Why the Confederacy Lives

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).

""The southern states had a right to leave. 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."

I agree with this sentiment as well. The right of revolutionary withdraw of the consent of the govern is so central to the idea of a free republic that one could not be sustained overtime without such a right.
The reason is really not that difficult to understand nor observe in the history after our "civil war" even as the Federal Constitution to the extent it persisted as a limits upon the power of Washington had largely restarted the grown and abuse of federal power in years sense. Taking a decade or a century the end is almost invariably the same.
Those in power tend to uses that power to benefit themselves with increasing disregard to the unfair burden they transfer upon those out of power. Thus more and more laws effecting the same end are created with ever greater degrees of inequity built into their design until such time that the oppressed and abused minority as little choice but to collapse or rebel again in search of freedom.

"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"

I don't doubt that theses were in fact major interest driving the parties involved. I simply dispute two critical points:
1: Theses were not the only intolerable oppressions the south feared.
2: The South's motive for withdraw is ill-relevant in so much that a free Constitutional republic depends upon the consent of the Govern being retained and thus also the inalienable right of the people to revolution and revolution driven session. To Hold in check the potential in politicians and political power toward tyranny and exploration of the political minority.

Secession was not wrong, it was just wasted on the CSA.

No argument from me about that (the wasted part, anyway). Any other secessionist movement with that much support as they did, would have won easily. The foreign intervention would have happened.

Well, South Sudan, Darfur, Biafra, and all the rest. Foreign interventions aren't that common, unless something happens that other countries can't or won't turn away from -- I guess that was the case with Former Yugoslavia.

Recognition may or may not have come. Actual foreign military intervention probably wouldn't have happened. And if it did, it would have had the effect of turning many Americans against the rebels. Consider the effect of French intervention in Mexico at about the same time.

Unfortunately, it was my ancestors - Irish immigrants - who not only were draft-dodgers but Copperheads as well. I often wondered if one of them was involved in the evil draft riots in NYC.

There were a lot of people who did not want to fight but were forced to fight. Again, from the side that claims to be opposed to Slavery.

I should not be surprised to learn that the vast majority of people wanted no part in the war, but only participated because they were forced to do so.

Research the lives and character of Ullyses S Grant and Robert E Lee. The better man lost, and he proved he was the better man by conducting himself as an exemplary Christian gentleman after the war, never being bitter in spite of the war crimes committed by Union low-lifes such as Gen. Sherman.

Grant did the job he was trained to do. Lee was a lot more complicated and troubled. Looking at him nowadays, we can see there was a lot more in him than the stereotype his contemporaries saw. He's at once more and less than his worshippers think (you could say the same for Lincoln, too, I guess). And after the war, as the leader of the defeated Army, Lee's options were limited by what the victors would allow.

Great reference - Thank you.

It clarifies things a great deal, doesn't it?

Historians and teachers have made Lincoln into a near-god. But at heart he was in the presidency because he was a politician, not a humanitarion.

I grew up admiring Lincoln. Oddly enough it was my best friend from HighSchool who is black, and who was a history major in college that first started me questioning what we had all been taught.

I used to go over to his house and we would lift weights, and one day he was smiling and chortling about something he had learned in College that day. He said that he had just Learned that Lincoln cleverly and deliberately provoked the Confederates into firing on Ft. Sumter. I asked for clarification.

He said Lincoln was advised of ways to resupply the fort without a lot of fuss, but he deliberately eschewed those. He sent a letter to the commander of the fort telling him to prepare for an attack, and then he sent a letter to the Confederates telling them that he was going to resupply the Fort overland by Wagon train, and quite publicly.

He said Lincoln was a shrewd reader of people, and he knew the confederates would take that letter as an affront, and with a little luck, they would play right into his hands.

Now I was a little shocked by this, because I had never before heard that Lincoln had deliberately intended to start that war. I had always heard it was the Confederates who started it and that Lincoln was a great leader and Hero.

I found this information quite disquieting, and it caused me to start questioning everything I had been taught about what happened and why. That's when I started to realize that what we've been taught as the history doesn't hold together correctly. It's full of things that don't make sense when viewed as they have taught it.

I don't claim to have it all figured out, but I have learned to be quite skeptical of what we have been taught regarding Lincoln and the Civil war.

Then why are you here?

Pings. I make a habit of answering people who write to me.

The union troops didn't invade another country. They invaded a portion of the union that was in a state of insurrection.

Just as did England, but for some reason they were the bad guys in that war. We asserted a natural right to independence or something, and they opposed that principle.

Winners write the history.

Sure. It isn't always true, but it certainly portrays them in a good light.

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.

The cause of that time is the same cause as today. We are ruled by a Federal Leviathan which is in the process of consuming us all if we don't find a way to escape it, and it's roots lie back in that very war.

It’s tiresome to listen to.

Nobody wants to hear about hypocrisy or past mistakes. They regard it as tiresome.

