Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
The principal at a Fayette County middle school has banned all clothing with the confederate flag emblem...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsbtv.com ...
Actually, those are the facts.
It is Confederate revisionist history that has distorted the truth of what the Confederacy was for and why it attempted secession.
Now, how did the legal election of Lincoln (despite his name not being allowed on Southern ballots) threaten the individual rights of the South?
The only one who had a right to revolt were the slaves.
The South split its own Democratic Party over slavery when Douglas refused to grant the South the right unlimited access to any State no matter how that State voted on slavery.
Even though Democrats voted on both sides of the issue on Tarriff's, it was slavery that broke up first the Democratic Party and then the Union.
And yes, the battle itself was bloodless, read up on it. Read about the opposing Generals and their relationship with one another before the war. As much as a genius Beauregard was with artillery, he shelled Ft. Sumter for 24 hours and didn't cause a single casualty. That was the last chance for peace then. The CSA would not surrender and the Federals wouldn't let them go. That's the reason for the bloodiest war in our history.
Uniforms would be fine by me!
Wouldn't that specifically be "Moslem Understanding and Outreach Day"?
Not every state allowed slavery.
That did not stop the slave owners from appealing to the Federal gov't to go into states and force those slaves back into slavery.
So, lets stop the hyprocrisy of the South fighting against a strong central Gov't when they had not qualms about using Federal power for their own interests and did not care what the other States thought about slavery.
That's un-PC, but the fact is, they had a case. The northerners who aided and harbored runaway slaves, according to the legal system of the slave states, were holding stolen property.
Yea, and that 'property' had every right to revolt from the tyranny that was holding it.
That is what the Confederate flag stands for, holding other people as 'property'-how noble.
But, according to the Constitution, the slaves did have to be returned, and Lincoln pledged to uphold that law.
So what was the complaint from the South regarding Lincoln and the Constitution?
He promised to uphold all the laws, even the ones he did not personally like or agree with.
Finally, P.C. has nothing to do with not considering people 'property', that is simply immoral and a contradiction that had to be addressed by eliminating slavery not defending it as a 'right'.
ping
> The South had already seceded, they were their own soveriegn country and there was nothing legal about the troops occupying Sumter at the time.
The Soutyh seceeded with the lands of the South. Fort Sumter was Federal property. US air bases in Japan are *not* US federal proprty. Kennedy Space Center *is* federal property, so if Florida decides to secceed and join with Cuba, they don't get KSC.
> You think SC was going to allow an enemy base of operations to conduct business on it's soil. Ridiculous.
Yes, ridiculous... because Ft. Sumter was not on SC soil.
>> The CSA would not surrender ...
There was neither need nor cause for the CSA to surrender. The CSA had *succeeded.* They had won. Theyu were on their own. All that was left for them to do was decide what sort of relationship they would have with the United States. The CSA chose to go to war.
Live and learn.
And speaking of living and learning... I've gone round and round on this issue in just the last few days. Nothing further to be gained. As the Good Book says:
þrimr orðum sennas
kalattu þér við verra mann
opt inn betri bilar
þá er inn verri vegr
Words to live by.
bttt
Interesting vignette.
But "brutal" may be a bit strong. "Depressing" and "alienated" may be more accurate. If it was really brutal, those people wouldn't have existed.
Your weakness is showing, OBB. The fact that I was BORN in NC and have 12 generations tied to this state's soil and the right to defend it is quite a bit different than that of a soldier's temporary station of his own making.
"The CSA committed an act of war upon the US, and the US retaliated."
South Carolina acted as the situation dictated. Andersen's move from Moutrie to Sumter was seen as a reinforcement of Sumter, in direct violation of ongoing discussions between Washington and the South Carolina represenatives who were conferring on the matter of the forts' dispensation to the CSA. One condition for the safety of those forts was that they remain exactly as they were, without reinforcement nor improvement, which Andersen chose to do under darkness. When asked to return his troops to Moutrie, Andersen's refusal was taken as an act of aggression, so the governor of SC gave the orders and decided to take Sumter. If Sumter was truthfully the trigger, there should never have been the invasion of federal troops into Virginia. Andersen's stay at Sumter was his own choice. His choice led to arms.
Once upon a time, long, long ago in a galaxy far away, kids wore jackets and ties or dresses to school. Halcyon days now lost forever.
"The Confederacy and its flag do not represent freedom for anyone, they represent tyranny at its worst and crushing the Confederacy was one of the GOP's greatest moments."
ROFL "at its worst".
Let's see....
Hitler
Lenin
Stalin
Nero
Caligula
MOHAMMED
Any number of myriad butchers I can think of who were much more "worst".
In that, they do represent a proto-facist mind set.
Freeing two million souls from bondage was an excellent start for the new GOP.
Slavery is worse than murder? I don't know about that. Never mind many of those regimes that were murderous also had slaves in the millions.
It's not great, but frankly the fact that not everyone had to go around fearing for their very lives is telling.
I did not say that the Confederacy was more brutal then the regimes you cited.
What I said was that it was the worst kind of tyranny, that is, a tyranny that shrouded itself in the cloak of morality.
Here's another -- the flag of a Confederate unit now on display in the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia.
There had to be some "justification" for the killing and maiming of two million, "ending slavery" happened to sound the more "noble" while the red man perished under those same guns. Funny how arrogance of moral value seems to stick us in our own backs sometimes.
How to win a war? Remove the enemy's production engine and they'll die. Slavery was the South's production engine, without doubt, no contesting that. BUT it was a Northern STRATEGIC decision to free slaves and diminish the South's ability to resist - by far moreso than it was a morally higher calling of the North to do so. The "Union" proved itself not so moral in the treatment of the red man after it's "battle of morality" inflicted on those bad slave-holding states.
Obviously, you are a product of public school.
You do not know the "facts".
The secessionist movement was driven by economics. The industrial north put undue tax and tarrif burdens on the agricultural south. That all began in the 1820's.
Lincoln putting slaves in the mix was a cynical effort to use a populist movement to further pressure the south.
If you think a bunch of southern poor boy white farmers went to war to preserve slavery for fewer than 1% of the plantations that owned them, you are out of your mind.
That's not "revisionist", that's true. You are the one spouting tainted history.
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.