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.
"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." -- Abraham Lincoln, August 21, 1851
So where did Jefferson Davis ever say that the black man had any rights a white man was bound to respect? Where did Jefferson Davis, or any other southern leader, say that the black man was his equal in any sense whatsoever?
Why before? Is that because the state would be at the mercy of a federal court, which we both know would be the ultimate arbiter? Why not after, when the state can negotiate on a more equal footing? And realistically, the seceded state(s) would still need a harmonious relationship with the U.S., so an equitable arrangement would have to be worked out in the view of the state, so as to keep trade and other activities going.
But is it not logical to assume that, if the Founders had wanted such a requirement, then it would have been included explicitly, and not left to chance (i.e. someone's interpretation years down the road)?
Negotiate after the fact? That makes no sense at all. Why not turn your house over to the buyer and then negotiate the price after they take posession? Where is the incentive to negotiate a settlement agreeable to both parties? The southern states would have had what they wanted, secession, and why should they care about the interests and the impacts and the affects their actions have on the remaining states?
And realistically, the seceded state(s) would still need a harmonious relationship with the U.S., so an equitable arrangement would have to be worked out in the view of the state, so as to keep trade and other activities going.
Why so? After all, conditions under the U.S. was so onerous that they couldn't wait to get away. Why should they care one way or the other about harmonious relationships with the U.S.? They had Europe to counter with.
I had not read this quotation before. Lincoln must have been a very, very good man then, because Grant pounded Lee into submission.
It would seem to me, at least, that one would expect exceptions would be listed. If congressional approval is needed for all cases except one then one would expect that that one exception should be identified in the document.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Further Lincoln flip-flops on his position - great politician. He clearly states "not my equal" but then secures the liberties under the DoI.
Actually the discussion began when I refuted the preposterous claim that President Lincoln wanted to send all blacks back to Africa. Why aren't you upset at that? And why are Lincoln's comments relevant and Davis's comments aren't? Why hold Lincoln up to modern standards of racism and not southern leaders?
At best, the view of blacks held by virtually every southerners were no worse than those held by Lincoln. But for the most part, southerners believed like Davis did, that blacks were fit for slavery and nothing else. They did not agree that blacks were their equal in any way. Why is that so hard for you to discuss, and why do you condemn Lincoln for his view and not condemn Davis for his?
This US Supreme Court decision lays out the Constitutional illegality of secession.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS is not above the Constitution, and nothing can be read into it to nullify the option of secession. And that is exactly why Davis, Lee, et al, were never tried for treason.
Article III, Section 2 grants the Supreme Court the authority "--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." In Article IV, quoted in full above, grants Congress the power to regulate the territory and other property belonging to the United States. Article VI says that, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
How can a state secede if it is bound to uphold all treaties made under the Authority of the United States as the supreme "Law of the Land", even above the Constitution and the laws of taht state?
Article III, Section 2 grants the Supreme Court the authority "--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." In Article IV, quoted in full above, grants Congress the power to regulate the territory and other property belonging to the United States. Article VI says that, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
How can a state secede if it is bound to uphold all treaties made under the Authority of the United States as the supreme "Law of the Land", even above the Constitution and the laws of taht state?
for more than a century, what has passed for facts about the dixie LIBERTY cause has been INTENTIONAL lies & spin, which was designed to devide the southland's folk and to cover-up the ATROCITIES of the damnyankee army & political leaders.
to quote the reknowned British professor Arnold Toynbee,
"history is fiction, popularly agreed on by tyrants & conquerers."
free dixie,sw
for more than a century, what has passed for facts about the dixie LIBERTY cause has been INTENTIONAL lies & spin, which was designed to devide the southland's folk and to cover-up the ATROCITIES of the damnyankee army & political leaders.
to quote the reknowned British professor Arnold Toynbee,
"history is fiction, popularly agreed on by tyrants & conquerers."
free dixie,sw
ben butler got RICH off selling free black men INTO slavery until well into 1863 AND looting southern civilian homes for everything that was of value.
he was FILTH of the worst sort.
free dixie,sw
ben butler got RICH off selling free black men INTO slavery until well into 1863 AND looting southern civilian homes for everything that was of value.
he was FILTH of the worst sort.
free dixie,sw
ben butler got RICH off selling free black men INTO slavery until well into 1863 AND looting southern civilian homes for everything that was of value.
he was FILTH of the worst sort.
free dixie,sw
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.