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 ...
When you first come to these arguments, it can be a great way to get back into history, maybe for the first time since school days. It's not like that for me any more, so I've lost interest over time, but don't underestimate how interesting it was in the beginning.
Can’t you we these things are meant to distract everyone from the real issues?
That is true. So much stuff is a distraction, though. Every stupid comment some movie star makes doesn't need to get 100+ responses (mostly saying the same thing), but some do.
I'd say let the discussion about history go on, but people don't take it so seriously. Recognize that it has a place in the world, but it's not worth getting bent out of shape over or making lasting enemies about questions that were resolved a century and a half ago.
Because it took a constitutional amendment to end slavery, which Lincoln helped get through Congress and to the states for ratification before he was murdered.
We went to war to keep the nation together.
You guys thought you had a right to secede and we thought you did not. In the end, we won.
I agree, that technically the slavery issue was not the specific cause. But clearly, it was the states right to decided about slavery that was the cause. To most people that is a difference without a distinction. But, as most of you folks like to split hairs, lets give you that one.
Seems to me that the Civil war settled both scores.
Why can’t you guys simply admit that you were beaten on the field, and then you were beaten at the ballot box.
Its not like you grew up with slaves, or state’s rights for that matter. You are as bad as Sunnis or Shiites, getting all upset over stuff that happened in almost ancient history.
Get over it. You lost.
So, on the one hand, Lincoln argued that the southern states were still members of the Union - and yet you said that it took an Amendment to the Constitution to end slavery. So, why again did he “free slaves” in states that he claimed were still under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and yet not free those slaves in the states that he actually had a legal and the practical means to do it?
Either way you go, Lincoln did nothing with the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed no one. It was a political stunt, and that is all. It was a stunt to keep England out of the war.
You know, its not about the history any more. Its about the Southerners making these chest beating arguments about how their way was the best way. And how WE came down there and ruined a great way of life.
If a great way of life was holding others in bondage so that your ancestors could get rich, then personally, I am glad we ruined it. And, lets face it...even the states rights arguments were about slavery.
What I would love to see is a rational discussion about the issue, while acknowledging that slavery was an abomination and it should have been outlawed. Much like religion has often been an impediment to industrial and scientific development, consider how far ahead of the European industrial states the south would have been if Slavery were abolished. I argue that the abolishment of slavery would have moved ahead the mechanization of the south about 50 years. Instead of the first big tractors being built in 1930, they would have been needed in 1860—70’s years earlier. Think of how much better off the country would have been with that technology—built through necessity, rather than having to spend the money and time to rebnuild the south.
The South was ALWAYS going to lose that war. And when they go no help from Europe early on...it was clear they were going to lose.
Ridiculous “Southern Pride” caused hundreds of thousands of death and billions in destruction.
The Southerners can have their Pride. But with it comes the bloodshed and responsibility. But no one on this site ever wants to admit that. We are all about the South and Texas. Yeeehaw.
There are some days, in fact most days, when I think of all the crap that Texas and Florida have brought us...we should have left them with Mexico and Florida with Spain.
Without the South, people could have reasonable discussions and end up with reasonable laws. Instead, we have people so intransigent in their positions they cannot for a second imagine that someone else has an idea.
They lost the first civil war. They will lose the second because they are so blinded by dogma that they cannot fathom any solution other than theirs.
Well, that’s why there is a draft - because people don’t want to get killed. Although, I have read historians who feel that young people, isolated and bored with farm life were very keen to go to war for their state. Certainly, that’s one of the themes of GWTW.
The war is over, Vermont. You are refighting it just as much as the proud Southerners who post here who you are accusing of “chest beating”. Great Americans came together to fight this war - on both sides. I want to honor them all and will continue to visit southern battlefields (as well as Gettysburg) to honor all the young and old men who sacrificed their lives. They were ALL Americans - and great ones at that.
Maybe the reason we hear so much of that stuff here is that they don't have an outlet for it in the real world.
By that time they had created the Confederate States of America with a central government. They did not consider themselves a coalition but a country.
I'll try...as soon as you can show something that supports your claim on the number drafted.
In 1861-62 Congress passed the Confiscation Acts which allowed the government to seize private property without compensation if that property was being used to support the Southern rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation grew out of that. And which is why the proclamation did not apply to areas of the south that had already been liberated by Union troops.
Either way you go, Lincoln did nothing with the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed no one. It was a political stunt, and that is all. It was a stunt to keep England out of the war.
Hundreds of thousands of southern Blacks served in the Union Army. Without the Emancipation Proclamation by law those men would have had to be returned to their owners. I'd say the Proclamation was very effective...in addition to keeping the Brits from interfering.
