Posted on 04/05/2005 11:27:48 AM PDT by Crackingham
Confederate heritage groups got excited when Gov. Bob Riley's annual proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month dropped a paragraph saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The groups were pleased because they consider that description of slavery historically inaccurate. Their excitement, however, was short lived.
"It was a mistake," said Jeff Emerson, the governor's communications director, on Monday. He said he did not know how the mistake was made.
Emerson said the governor was unaware of the deletion until The Associated Press contacted his office. The governor quickly reissued the proclamation with the paragraph on slavery restored, and posted it on his Web site.
"That makes Bob Riley look very inconsistent and inept," said Roger Broxton, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund.
State Rep. Oliver Robinson, House chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, was pleased that Riley withdrew the version of the proclamation that makes no mention of slavery.
"To me, the members of the Black Caucus, and the majority of black citizens of Alabama that would be a disgrace," he said.
For many years, Alabama governors have signed proclamations designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. When Riley became governor in January 2003, he used the same proclamation as his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.
It contained a paragraph that says "Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "
Ditto, I am sure needs your support and encouragement, so I will answer your question.
"Even the Congressional Republicans had recognized that slavery posed no real threat in the territories, when, early in 1861, they provided for the organization of the new territories of Colorado, Nevada, and Dakota without any ban on slavery."
The point is that the expansion of slavery as a cause of conflict between the sections was a Constitutional argument and not an argument of intent. It was blown way out of proportion to the realities of the time.
"He could have added Colorado, Nevada, Montana, the Dakotas, Arizona, New Mexico --- all states founded around mining."
How many slaves were being used in those states?
You're the one avoiding the rebuttal. If the claims are so weak you should be able to respond to them.
And Lincoln was trying to send food to the fort. But y'all decided to start a war instead.
THE MESSAGE WAS DATED APRIL 7, 1861. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT FOOD WAS PROVIDED. THE DAVIS REGIME ORDERED FOOD SHIPMENTS ENDED ON APRIL 2.
No, I said it was in danger of starving, which it was. Anderson had warned of a dwindling supply of provisions in his reports to Washington. His last report stated that he had would have to surrender in a matter of days, a couple of weeks at the most, if he was not resupplied. Your deliberate misinterpretation of Hall's memo doesn't change that fact.
This cessation of food supplies would provide cover for Washington, enable the Naval expedition to appear to be humanitarian in nature, and protect the military in case Anderson surrendered.
But the Davis regime decided on war instead.
None --- thanks to Abe Lincoln, the Republicans, and the 13th Amendment!
Bawk, bawk, bawk.
The primary dissimilarity is that Johnson immediately consulted with Congress to get a statement of approval. Lincoln did not. He usurped the power of the Congress and Judiciary.
You and your little pals want to constantly argue the minutiae of the events leading to war. You only have to look so far as the US Congress and the Federal Judiciary as the cause of war.
They failed in their responsibility to govern according to the work of the Founders. Selfish, greedy,ill-willed politicians, not worthy of the stature of their predecessors, failed to control Lincoln and the rabid Republican party. If you are proud of that, wear it.
You, sir are 100% correct. Were you privately educated?
"No, I said it was in danger of starving, which it was"
No again. It was in "danger" of running out of food. They had bought from Charleston before (as documented by the memo from Lt. Hall), and could again.
As Baldwin told Lincoln, they would both feed and fight if necessary.
No, responding in kind. You started yelling in reply 158 and I thought that you had gone deaf and wanted to make sure you heard me.
Trying to divert attention from the fact that the Lincoln administration caused the food to be stopped?
All Lincoln did was insist on holding on to the property of the U.S. It was the south that took steps to force surrender. And when that didn't happen then they went to war.
"Bawk, bawk, bawk."
Which is your non-seequitur-speak for "Crap, I don't have an answer for that!"
"You, sir are 100% correct. Were you privately educated?"
Well, my comment has created more of a stir than anything else I ever posted. One thing I've learned is there is more revisonism than I ever imagined.
My education is from a public university, but I was a non-tradional student, (older). So I may have paid more attention than the typical student.
Or of Jefferson Davis, who realized that without Virginia, who had rejected secession on the first vote, his little cotton state slave nation had no chance of vialability. He had to force the issue to get Virginia on his side.
But you know what? The south, for all practical purposes, was removed from the country's economy in 1861 and for many years later and none of that happened. Tariffs actually went up post war. The south never again achieved the percentage of exports that it accounted for before the rebellion, never even came close. And the sky did not fall, the country did not collapse, the U.S. economic engine grew and expanded continuously for decades. So how do you explain that?
By his and Seward's vacillation and by sending the fleet under Fox to Charleston, he both created an artificial crisis and a military solution...a Gulf of Tonkin in Charleston harbor.
Any confusion was caused by the southern representatives, who decided that Seward spoke for the Administration when, in fact, he did not.
The primary dissimilarity is that Johnson immediately consulted with Congress to get a statement of approval. Lincoln did not. He usurped the power of the Congress and Judiciary.
Nonsense.
They failed in their responsibility to govern according to the work of the Founders. Selfish, greedy,ill-willed politicians, not worthy of the stature of their predecessors, failed to control Lincoln and the rabid Republican party. If you are proud of that, wear it.
Lordy it's getting deep in here. If anyone was perverting the work of the Founding Father's it was the southern leadership with their "If I don't get my way I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude. That they would use a valid, Constitutional election to unilaterally walk out is in no way in keeping with the intentions of the founding fathers. They walked out to preserve their sacred, bloody institution of slavery, to make it clear that in their view the tyranny of the minority was the only way to preserve the Union. They were out to preserve their chattel for all time, and to hell with the rest of the world. That is the south you are so proud of.
Actually they were supposed to be chicken noises, since you were running away from the question, but the spelling is problematic.
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.