I have been here long enough to know what comments these types of threads will gather. Full disclosure: I’m on the losing side.

Be that as it may, Freepers may be put into the position of trusting FReepers they had disagreed with in the past. Think about it, this 0bama regime is lawless...almost worse than succession, or suspending habis corpus.

5.56mm

The early Repulicans were the equivaalent of present day libs. After agreeing to the Compromise of 1850 as Whigs, they started a new party so they could denounce the law.

Well, no. It was Kansas-Nebraska that they were objecting to (the Dred Scott decision, too).

It was Southern slave owners who wanted to overturn the Compromise of 1820, so maybe they were the equivalent of present day libs.

If you must negotiate with statists, avoid accepting an unenforceable promise for a tangible.

Slavery wasn't a form of "statism"?

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.

If you are twisting someone's arm, you can hardly regard it as an act of free will when they agree to the terms you demand for ceasing the arm twisting.

I regard this as just another example of where people who claim to support freedom, don't actually believe in it.

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 think your point is that it didn't have all that much support in the North either, and wouldn't have passed but for the arm twisting on the Southern States.

If this is your point, then it demonstrates that the non-ratifying Northern states were also being forced into something against their will. Their own votes were being overridden by the Southern proxy legislatures controlled by the Union troops.

In other words, they were also denying fair democracy to the non-committed Northern states.

I know - we had it in spades with the slavocracy.

Wow. Another "They did it too!" argument, to excuse evil.

But how about some Honesty. I want you to tell me with a straight face that brigadier General Irvin McDowell's forces were marching to Richmond to free the slaves.

Tell me the truth about this. Were 18,000 Union soldiers being sent to Richmond to free slaves?

I agree with this sentiment as well. The right of revolutionary withdraw of the consent of the govern is so central to the idea of a free republic that one could not be sustained overtime without such a right. The reason is really not that difficult to understand nor observe in the history after our "civil war" even as the Federal Constitution to the extent it persisted as a limits upon the power of Washington had largely restarted the grown and abuse of federal power in years sense. Taking a decade or a century the end is almost invariably the same. Those in power tend to uses that power to benefit themselves with increasing disregard to the unfair burden they transfer upon those out of power. Thus more and more laws effecting the same end are created with ever greater degrees of inequity built into their design until such time that the oppressed and abused minority as little choice but to collapse or rebel again in search of freedom.

I sum it up as "The issues of that war are still with us today." We are still facing an oppressive Federal leviathan which no longer protect our interests.

Slavery was going to disappear eventually. Mechanized agriculture was just a few decades away, but the issue of Federal Dominance and opposition to Independence, is still with us.

We are all being destroyed by Federal monetary policy and we have no way to get loose from it.

#104.

FReegards.

Now i've made some efforts on my own to verify the claims my friend made. Lincoln did indeed send a letter to the Confederates, and that letter did indeed provoke them into attacking the fort, but when I tried to verify that Lincoln had sent a letter to the Commander of Ft. Sumter, I had a more difficult time verifying that.

That's because Lincoln himself did not send such a letter.

As it turns out, it was his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton who sent that letter. I used to have a link to it, but now I will have to look it up again.

Dont get me wrong. It is important to understand history. As it is proper to see history “rhyming” as it does from time to time.

It is just tedious to listen to folks ramble (on both sides) about stuff that was settled 150 years ago.

Several days ago, I suggested that we stop this bickering as a group. But since then, there have probably been 20 such threads.

Not a single opinion has been changed.

The war is over.

We have larger issues to deal with today. But this site still focuses on the meaning of minutia involving Catholic decisions in the 800’s and whether or not the 1861 war was more savage for the the soldiers in the blue uniforms or the grey ones.

Can’t you we these things are meant to distract everyone from the real issues?

I have decided not to donate to FR anymore because there is no further a discussion. There are a dozen or so posters who make life so miserable for anyone with a mildly different point of view.

To them, I pray for deliverance. And a pox on their homes.

Yeah the mechanized culture was coming.

That would have been great news to a 30 year old man who has been in bondage his whole life. Good news! You get to die a slave...but massah might just buy himself one of them John Deeres.

That kind of logic insults the intelligence of any man born with a soul.

Whether or not the civil would have solved slavery is not even the issue. The mere fact that YOU still use that as an excuse to not ban slaver tells me you are so stuck in the mindset that one man can be better than another to the point where you can buy and sell them until something worth more comes along, that it literally sickens me.

You should really be ashamed of yourself. Really. That is simply a twisted way to think.

Yeah, the English were defending their “country.”

The south feels they had the right to declare the south their own country.

The north kicked their asses back to the stone age.

The north pretty much kicked the British out as well.

One the US soil, the north is pretty much like 5-0.

Therefore, the south found out they were NOT another country. Seems to me that Grant should have taken the horses and sidearms as well. Then the South might have figured out they were beaten.

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.