Posted on 12/28/2006 11:31:38 AM PST by peggybac
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The new president of the University of Texas says he will appoint a panel to decide what to do with four bronze statues on the Austin campus that honor confederate leaders and have drawn complaints for several years. William Powers Jr., who took over as president this month, said the advisory committee would look into concerns about the statues, which include likenesses of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States, and Gen. Robert E. Lee. "A lot of students, and especially minority students, have raised concerns. And those are understandable and legitimate concerns. On the other hand, the statues have been here for a long time, and that's something we have to take into account as well," Powers said in Wednesday's Austin American-Statesman. The university's previous president, Larry Faulkner, wrote an open letter to the campus more than two years ago saying the statues convey "institutional nostalgia" for the Confederacy and its values. "Most who receive that message are repelled," Faulkner wrote. Statuary on the Austin campus has grown more diverse over the years, partly as a result of student-led efforts. A student fee raised funds to install a statue of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1999. Also in the works are statues of Hispanic labor leader Cesar Chavez and Barbara Jordan, the first black woman from the South elected to Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Well, it's either about slavery or it's not.
Didn't you just say a few posts ago that Lincoln's (and the Union's) purpose was not to get rid of slavery, but to preserve the Union?
I appreciate your civil efforts to reconcile the justness of the two conflicts, but I'm not seeing that we're getting anywhere. It seems to me that you've now come back to the "we really don't like what you're doing" argument, which rather seems to trump the concept self-government, eh? I think it comes back to my original post: the two can only be reconciled if you just take a deep breath and admit that might makes right.
Throughout the war, for all except a very few far-seeing southerners, notably including R.E. Lee, the protection of slavery was a non-negotiable war aim. Just weeks before Richmond fell the Confederate Congress was still balking at emancipation even of Confederate black soldiers .
As far as "might makes right" goes, how about this: Those who choose to pick up the sword to settle political isues may regret it. Christ said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Might does not always make right, but neither is the winner in war always in the wrong.
On what basis other than "might makes right" can slavery possibly be justified?
Citation please.
There is an interesting assessment of Gillmore's actions that reaches an opposite conclusion. See: Article on page 37 by Christopher A. Mekow. Here are two excerpts:
Taken as a whole, the bombardment campaign in the greater Charleston area would reach an intensity hitherto inconceivable by Confederate defenders and local residents. But was there any military legitimacy for firing on this city, the “Cradle of Secession”? By exploring the basic philosophy of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century warfare, and by then comparing the bombardment of Charleston to the sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg, this study will assess a policy that arguably ran counter to contemporary military doctrine, namely the shelling of civilians in the absence of clear military objectives.
... Thus, the bombardment of Charleston began that morning of August. Yet the circumstances surrounding this event differed greatly from the sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg. Unlike the two siege operations discussed earlier, Charleston was not a city besieged, but rather a city suffering an indiscriminate bombardment. British journalist Frank Vizetelli was in Charleston as the bombardment began and wrote the following for the London Illustrated News: "It was now that, foiled at all points, and smarting under his many failures, the Federal general was guilty of that barbarity which has disgraced him as a soldier. Unable to capture the forts in his immediate front, he intimated that unless they were surrendered, he would turn the most powerful guns upon the city."
Gillmore doesn't come off very well in the linked article, in contrast to Grant and even Sherman.
Here is an excerpt from Beauregard's reply to Gillmore following the initiation of shelling the city:
Among nations not barbarous the usages of war prescribe that when a city is about to be attacked timely notice shall be given by the attacking commander, in order that non-combatants may have an opportunity for withdrawing beyond its limits. Generally the time allowed is from one to three days; that is, time for a withdrawal, in good faith, of at least the women and children. You, sir, give only four hours, knowing that your notice, under existing circumstances, could not reach me in less than two hours, and that not less than the same time would be required for an answer to be conveyed from this city to Battery Wagner. With this knowledge, you threaten to open fire on the city, not to oblige its surrender, but to force me to evacuate these works, which, you, assisted by a great naval force, have been attacking in vain for more than forty days.
... It would appear, sir, that despairing of reducing these works, you now resort to the novel measure of turning your guns against the old men, the women and children, and the hospitals of a sleeping city, an act of inexcusable barbarity from your own confessed point of sight, inasmuch as you allege that the complete demolition of Fort Sumter within a few hours by your guns seems to you "a matter of certainty."
Your omission to attach your signature to such a grave paper must show the recklessness of the course upon which you have adventured; while the facts that you knowingly fixed a limit for receiving an answer to your demand which made it almost beyond the possibility of receiving any reply within that time, and that you actually did open fire and throw a number of the most destructive missiles ever used in war into the midst of a city taken unawares, and filled with sleeping women and children, will give you "a bad eminence" in history, even in the history of this war.
By the way, I found some of those Charleston civilian casualties when looking in the Charleston papers of September 1864 for mention of 600 Confederate prisoners placed in front of a Union battery to ward off Confederate fire.
Your earlier mention of inaccurate bombardment at the limit of range reminded me of the indiscriminate bombing of London civilians by buzz bombs.
Many people evacuated the lower part of Charleston that was in range of the Union guns, but the shelling was generally ineffective, so some people continued to occupy areas at the extreme range of the guns. You could argue that by returning or staying in the extreme range of the guns, their deaths were their own fault. But it appears to me to be a clear case of the Union military overstepping the rules of civilized warfare of the time by bombarding civilians without even demanding that the city in question be surrendered. Gillmore wanted the evacuation of forts that were not contiguous to the city or else he would bomb civilians which he did starting in the dead of night.
Okay, you win. Based on your description, it does sound like Gilmore was a jerk.
However, the siege and bombardment went on for months and surely civilians had plenty of opportunity to withdraw.
However, the siege and bombardment went on for months and surely civilians had plenty of opportunity to withdraw.
There were jerks on both sides. You are correct about the opportunity to withdraw.
FYI, one of the arguments against using slaves as Confederate soldiers that appeared in the 1865 newspapers was that if that were done, there would be no one left to plant and harvest the crops and that the resulting food shortage would be far more damaging than Grant. Indeed, there was a shortage of food already among the Confederate troops, and Grant's soldiers gave them food after the surrender.
It depends. For one thing, there's a lot of love (especially from military enthusiasts) for certain Axis generals, such as Rommel or Guderian, especially since the former was possibly a member of the Resistance against Hitler, and the latter wasn't really a Nazi. Lee is similar in that he was no friend to slavery, per se, and fought for his "country" of Virginia.
However, I don't think we can really honor many members of the CSA anymore than we could honor the Axis leadership.
This is exactly my point. Eventually, in any discussion about the Civil War, eventually all Unionist arguments essentially descent into "slavery is an absolute wrong, thus the war justified."
But that seems to be rationalizing, because everyone agrees, including yourself, that slavery wasn't the purpose of the war in the first place--it was purely to preserve the Union, which is a direct slap in the face of the concept of self-government. Lincoln was willing to kill or cripple millions of people, waste millions of dollars, and destroy the economy of half the nation (for at least decades, maybe a century thereafter) all for the supposedly grand purpose of "preserving the Union." What purpose did it accomplish?
I'm not defending all of the South's practices, but if it decides that the United States--States United--isn't working out for it, then it ought to be free to leave. Likewise, if California or New York or whatever decides that it just doesn't like the conservative course that the rest of the country is on and it wants to leave, I bid them farewell.
I should clarify this by saying "if we take Lincoln at his word (difficult, given his track record--but let's say) that the war was not about abolishing slavery but rather preserving the Union, what purpose did it accomplish?" How can it possibly be worth the cost?
You misstate my position. On the Union side, the War was (initially) about preserving the Union. On the Confederate side it was very specifically throughout about preserving a way of life based on the institution of slavery against future threats.
Lincoln was willing to kill or cripple millions of people, waste millions of dollars, and destroy the economy of half the nation (for at least decades, maybe a century thereafter) all for the supposedly grand purpose of "preserving the Union." What purpose did it accomplish?
It preserved the Union? Anti-Lincoln folks all seem to assume that if Lincoln had not resisted secession, then all the things we dislike about modern society would have been avoided, along of course with the war itself.
A scenario that is at least as likely is that we would have been split into two conflicting countries locked in a permanent condition of hatred, complete with ongoing cold and occasional hot wars. As Lincoln so wisely pointed out, we cannot really separate. Would the fugitive slave issue really have been less contentious if the slaves escaped to a foreign country? When the CSA demanded the return of these slaves and were refused, what would their response have been? Threatening or starting war?
How about the likelihood of border disagreements and conflicts over control of western lands?
I'm not defending all of the South's practices, but if it decides that the United States--States United--isn't working out for it, then it ought to be free to leave. Likewise, if California or New York or whatever decides that it just doesn't like the conservative course that the rest of the country is on and it wants to leave, I bid them farewell.
All I have attempted to point out is that any government constituted on such a bases will not "long endure." That appears to be just fine with you. It isn't with me. I sincerely believe that without a United States the history of the 20th century would have been far worse than it was, which was bad enough.
IMHO, preserving the Union and avoiding a condition of constant hostility and intermittent conflict would have justified a much greater cost. You obviously disagree.
But I can guarantee that the only effect of allowing the Union to collapse would not have been the avoidance of the WBTS and its death and destruction. Many consequences would have followed, including with regard to world history in the 20th century.
I suspect you would agree that a world conquered by the Nazis or Commies would be even worse than today's world. And that is indeed a possible consequence of a divided America, as a United America played a major role in defeating both great totalitarian challenges of the 20th century.
Would a divided America have been able to do the same? It seems highly unlikely to me.
Sounds like a pretty thin excuse to me. By 1865 there was very little left of the confederacy to plant anything in.
Indeed, there was a shortage of food already among the Confederate troops, and Grant's soldiers gave them food after the surrender.
The shortage of food and supplies is a popular myth. The fact of the matter is that the confederacy never suffered from a lack of food, and for the most part sufficient supplies were available. What it did suffer from was a poor transportation network and an inept commissary department, headed, as might be expected, by a friend of Jefferson Davis. When John Breckenridge took over the war department in January 1865 he fired the man and replaced him with a competent administrator. During the last months of the war, Breckenridge had no problem accumulating sufficient food and forage for the army but remained hampered by a transportation network that didn't allow him to get the stuff from point A to point B.
