Maybe Casey should've tried that "one armed behind his back" technique he talked about last year.
Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.
They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.
On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.
The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.
It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.
In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.
But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.
One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.
To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.
After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.
They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.
This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.
But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.
They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.
According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.
Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.
The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.
However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.
White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."
Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.
Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."
Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.
I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.
In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.
Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.
So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.
Walt and Doctor Oates both know that was worth precisely nothing. Former White Confederate soldiers were allowed to vote. Former Black Union soldiers were denied the right to vote. That is the undeniable reality of Lincoln.
Maybe Casey should've tried that "one armed behind his back" technique he talked about last year.
Walt
Thank you sir. Hope UT has a good season. I really can't gloat much, thinking back to the 90's.
I've read it. Sometimes I wonder if any of you guys have.
Davis has written many books and articles, and many have the same theme; however, I am always a little dubious about the "prolific" authors.
The Cause Lost is now available in paperback (hardback might still be available from Military Book Club). Originally released in 1996.
Walt, I think you have made a legal breakthrough. It is now clear that during the War of 1812, when the Brits/Canadians had troops all over U.S. territory and managed to take Washington, D.C. and burn the White House, the United States ceased to be a sovereign nation.
Does that mean that all the individual states returned to their previous status as sovereigns?
[nc] I did not ask you for sources for page 588 of Donald's book. I am not interested in any irrelevant excrement he may have smeared on page 588 of his book. I asked you to provide a source who at least alleged to have heard the story from one of the parties you fantasize was there on April 11, 1865.
[nc] The phrase "at present" does not appear in your fantasy. Relative to your fantasy, footnoting a non-existent phrase is a waste of time and proves nothing.
[nc] The phrase "to the tyrant" does not appear in your fantasy. Relative to your fantasy, footnoting a non-existent phrase is a waste of time and proves nothing.
[nc] The phrase "if he wished" does not appear in your fantasy. Relative to your fantasy, footnoting a non-existent phrase is a waste of time and proves nothing. This phrase pertains to an irrelevant meeting in New York.
[nc] You have provided no source where anyone claims to have heard any party to your fantasy say anything.
[Walt] Hanchett is cited as providing the material that Paine and Herold heard Booth swear to kill Lincoln.
[nc] You have provided no such material, nor does Hanchett. In contrast, regarding the meeting of April 11, 1865 with General Butler, Lincoln's secretary documents that the meeting was scheduled, and Benjamin Butler, one of the parties, documents it occurred. Numerous historians cite Butler's Book.
[Walt] When we ran through this exercise maybe a year or so ago, seems like Paine and Herold both testified to this effect before various tribunals; Paine's was maybe at his trial.
[nc] This is a desperate lie. The witness list for the trial, and the transcript of the trial, show that neither Lewis Powell/Paine nor David Herold testified at the military kangaroo court. Your other "tribunals" are imaginary.
[Walt] Why this should be an issue, I've no idea.
[nc] It is an issue because you and your quote are frauds. You assert this pile of crap is well-documented, but when challenged to produce said documentation, you can produce nothing and invoke the absurd, "You can find this story related on literally dozens of websites."
[nc] Is this your new standard of proof? -- "You can find this story related on literally dozens of websites."
[Walt]
You've seen this before:"Lincoln's address on April 11 triggered Booth's shift from thought to action. In the crowd outside the White House that evening, he heard the President recommend suffrage for blacks who were educated or had served in the Union armies. "That means nigger citizenship," the actor muttered, and he vowed, "That is the last speech he will ever make." He urged Paine to shoot the President on the spot. When Paine refused, Booth turned in disgust to his other companion, David Herold, and exclaimed, "By God, I'll put him through."
-- "Lincoln" p. 588, by David Donald
THAT is the quote you are trying to document as having been attested to by someone who was there.
Please don't project your innermost desires upon me - I do not share them.
Stating that they were conscripted does not imply dishonour. Just the opposite, I have long held those that served - black, white, red or yellow - in the highest regards.
You didn't have to admit it.
[Walt] As I indicated, these are the sources Donald uses just on page 588 of his book. [nc] I did not ask you for sources for page 588 of Donald's book....
I could care less what you ask. What a moron you are.
You called the story that Booth swore to kill Lincoln over supporting black suffrage a "fairy tale."
It's not. You'd think you'd have the common sense to let it drop.
Walt
[Walt] Can you be a sovereign nation if foreign troops are all over your territory?
Not to mention all the nations in which we have troops stationed. Do they retain their sovereignty?
[nc] The phrase "to the tyrant" does not appear in your fantasy. Relative to your fantasy, footnoting a non-existent phrase is a waste of time and proves nothing.
[nc] The phrase "if he wished" does not appear in your fantasy. Relative to your fantasy, footnoting a non-existent phrase is a waste of time and proves nothing. This phrase pertains to an irrelevant meeting in New York.
I scanned all that out of Donald's book. It's there.
Walt
Not to mention all the nations in which we have troops stationed. Do they retain their sovereignty?
Were they formerly part of the United States, those countries? No.
Are they recognised as sovereign nations? Yes. Was the so-called CSA? No.
You can't really be serious.
Are U.S. military forces searching for the leaders of these countries where our troops are stationed? Would they arrest these countries' leaders and indict them for treason if they caught them?
Are the leaders of Iraq, or Korea, or Germany or Korea on the run from our forces?
I have myself been on military operations with Saudis, and Germans, and Spanish, and Brits. I don't recall hearing that we should open fire on them.
Walt
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.