This is where I disagree. It wasn't "settled" 150 years ago, that is when it started. The Federal leviathan seized more power than it was ever envisioned to have in 1861. It has only gotten stronger ever since.
This is not a 150 year old settled problem, this is a right here, right now unsettled problem.
You say it's important to understand history:
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.
I regard it as important to understand the how and why of how we got to where we are now, because to fail to understand how we got here makes it impossible to figure out how to get away from here.
To understand where you are going, you have to understand where you have been.
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.
The assertion that the Union was going to do anything about it had they won quickly is also a kind of logic that insults the intelligence of any man born with a brain.
Let us attack this delusion head on.
Was the 18,000 man task force led by Brigadier General Irvin McDonnell going to Richmond to free the slaves? Was that his orders?
How about some honesty here?
I usually stay off these threads, but I think you’ll find these articles interesting. The first is 10,000 words, so reserve some time for it.
Federalism: Yesterday and Today
The second is a short afterthought bringing it up to today.
Rah rah. Your team won. That makes you right because you had the power to force your will on others.
I have little doubt the Fed Zilla is going to say the same d@mn thing when it rams homosexuality and "Global Warming" down our throats.
But again, let's get to the central focus here. Why was Brigadier General Irwin McDonnell heading to Richmond? Was he going to free the slaves?
Again, how about putting the cheer leading for your team aside for a minute and just give an honest answer to the question?
Thanks for a great post.
I learned in school that “Lincoln Freed The Slaves.” No details were taught about those he did not free.
Also, from as far back in grammar school as I can recall, we were all instructed that Lincoln was one of the two top presidents. It was unquestioned - he was presented to schoolkids as the closest thing to a diety as ever walked the soil of America.
And that was before the Rosa Parks and MLK days.
It wasn’t until I decided to study the events leading up to the war between the states to better understand modern racial tension that I learned about Lincoln’s duplicity and, in my view, weakness as a president.
I now rate him as one of the worst presidents we have ever had.
What other president ever presided over the killing and wounding of one million or more Americans?
That is more than 3% of the entire 1860 population.
Imagine if we had a war today that resulted in over 3% of our population being killed or wounded - that would nine million casualties.
Once hostilities broke out Lincoln devoted his energies to a military solution even though it was American vs. American - brother and father killing father and brother.
A great diplomat, a great leader, could have and should have brokered a way to stop the killing long before 750,000 of his countrymen were dead.
See here for one of the most recent views on the number of Civil War KIA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html
Yes, you were exactly like the British, but with a much more fanatical leader. They didn't think we had a right to secede either, but they stopped at 15,000 dead. They didn't keep it going till they'd killed hundreds of thousands.
I agree, that technically the slavery issue was not the specific cause.
Well there it is then. So why do you keep dishonestly saying the war was about slavery when it was clearly about stopping independence?
I know why most people say it was about slavery. It's because that makes their side look like the good guy heroes, and saying they were stopping an Independence movement makes them look like the bad guys.
Sure, i'd rather believe my chosen side (none of my family was here during the Civil War. We all came later, and I do not live in a Southern State.) was the good guys. Anyone would want to believe that.
Get over it. You lost.
I don't think you get it. My family didn't have a dog in that fight. It was long over by the time we got here.
No, I see what I see because I have the ability to see the issue objectively. In fact, I was taught that the Union fought the war to free the slaves, and Lincoln was a great hero.
What changed my mind about this is evidence. That letter from Lincoln was a great eye opener. It simply does not comport with what I had been taught. It blatantly contradicts it.
When you realize you've been lied to about one thing, you then look suspiciously at all the other things you've been told from the same source.
I am not a pacifist and I certainly believe in going to war when it is necessary, but I have come to realize that a lot of wars are not necessary and shouldn't be fought. World War I for example was just a bunch of Ego's getting bruised.
I ponder the great Christmas peace that broke out during World War I, and it made me realize just how the social/legal pecking order leads to thousands getting killed against their will, and sometimes for no good national interest.
Although, I have read historians who feel that young people, isolated and bored with farm life were very keen to go to war for their state.
Till they get in one, and then realize it is horrible and sucks.
This is what I see too. Washington DC is becoming increasingly the plaything of plutocrats who remain behind the scenes, but quietly (and sometimes not so quietly, see Homosexual Tim Cook and Indiana) steer the government.
Our Fiscal policies may be very lucrative to large Financial institutions, but they are very detrimental to the Middle class and poor.
The right to revolution thou suppressed must inevitably someday reassert itself, even thou by Lincoln's terms that reassertion will have to take a very bloodily and unnecessarily costly form of war on a near genocidal scale. Regional inequalities will not be tolerated forever on an ever growing list of ever more abusive issues upon which we are forced to submit.
I'm sorta hoping the sane states can get together and toss out the Kooks. Sort of a reverse secession.
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.