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 ...
That is the snag in your argument. There was never a circumstance before the war where the south was in jeopardy of destruction. In fact, for most of the period after the unions inception the south played a prominent role in governing our nation.
The slavocracy incited their southern neighbors to insurrection and rebellion - and paid a dear price.
Contrary to common belief Lincoln didn’t “Free The Slaves” with his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
At least not all slaves as most people were taught and believe.
He did free some slaves with it.
His proclamation only applied to slaves in the southern states under control of the Confederacy.
It did not apply to slaves in border states aligned with the north or to slaves in the south already under Union control.
It was all done for political and military advantage, not for humanitarian reasons.
The motivation for declaring slaves in the Confederacy to be free was to create confusion and trouble for the Confederacy by encouraging slaves to rebel and act as a sort of Guerrilla force behind Confederate lines.
The proclamation was also a sop to the Abolitionists who were exerting great political pressure on Lincoln to do something.
The primary reason for not freeing slaves in the other areas was to keep the border slave states from joining the Confederacy.
You are blind. A Christian is forced by the Government you so love to cater homosexual weddings. The FTC has acquired tax powers of the internet. The EPA is shutting free enterprise.
Whatever happened to the 10th amendment?
If that is your threshold for slavery then it must suck to be you because there is no “free” place on earth.
They didn't go to war to defend the Union, there was no threat to the Union. They went to war for two reasons. Revenge, and to prevent Independence for Southern states.
The south went to war to defend slavery and ended up losing everything.
The South foolishly attacked Ft. Sumter. The Union sent a 18,000 man invasion in response. "Freeing the Slaves" wasn't even on the list when this stuff was happening. That came later.
People who constantly assert that "freeing the slaves" was the reason the Union went to war are just wrong. Factually wrong. When the war started, the Union did not give a flip about freeing the slaves. If that was their goal, they could have started with Maryland. But. They. Didn't.
They went to war to put down an Independence movement, it's as simple as that.
Of course there was an existential threat to the survival of the union. The south set itself up not only to be direct competitors for the resources of the continent but hostile competitors vowed to cheat, steal, and murder to get their way.
The 27 states responsible for ratifying the 13th included 8 of the 11 CSA states (Georgia actually put it over) and 19 of the 25 on the Northern side of the fence, which makes the ratios as close to equal as possible given the numbers we are working with.
http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05Results
Ratifying the 13th was a condition for readmission to the union.
I don't think this is true, but even if it is, why does a change in Northern Public opinion have to be binding on people in other states? Isn't that what we are facing now with "gay" rights? They are going to shove that down our throats because people in New York and Los Angeles (In other words, people in powerful wealthy states who control the media) have decided that this is *THEIR* new morality.
The Northern states agreed to the Institution of slavery. They made a devil's bargain, and then they had second thoughts about it after Southern Support had helped to make them a free and Independent country. (I dare say the Virginian Leadership contributed more to the cause than any of the other states.)
Slavery existed in Maryland during the Civil war. If I remember correctly, the US Government even owned slaves itself.
You keep barking up this slavery tree because you really don't have a better argument, I think.
Are you referring to the Rebels seizing Fort Ticonderoga from the British? Yeah, they did that. They seized a lot of other forts too.
That was what I thought as well, but did some digging to confirm.. However, at least according to the link, Mississippi never did, and yet they are stuck with the rest of us.
Are you referring to the Rebels seizing Fort Ticonderoga from the British? Yeah, they did that. They seized a lot of other forts too.
You should know better than to conflate homosexual activism for the struggle against slavery. They aren't the same (people learn this in the third grade).
You keep barking up this slavery tree because you really don't have a better argument, I think.
Thinnk again.
Mississippi ratified on Feb 21, 2013.
And the Representatives of King George III also thought we were making much ado about nothing. Why didn't the King give the colonists some concessions?
I think it has something to do with what people believed. Sure, the Union government didn't really do anything to endanger Southern Slavery, but I think they could see where things were going. They were outnumbered by representatives of states that had abolished slavery, and they thought destruction of their economic system was only a matter of time.
People act on what they believe, whether it be true or not.
The slavocracy incited their southern neighbors to insurrection and rebellion - and paid a dear price.
What did their "southern neighbors" do that constituted insurrection? Seems to me that it was only South Carolina that fired on Ft. Sumter. The other states did nothing until the Union invaded.
Then they sent men and arms to oppose it.
Funny thing, in the Federalist papers, Madison and others belittled the idea that the militias of some states would send their armies to subdue other states. Turns out the Federalists were absolutely wrong, and the anti-Federalists were absolutely right.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
Prophetic.
That’s what the Russians said about the Port of Sevastopol — that it was never really part of the Ukrainian SSR and therefore wouldn’t be part of independent Ukraine.
That assertion went against the law of nations however and they admitted to its being Ukrainian in 1997 (entering into a leaseback arrangement as part of the resolution.)
Of course, that scumbag Putin reneged on all of that.
The motivation for declaring slaves in the Confederacy to be free was to create confusion and trouble for the Confederacy by encouraging slaves to rebel and act as a sort of Guerrilla force behind Confederate lines.
The proclamation was also a sop to the Abolitionists who were exerting great political pressure on Lincoln to do something.
The primary reason for not freeing slaves in the other areas was to keep the border slave states from joining the Confederacy.
Exactly right. It was underhanded, deceitful and cynical, and even Secretary of State William Seward was appalled by it.
"We show our symapthy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
That alone ought to be proof that the Union reasons for war had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with stopping Independence for Southern states.
Did someone mention Hyperbole earlier? Yes, i'm sure the 22 wealthy and powerful Union states were gravely threatened by the doings of the 11 poorer and weaker states.
I am NOT ashamed of my ancestors who fought for the Stars and Bars, just as I am NOT ashamed of the Stars and Stripes.
If we can “celebrate” LGTB, Cinco de Mayo, and every other “ethnic” hero or Season, then why the hell I should I forget MY history?
No, it's not just about memorabilia, OR money.
It IS about history, but what can you expect nowadays, the only history kids are learning is how EVIL is America is, NOT what America has DONE to preserve life and liberty.
...By the way, slavery by any other name would still be involuntary servitude, and was also incorporated three times into the US Constitution.
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.