At Camp Douglas (Chicago), 6,000 out of 18,000 Confederate prisoners died.
Posted on 03/18/2007 3:13:43 PM PDT by LdSentinal
State Sen. Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga) has proposed a splendid way to recognize Georgia's contributions to American history during a pivotal period in time.
He wants to establish a permanent Confederate History and Heritage Month. What better manner to encourage tourism related to the Civil War and to demonstrate how far Georgia has come since then?
Perhaps Confederate History and Heritage Month, proposed to be observed in April by Georgia, could spotlight such Civil War era items as ads for slaves.
Mullis' proposal, Senate Bill 283, sailed through the Senate Rules Committee last week. If adopted by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. Sonny Perdue, April would be designated as the month to contemplate Confederate heritage. Elementary and secondary schools, as well as the state's universities, would be urged to incorporate that heritage in history lessons.
It's a wonderful idea. The senator's bill would do all of Georgia a service by reminding everyone of the desperate lengths to which the South was willing to go to preserve the cruelty and injustice of slavery.
Schoolchildren, for example, could spend the month reciting the names of the quarter-million or so Southern men and boys who died from wounds or from disease in their vain effort to keep their black brothers and sisters in bondage, not to mention the untold others who went home maimed after the war.
Our children could work on their math by trying to estimate how many widows and orphans were left behind. Or on economics by calculating how badly the war damaged southern industry and agriculture and how long it delayed prosperity's arrival in the South.
Our children could tour Andersonville, where the Confederacy so starved and weakened Union prisoners that an appalling 13,000 died there.
Our children could ask why the terrible suffering occurred.
Thanks to Mullis, we could answer that it was because one group of people wanted to keep another brutalized and subservient.
Thanks to Mullis, it's possible that part of history will never be forgotten.
Of course, no proper observation of the Confederate heritage would be complete without an re-enactment of some sort. We surely don't want to re-enact the whipping of a slave or the forced breakup of a black family or the sexual exploitation of black women by their masters. That might stir up demands for an official apology from the state of Georgia, and some legislators have already made it clear that no such apology will be forthcoming, that's it's time to look forward, not backward.
Except, of course, for Confederate History and Heritage Month.
Instead, maybe we should re-enact the April 9, 1865, surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee to Gen. U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House. Because apparently some people still need to be reminded that the war is over, and that the South lost, and that the South's defeat was one of the best things that ever happened to this country.
Perhaps you should have included the last paragraph?
"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."
Slavery was also a part of Northern life -- it ended in New Jersey in 1865, the very same year the war ended, which means the War for Southern Independence had nothing to do with slavery.
This entire article just illustrates the failure of government schools to teach accurate history.
Slavery was also a part of Northern life -- it ended in New Jersey in 1865, the very same year the war ended, which means the War for Southern Independence had nothing to do with slavery.
This entire article just illustrates the failure of government schools to teach accurate history.
As far as federal law was concerned, slavery was legal across the Union states as well.
The south was invaded, the common soldier did not own slaves. The people fought against an invasion.
One problem I encountered in college with pointing out that lincoln was a republican, the south was democrat, etc. was the ol' switcheroo the dems pull. History doesn't look kindly on them in most places, so they change the definitions to suit them. I'm sure you've all heard (spoken in condescending liberal tone) "Well see, if you understood the concept of party evolution, you'd see that ACTUALLY the democrats were the republicans of today, and vice versa." Furthermore, they do the same thing with claiming the civil rights act was opposed by "dixiecrats" who were really conservatives.
Funny, they don't like to talk about JFK's conservatism if you mention that...
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Lincoln's official statements; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free of the reconstructionist's fallacious view that the civil war was fought to free the slaves.
I have more repect for you than to take you at your word. There is no way that you can actually not be aware of the decades-long north v. south political struggle leading up to the Civil War, the primary feature of which was the status of slavery in the territories/future states(?)
The main reason for the refusal to trade prisoners was that the north knew they had more people to draw from and didnt need the prisoners the south had. they had no intention of allowig repatriated southern prisoners to fight them again.
The Southerners could not put shoes on their own soldiers and had nothing to spare for prisoners. Not so in the North, the North had plenty of money ,food and supplies to give to Southern prisoners and it was a deliberate order not to provide prisoners with needed equipment. It was deliberate order not to give them medical supplies to conquer the diseases of the camps.The North had black soldiers allright . Many of them were put to guard Southern prisoners and they delighted in Shooting these soldiers too if they got half a chance.
Actually, 1/3 of all southern soldiers had slaves owned by their immediate families. As for the rest, they either supported the slave-holding cause, or were to apethetic to care.
We know why the Civil War was fought, just ask the people who fought it.
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
". . . primary feature of which was the status of slavery in the territories/future states . . "
Okay, fine. That explains in part their secession.
But that does explain why the south fought. They fought because after they declared their independence, they were invaded. It is not complicated
The south fought because it was invaded.
Simple enough..
"Actually, 1/3 of all southern soldiers had slaves owned by their immediate families"
Northern bravo sierra.
At Camp Douglas (Chicago), 6,000 out of 18,000 Confederate prisoners died.
I find it easier to go right thru town than 285,,less traffic and shorter..
Slavery was legal in the north when it invaded the Confederacy. Were northern soldiers defending their property?
So I guess it is just coincidence that the highest rate of pro-Union southerners occurred in the areas of the confederacy where slaves were least useful to the economy?
Robert E. Lee (1856)
Adios.
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.