the REVISIONIST,ignorant, lying,racebaiting, anti-semetic, south-hating, arrogant,self-righteous damnyankees to be the creeps, cretins & charlatons that you demonstrably are.
free dixie,sw
ALL powers not explicitedly given to the federal government by the states, remain as powers of those states & the people.
secession was/IS lawful.
no amount of REVISIONIST, statist LIES can change that.<P.free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
could it be that it is the nature of the damnyankee AND the DIMocRAT to lie as it is the nature of a serpent to slither?
free dixie,sw
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.