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 ...
“So, you confess, that also means you can’t prove it wasn’t good old TJ. I guess it all depends what the meaning of “Y” is”
Better hope that you don’t ever have to testify in court because you don’t understand the basic rules of evidence.
You accused Jefferson of fathering Heming’s kids. It’s up to you to provide evidence backing that claim.
It’s not up to me to prove the negative. I just have to point out that you haven’t offered any proof to back up your accusation. That’s how the rules of evidence work.
The first accusation against Jefferson came from political hatchetman James Callender. But a resemblance between Jefferson’s children and Hemings was natural because Hemings and Mrs Jefferson were half-sisters, it didn’t require Jefferson to be the father of Heming’s children.
Then in the 1990s the Clinton gang resurfaced the charge in order to take the heat off of Bill Clinton screwing around. This time they tried enlisting DNA evidence. Their collaborators claimed that the presence of a Y chromosome marker was irrefutable proof that Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings. It was designed to get into the tabloid press and impress the rubes who get their science news from The Enquirer. You, for instance.
The reality is that the Y chromosome only proved that someone in the Jefferson line was the father, and there were 20 some candidates. So you’re going to have to come up with another argument to prove, as you claimed, that Jefferson not only fathered Heming’s kids, but he raped her in the process. Good luck with that. Tell us your evidence, I know it will be entertaining.
Scorcese’s “Gangs of New York” includes some great scenes of the New York Draft Riots. And the Irish being recruited right off the boats. Well worth watching if you haven’t seen it.
To stop the riots Lincoln sent troops fresh from the Battle of Gettysburg and had them firing cannon on the rioters. There’s good reason the Posse Comitatus Act passed after the War.
Good idea. You should try it.
But here's a question for you. Does the United States follow natural law when it suits its interests, but reject it when it doesn't?
Yes.
And yet nobody got hurt. Funny that.
Yeah, it's hilarious when someone shoots at you and sets fire to your house until you're forced to surrender.
Which shows why you should never get your history from movies. That never happened. There may have been recruiters, but there was no conscription at the docks. In point of fact, only 2% of the US army were conscripts, with another 6% substitutes paid by draftees. Oh, and while we're talking about the inaccuracy of that movie, Bill the Butcher Poole, the Daniel Day-Lewis character, died eight years before the New York Draft Riots and the Old Brewery was torn down in 1852.
I thought to myself that was a very sobering way to regard the situation they found themselves in. They were effectively Slaves at 1/3rd the price. Till they were killed anyway, and then they were worth nothing.
Then I assume you also believe that the ten million American men conscripted into the US armed services during WW2 were just slaves, too.
The Posse Comitatus act was passed as part of the dismantling of Reconstruction in return for southern support for the election of Rutherford B. Hayes.
Is that damn war still not over?
I'm Irish, too, though my dad's family came over after the war.
It was the Irish immigrants who pulled the dreadful draft riots in NYC in which God knows how many poor blacks were lynched.
And it was the Southern cavaliers who revolted and took whole counties out of the confederacy, refusing to provide draftees to the Southern cause.
And I speak as a fan of Lincoln.
LOL!!!
Whatever you say about Johnny Reb, he willingly joined up.
Did he now? The Confederacy enacted conscription in the spring of 1862, over a year before the Union did. At the same time the Confederacy also extended all enlistments for the duration of the war, something the Union never resorted to. By the end of the war most of the Confederate army were there because they had to be and not necessarily if they wanted to be.
You are aware it's a work of fiction, right?
I’m not an apologist for Lincoln. I am, indeed, a fan of Lincoln who I think was a great man and president. Do I agree with all of his actions? No.
No army, after fighting for as long as the Confederacy fought - without food, clothes or much of anything else - doesn’t want to see home again. It’s only human. But they were far more committed to their cause than many northerners were to theirs. You can read the testimony of Union soldiers and their anger at having to “fight to free slaves.” Their argument was they fought to preserve the union. Which is, of course, correct.
Perhaps because your family had no dog in this fight, it enables you to be so less forgiving for the sins of the Civil War. I have my family’s letters and their very human concerns have made me far more understanding of what our boys went through. I love them all - it’s a simple as that.
You really need to educate yourself, ok? The Gangs of New York was taken from a non-fiction book (as well as the books of Luc Sante). And why you think that fiction does not reflect truth just shows you are having trouble with this subject. That movie is an explosive closeup of Tammany Hall and the degraded Irish immigrants who came to this country. They were called “wild” for a reason and they were not unlike the ghetto rats of today.
Yes, it’s a fine movie. Sobering as someone who is a descendent of those people, lol!
Jefferson was dead before his hillbilly nephews murdered that slave. There’s a very good book about this. My point was simply that Jefferson had some dicey relatives - not that he was dicey himself.
I never said that conscription wasn’t part of the Confederacy’s weapons. I said that southern boys were very anxious to fight in ‘61 - just look at the amazing photos of men lining up (well, pushing into) sign-up centers. You can’t have it both ways: that the South were a bunch of hotheads longing to kill Yankees and then in the next breath say they were forced to fight.
I admit I haven't seen a lot of admiration in your posts.
But they were far more committed to their cause than many northerners were to theirs.
And you base that on what exactly?
Perhaps because your family had no dog in this fight, it enables you to be so less forgiving for the sins of the Civil War. I have my family’s letters and their very human concerns have made me far more understanding of what our boys went through. I love them all - it’s a simple as that.
Perhaps it also helps me to realize that it was 150 years ago, and this constant blaming of all this country's ills on Lincoln that is done by the Confederate supporters is growing tiresome. You all remind me of those slavery reparations people.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you.....but I am now. You can have it both ways. My point was that circumstances were much messier than hollyweird portrays them. Sentiments weren't monolithic. There were southern sympathizers in the north and union sympathizers living in the south.
There were rebels who fought purely for the opportunity to shed yankee blood. There were some who fought for some misplaced sense of pride (we are taught by the lost causers that the only thing that mattered was state pride so apparently there was no sense of nationalism). And there were many who fought because they were compelled to fight.
It was a Hollywood movie. All five point thugs did not look like Leonardo DiCaprio. All five point hookers did not look like Cameron Diaz. I suppose that next you'll be using "Outlaw Josey Wales" to teach us about the Kansas/Missouri Border War.
Hey, I liked Josey Wales (even if it was just a yarn - and maybe because I can tell the difference). Gangs was barely watchable.
Here's that childish rebuttal stuff again.
But here's a question for you. Does the United States follow natural law when it suits its interests, but reject it when it doesn't?
Yes.
Well what do you know? An Honest hypocrite. At least you've got the balls to admit it. You do realize your position cuts ties with any moral foundation?
Yeah, it's hilarious when someone shoots at you and sets fire to your house until you're forced to surrender.
It wasn't a house, it was mounds of Rock, and they shouldn't have fired on it. That was an epic blunder and it cost them the moral high ground.
So those riots didn't actually happen? :)
Then I assume you also believe that the ten million American men conscripted into the US armed services during WW2 were just slaves, too.
I dunno, were they being sent to a war in which they didn't believe and ordered to fight people who had done them no harm? If they were, then they might rightly feel like a slave, especially when rich people could buy their own way out of the conflict.
You also miss the point of conscripting immigrants. They hadn't yet had time to develop a patriotism for their new country. Those who were born here and who were citizens have certain obligations that foreigners do not have.
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.