OK, let's take that scenario for a moment. Say that California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Montana become totally opposed to the war in Iraq and announce tomorrow that they have seceded and established the Kingdom of Schwarzenegger. The seize all federal property in those states, all court houses, mints, national parks, dams, federal lands, and the like. They take over all the aircraft, arms and equipment at the army and air force bases and the bulk of the Pacific Fleet, politely allowing those servicemen to return to the United States, of course. They announce that they are not bound by NATO or SEATO or any other treaty and certainly aren't going to be sending any troops to Iraq any more. They also announce that as an independent country, the federal debt of the United States is the problem of the United States and they will have nothing to do with it. And finally, they announce that until they are sure of the United States' intentions no commercial aircraft can overfly the Kingdom of Schwarzenegger bound for places like Hawaii or Alaska and no cargoes destined for those areas will be allowed through. This last restriction is suspended a day or two later, but the threat of cut off remains.
So there is your scenario. The remaining United States, bound by treaties, saddled with a national debt, suddenly has about 25% fewer resources to maintain those commitments with. Plus a considerable part of the country can be cut off at will from access to the Pacific. Is that fair?
And what's the cost of retaking these states by force? Is it just to begin a war--costing millions of lives--simply because these states decided that the U.S. government was no longer functioning properly?
Being in the United States is important for all states, and I don't think that states would secede willy-nilly. However, again, I don't think that a country is justified in forcibly requiring a political subdivision to join (or remain a part of) a confederacy.
Yes, I think your scenario is a bad one for the remaining states, but along with a strong central government comes the burden of attempting to please 50 very different political subdivisions. This is the path we have chosen. We must be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Life in Los Angeles is starkly different than in North Dakota, and different things are important to these two very different groups of people. When the federal government was small and unintrusive, governing these two very different groups of people was less of a challenge, since the states were best equipped to deal with local problems. However, as the federal government begins to regulate more and more traditionally local activities, major problems are created.
If this continues, states are going to be unhappy. There will be groups that want out. Let's recognize that now.
It's interesting to wonder what would have happened had the two split amicably, but I tend to think that the two nations would have re-joined after some time had passed or would have become very close diplomatically.
Clearly, slavery was a dying instutition and once it died out in the South (only a matter of a few decades longer, I suspect), there was little conflict between the two. There is just too much in common between the South and the North for centuries-long hostility between the two.
As far as the 20th Century goes, don't forget that the United States and Great Britain were obviously two very bitter enemies, even as late as the Civil War (Britain was very close to entering the war on the side of the Confederacy), but put all that aside for the wars in Europe, and are now best buddies. I tend to think that a similar course would have been followed between the CSA and the USA, though obviously this is all speculation.
Ok, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one and move on.
We'll meet again, I'm sure.
Had they split amicably in 1861, your scenario might have worked out.
Had the South won, say in 1863, it is far more likely that major bitterness and unending conflict would have resulted.
The problem, of course, is that as Lincoln put it, geography ensures that the states could not physically separate. Suddenly all conflicts that previously were dealt with between States would be elevated to international disagreements. Military resolution of arguments becomes possible and attractive to extremists on both sides.
But I find it interesting that you see the Constitution as a tool that can be used against the interests of the states. Merely by leaving the Union, any state can use it to bludgeon the remaining state and there is nothing they can do. All the protections seem to apply to those leaving and not the ones remaining. The seceding states can repudiate any obligation, seize any property, take any action that harms the remaining states, and short of declaring war those states have no recourse whatsoever. I can't think that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
I don't disagree, but I don't think the Founders envisioned a federal government that would be dependent on a single state (or a small group of states) for its survival. As I noted before, this appears to be one of the dangers of a massively bloated federal government. When the federal government takes on obligations that are beyond its means, this is one of the dangers that is run. I would suggest returning the federal government to its constitutional limits and many of the dangers of which you speak become considerably lessened--including, I suspect, any danger of secession.
Oh I don't doubt for a moment that the United States could continue without the seceding states. What I'm wondering is how you can accept that the Constitution can be used by some states to inflict harm on the interests and wellbeing of other states merely by leaving. The United States incurred financial and treaty obligations while the western states were a part. The western states have walked out. The debt hasn't gone away. The commitments to NATO and other allies hasn't gone away. But suddenly those states have to meet those obligations with about 25 percent less. And the seceding states have walked away from it all, seized untold billions of dollars in property without compensation, and are free and clear. How can the Constitution protect them, and allow them to literally screw the remaining states? How could the founding fathers ever sanction that? And other than war you seem to believe there is no recourse available.
When the federal government takes on obligations that are beyond its means, this is one of the dangers that is run.
When it took on those obligations the western states were a part of the country and reeped the benefits and well as incurred the responsibilities. If the Constitution says that states cannot repudiate obligations and harm the interests of other states while part of the Union how can you honestly believe that the Constitution allows states to do that merely by leaving?
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.