Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed
St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: crackers; csshlhunley; dixie; dixielist; fergithell; guintamafiarag; hillbillies; hlhunley; losers; neanderthals; oltimesrnotfogotten; oltimesrnotforgotten; pinheads; putthescareinthem; rednecks; scv; submarine; traitors; yankeeangst
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 1,901-1,915 next last
To: sheltonmac
Total garbage.
421 posted on 10/02/2003 2:54:27 AM PDT by Fledermaus (I give up. If our conservative leaders won't stand up and fight, why should we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
REMEMBER FORT PILLOW, the massacre at which was led by the truly dispicable Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Forrest murdered at least one person in cold blood. Hard to make a hero out of that, but some will still try.

The neo-rebs deny that a massacre occured at Fort Pillow, but there is no doubt one took place.

"He [Gen. Forrest] then swung down toward Memphis, assaulted and carried Fort Pillow, massacring part of its garrison, composed wholly of negro troops. At first I discredited the story of the massacre, because in preparing for the Meridian campaign, I had ordered Fort Pillow to be evacuated, but it transpired afterword that General Hurlbut had retained a small garrison at Fort Pillow to encourage the enlistment of the blacks as soldiers, which was a favorite political policy at that day. The massacre at Fort Pillow occurred April 12, 1864, and has been the subject of congressional inquiry. No doubt Forrest's men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest's possession, that he was usually very kind to them. He had a desperate set of fellows under him, and at that very time there is no doubt the feeling of the Southern people was fearfully savage on this very point of our making soldiers out of their late slaves, and Forrest may have shared the feeling."

_Memoirs of W.T. Sherman, 1990 LOA edition, page 470.

From a letter to his family by Sgt. Achilles V. Clark of Forrest's command, written a few days after the massacre. The original is in the Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville:

"The slaughter was awful--words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded negros would run up to our men, fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but then were ordered to their feet and shot down. The white men fared but little better." Incidentally, Clark wrote that he and others tried to stop the butchery, only to find that "Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued."

However, another Confederate soldier, Samuel H. Caldwell, wrote to his wife a few days after the massacre "If General Forrest had not run between our men & the Yanks with his pistol and sabre drawn not a man would have been spared." To support this, Brigadier General James R. Chalmers, CSA, who was Forrest's second-in-command "similarly claimed to a Federal officer on April 13 that he and Forrest had `stopped the massacre as soon as [we] were able to do so'. He further explained that their men `had such a hatred toward the armed negro that they could not be restrained from killing the negroes after they had captured them.'"

Walt

422 posted on 10/02/2003 3:05:38 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Central_Floridian
I am not a neo-confederate, but if I recall my Civil War history correctly the Union armies had a very tough time defeating the Southern armies.

Myth.

The rebel armies had no major success outside Virginia excepting Chickamauga.

And the great Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it.

The main western Union army pretty much drove the rebels before it throughout the whole war.

Don't forget that the insurgent area was 10% larger than the loyal area. Even in 1865, observers in Europe were saying that the north could not conquer the south.

Walt

423 posted on 10/02/2003 3:09:07 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Which ones were brought in at gunpoint? Which states were forced to join the union?

Which ones joined without consent of the other states? Which ones were granted dispensation from abiding with the Constitution?

424 posted on 10/02/2003 3:38:48 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
I'm familiar with that map. It shows that the majority of Klan chapters are in the south, doesn't it?
425 posted on 10/02/2003 3:52:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Knowing him, it was probably as voluntary as staying in the union.

Supporting evidence is usually more effective than disgruntled opinions. I'll take that to mean that you have no evidence to support your claim.

426 posted on 10/02/2003 3:54:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
I believe he said something to the effect that if he could keep the union without freeing a single slave, he would.

And in the same letter he said that if he could keep the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would.

427 posted on 10/02/2003 3:55:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
The answer of course is simple: When a government becomes destructive to the means for which it was established, they refuse to allow you to walk away.

Put the southern states didn't even try. They walked out without discussion, without negotiation.

Thus there are no enumerated powers to the government concerning secession...

And nothing in the Constitution supporting the idea of unilateral secession.

428 posted on 10/02/2003 3:58:24 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Source? Non-Sequitur, the world's greatest (or at least it's most obsessive) authority on Jefferson Davis.

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Law in nature tells us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be." -- Jefferson Davis, March 1861

Source "Look Away: A History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis, page 137

429 posted on 10/02/2003 4:01:13 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
That makes no sense, plus it is loaded with inaccuracies.

Where?

430 posted on 10/02/2003 4:04:50 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"And in the same letter he said that if he could keep the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would."


So, basically what he's saying is that he is somewhat ambivilous,and simply wants to keep the union together.
431 posted on 10/02/2003 4:06:09 AM PDT by bk1000 (one of these days I simply MUST come up with a decent tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: archy
Not Texas, which petitioned for admission but which action was never acted upon by the US congress.

So you're saying that Texas wasn't a state prior to the Civil War?

432 posted on 10/02/2003 4:07:06 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
So, basically what he's saying is that he is somewhat ambivilous,and simply wants to keep the union together.

What President Lincoln said was that his purpose in the war was to save the Union. But let him speak for himself.

Executive Mansion
Washington, D.C.
August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

433 posted on 10/02/2003 4:10:21 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
as usual, you are posting KNOWING, hatefilled LIES!

And as usual, you are clinging to fals information in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

434 posted on 10/02/2003 4:11:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
why don't you post the pictures of them DIS-honoring the CROSS of JESUS CHRIST & the Star Spangled Banner too?

There are others here that do that, trying somehow to claim that the U.S. flag is the official flag of the Klan. I'm merely pointing out that they seem to use, or rather, misuse the confederate flag as well.

435 posted on 10/02/2003 4:15:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
AND he wanted to drive EVERY Indian OUT of the USA and/or KILL us all.

Crap.

436 posted on 10/02/2003 4:17:06 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

Comment #437 Removed by Moderator

To: x
>> It's folly to think that the Constitution contains an implicit right to break the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 8, and Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution enumerates specific powers and prohibitions for the general government and the states. It provides NO specific power to the general government to prevent secession, nor does it specifically prohibit the states from seceding. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, that power rests with the states.

438 posted on 10/02/2003 5:18:09 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
>> I see you have swallowed the historic disinformation line of the Democratic Party, hook line and sinker. Don't let them pull on it too much, it will be uncomfortable.

Nonsense. The northern states refused (some by legislation) to enforce the fugitive slave law -- a clear constitutional requirement. In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear that he believed the current amount of enforcement (or lack thereof) was sufficient. Further, there was no power given to the general government authorizing force against a state, nor any prohibition against a state from seceding. Lincoln completely ignored this. I repost the following from another thread:

In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, there was a proposal for a clause "authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent state". James Madison, in opposition, stated, "The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound". The clause was not adopted for inclusion in the constitution. Therefore, though it was considered, there is no constitutional power authorized to the general government to use force against a state.

The disinformation has come from the rewriting of history to label Lincoln as something other than the usurper he was.

439 posted on 10/02/2003 5:28:43 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
For the most part the states didn't enter anything freely or voluntarily. They asked to be admitted. They gained statehood only with the approval of the majority of the other states. In fact, the Constitution does not require any input from a territory at all for Congress to make a state out of it. Since they owed their admission in the first place to the approval of the other states then why shouldn't that permission also be necessary to walk away from the agreement?

That makes no sense, plus it is loaded with inaccuracies.

Where?

I read your statement out of context. I retract my previous comment

440 posted on 10/02/2003 5:33:52 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 1,901-1,915 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson