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 ...
And I say McDowell and troops were off to fight the army of the rebellious southern states. The same states that had begun the hostilities by firing on Fort Sumter.
How's that for honesty?
So how can you have a War to free the slaves, when it required a constitutional amendment?
By the way, what was the date they initiated that constitutional amendment? Because surely it was before the war, seeing as how that was the whole purpose of the war, wasn't it? Obviously the Union would want to do things proper and constitutional, and of course that would commence with the amendment process, right?
You’re not going to get an honest answer or an honest exchange from him.
Come back when you can post a coherent sentence.
Pretty terrible, because I heard no mention of the word "slavery" in it. In order to justify a war to end slavery, you do have to demonstrate that this was in fact, the mission of the army sent to invade, else people will get the idea that the war was about something else.
You know what, I'll bet we can find Irvin McDowell's orders somewhere, and if they mention "ending slavery", I'll eat them.
You people have been blowing the "We fought the war to end Slavery" trumpet for so long, I just wanted to make you blow it some more. I'm kinda liking the tune right about now.
You see what I mean?
How about you come back when you can post an honest one?
If you mean an answer that conforms to the incorrect things you have been taught and wish to believe, you are probably right, but what I am answering is objectively honest.
Irvin McDowell wasn't invading the South to free the slaves, and so there goes your moral high ground.
So he did not have the authority to free slaves, but he did have the authority to jail, without trial, the entire elected legislature of the sovereign state of Maryland?
If Obama did half of what Lincoln did you would rightly denounce him as a tyrant. You can thank Lincoln’s unchecked tyranny and several generations of school children educated in Lincoln deification for the destruction Obama has brought to America.
Yes, pointing out that you either have an incorrect understanding or are lying regarding the Mission of the Union Army at the start of the war is simply dishonest.
Point out the “lie”.
Sic semper tyrannis!
I roll my eyes every time someone mentions the “Stars and Bars” - they usually have no clue what flag they are talking about.
The reason the battle flag became an important symbol is because it was the flag that our ancestors died with. That said, I love them all.
Yes, although he did jail the legislature (much as they deserved it).
I never claimed he was, so their goes your credibility.
They are generally the arrogant type, so sure they are much smarter that anyone who disagrees with them or holds different views.
I laugh at them - they don't even know there are facts they don't know.
If Gen. Jubal Early had marched right on into Washington in July 1864 and captured Lincoln and his entire adminstration when he had the opportunity this conversation would be a lot different and we would all be much better off for it.
I think the Washington garrison had something to do with the fact that he didn't.
Technically accurate, but highly misleading.
Enslaved people were freed at different period in different areas. The vast majority, contrary to popular belief, were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation as the Union armies advanced.
Quite a few were freed by puppet state governments in the South. TN, AR, LA and possibly others.
Others were freed by state action in MO, WV and MD.
All this was before or at the end of the war.
Only about 50k slaves remained after the war ended, almost all in KY and a couple hundred or so in DE.
These were the only slaves freed after the war ended, by the ratification of 13A in December, 1865. It should be noted that 13A passed Congress before the end of the war.
Also, emancipation was a continuous process, starting only weeks after the war and ending in December, 1865. So to imply that northerners cheerfully kept slaves during and after the war is at minimum historically illiterate.
The problem is that SC had joined the CSA, and that the attack on Sumter was launched by CSA forces, not SC forces.
You are also ignoring the dozens (minimum) of attacks launched on US forts and facilities by state and CSA troops throughout the South, including attacks on Fort Monroe and Harpers Ferry by VA troops before they had formally seceded.
For some obscure reason this never gets discussed. VA attacking USA troops and facilities over a month before it formally seceded. On what planet is that not treason, even if you believe in the right of 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.