Posted on 04/10/2015 5:03:22 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up.
One hundred fifty years ago, on April 9th, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House and the Union triumphed in the Civil War. Yet the passage of a century and a half has not dimmed the passion for the Confederacy among many Americans. Just three weeks ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for the right to put a Confederate flag on vanity license plates in Texas. Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate? The answer is likely not a desire to overtly display one’s genealogical research skills; nor can it be simplistically understood solely as an exhibition of racism, although the power of the Confederate flag to convey white supremacist beliefs cannot be discounted.
Rather, displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement (which, in turn, supports a lucrative Confederate memorabilia industry).
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Winners write the history.
And that’s what it is. Dusty stories in old books. Tired arguments. Fly your flag and share stories with Germans and Japs about the righteousness of your cause.
It’s tiresome to listen to.
Does anyone really believe that those Southern states actually ratified the 13th amendment of their own free will? If so, I have a bridge in San Fransisco that i’d like to sell you.
Well, to the extent that ratification was per accidens a necessary means for attaining an end that they wanted, it still qualifies as an act of free will, but a very good argument could be made that the coercion ought to render the action null and void.
That said, the poster to whom I was responding claimed that the 13th was ratified entirely by the “O so Virtuous” non-Southern states. At least half of the six that did not ratify had actually rejected, and my point was that the amendment only “passed” on the strength of Southern participation, be it coerced or otherwise.
I know - we had it in spades with the slavocracy.
They were a coalition, but they didn't take any personal action until the invasion. Then they supported the fellow members of the coalition.
But firing on Ft. Sumter was colossally stupid.
And then came the Whiskey Rebellion.
Yup. Just like the anti-federalists predicted. I've read both the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers, and I from what I can tell, virtually every criticism made by the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct.
Yes it was, but then who could have predicted that anger over an engagement in which nobody was killed would result in such a brutal overreaction?
Now see here is where you need to stop lying to yourself. You keep trying to make this about slavery, and you refuse to face the fact that the North had no intention of abolishing slavery, and indeed several northern states continued to practice slavery throughout the war.
What you are doing here is a bait and switch. You keep substituting the incorrect reason the North went to war for a false one. The Union government did not start the war with the intention of preventing one human being from owning another. They were absolutely willing to continue tolerating that condition, so spare me your attempts at moral superiority in justifying why the North went to war.
It's is just a guilt assuaging lie, and you need to quit repeating it.
The North went to war for two reasons. Revenge, and to stop independence. Stopping Southern independence was the only non-negotiable issue when the war began.
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.
Get your history accurate, and stop spouting Propaganda that's 150 years out of date.
"The firing upon that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen. Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."
And he was absolutely right. It's a pity their arrogance got in the way of common sense.
Similarly, the slaves had a God given right to overthrow their "masters", by force if necessary.
I agree. I always liked the John Brown approach to the problem.
The sufficiency should be self-evident. Had it been so perhaps any nation would have taken the rebels side. No nation did. No nation agreed that there was sufficient cause to rebel and no nation thought that the southern “secession” was proper.
I think the consequences of it lingered for quite some time thereafter. That fungus never went away. 1860s Ireland was not a happy place. Too much death.
If it was required by congress, how was Johnson able to look the other way?
I imagine the big sticking point was whether or not congress was willing to seat people and count electoral votes, but I could be wrong.
It is you perpetuating the lie. Do I need to post my quip about the reasons for the WBTS? LOL
The south attempted to break away because they projected their feeeeeeeelings of the possibility that their beloved slavery would come to an end under the presidency of Lincoln.
"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 every where could be free."
As it has no bearing on his intentions regarding the Independence of the Southern states, it wasn't forgotten, it was omitted deliberately. It is irrelevant to the point.
Again, the continued existence of slavery was Negotiable, but Independence was not.
Lincoln would let them own slaves, but he would not let them go.
My guess is that it was fait accompli (the amendment was passed) so why pursue the last holdout.
Well that's the opinion of one, now i'll patiently wait while you put the other hundred thousand or so forceably drafted Irish opinions up for comparison.
And when the Confederacy began conscripting free blacks and slaves at the end of the war, what personal interest did they have in the war?
I think you are trying to put forth a "Well *THEY* did it too! " argument. (Known as a tu quoque.)
So you think evil by the South justifies evil by the North? That explains a lot. I guess evil is okay so long as the people you support are doing it/did it.
“The sufficiency should be self-evident. Had it been so perhaps any nation would have taken the rebels side. No nation did. No nation agreed that there was sufficient cause to rebel and no nation thought that the southern “secession” was proper.”
No nation was willing to go to war with the United States Federal Government on behave of anther nation yet unborn. Many nations sympathized with the Southern cause even if they didn’t like everything about the south as illustrated by their support in trade, words, and sentiment.
Asking anther nation to commit militarily the lives and fortunate of their own to such a cause takes anther measure of their own interest. The french for example in the American revolution had a great many reasons to desire to go to war with the United Kingdom separate and apart from riding them of some of their most valuable colonies.
I think looking at the extra-constitutional behavior of Washington, and the disparaging political policy’s and directions of the north that largely controlled Washington the South had many self-evident reasons to desire to be Independence. Not that I agree independence would have worked out quite so well as many in the south might have hoped, that is of course beside the point.
The south attempted to break away because they projected their feeeeeeeelings of the possibility that their beloved slavery would come to an end under the presidency of Lincoln.
....................................
I think that’s correct. The north went to war to “preserve the union” but the south seceded to guarantee the preservation of slavery.
And of course slavery was the force at the core driving the war forward. If anyone doubts that, please explain the EP.
And no one is forcing you to continue to cast aspersions on Conservative Americans--living & dead--with whom you happen to disagree on social, legal & moral issues.
There were many reasons why the Southern Conservatives wanted to leave the Union, their forebears had voluntarily adhered to. One of those reasons did involve tariffs; another involved a continuous stream of vilification of their behavior, motives & values, by people who often misjudged aspects of the Southern culture, of which they had no first hand knowledge, whatsoever.
While no one is above criticism, then or now; to maintain a voluntary association of honorable men, you need to be able to discuss things, involved in that association, without casting aspersions on each other's character.
Now, were the Confederate men at arms, entitled to recognition as honorable men--indeed patriots who strove honorably to serve American values and interests, as their lights led them? Consider how the son of a Union General, who actually far outdistanced his father's achievements in defense of American interests & values, i.e. General Douglas MacArthur in his farewell to West Point, equated the Confederate men at arms with the Union men at arms, as reflecting the noblest traditions of America: Duty, Honor, Country.
Between 1898 & MacArthur's eloquence in 1962, no one to the right of the Far Left in America, kept up the South hating rant that has been revived in the past half century--which you seem to embrace. John F. Kennedy, certainly not one who was in any sense a Conservative, honored two major Southern Senators in his "Profiles In Courage," that he published before being elected President.
As an Ohioan, I naturally take pride in the battlefield achievements of the Ohioans who played the decisive role in the terrible war (1861-1865); but that does not blind me to the heroism of the Confederate men at arms; nor to the legitimacy of their argument for the course they followed, in terms of the accepted "Law Of Nations," as accepted by the Founding Fathers, "four score & seven years," before Gettysburg.
Read Vattel, as did both the Confederates, as well as Washington, Jefferson, etc., earlier. He, as they clearly recognized that every people have the right to be the judge of their own internal affairs. In the Union the States gave up certain rights--they are specified in the Constitution. The right to secede is not one of those specifically surrendered.
If it’s good enough for the Duke Boys, it’s good enough for me. Now, if I could only afford a 69 Dodge Charger.
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.