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.
Whether or not they can leave the nation is, of course, the key issue. Several of the clauses suggest that the state can't simply leave the compact, which is the whole point of contention. The Constitution states that "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." This means that treaties, as well as the Constitution, become the "Law of the Land". Judges are bound to this "Law of the Land", "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Constitution also says, "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[.]"
It is especially and morally problematic to insist they abide by that compact when they have reached the conclusion that the compact has already been violated when deciding that they must leave the compact. The decision is to leave the compact. All strictures upon them for abiding by the compact are null and void once they've left.
It is more morally problematic to assume that the constituent components of a nation or even individuals can unilaterally choose to leave a nation and abandon the laws and treaties of that nation. The Constitution contains mechanisms for addressing conflicts between the states and between the states and the national government, among them the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Convention.
The seceding states did not first violate the Constitution by refusing to uphold all treaties...no...they first seceded. Such a secession was a formality as the Constitution to which they had been sworn had already been sundered by the actions of the Federal Government.
In other words, it wasn't a matter of secession so much as revolution.
The case Marbury vs Madison established the Court's right to declare legislation unconstitutional and to review the legality of legislation. That is a necessary check on the Congress, which can pass laws by over the President's veto.
You know the routine: The Congress passes law, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law. When Congress passes, and the President signs, a law that is contrary to the principles laid down in the Constitution, it is ultimately the Court that acts to protect your liberties.
Was the Supreme Court right or wrong to intervene in Gore v Bush in December 2000? They ruled on the application of standards in the counting of votes in a Federal election held under Florida State laws. If the Court was right to intervene there, a right ultimately derived from Marbury vs Madison, then they were right to rule in Texas vs White.
Take a look at how much money the South now sucks out of the North, a big hunk ofit going to Federal military installations and Federal agencies. Do you really believe the New South is going to shoot the golden goose that feeds it? As for threats about it happening "again", you'll notice that it didn't go so well the first time and I see no reason to believe that it would go any better a second time.
the beast NEVER cared a damn about blacks EVER. and he didn't care whether the klan or anyone else abused the newly freedmen either.
what he DID do was make himself & his cronies RICH on the backs of the southland's poor of all colors.
FYI, he HATED my people, the American Indians, with a passion un-surpassed by anyone i can think of.
free dixie,sw
the damnyankee apologists claim anywhere from 3,000-6,200 died there. (see, the damnyankees themselves can't agree on a number. as my grandfather used to say, "figures do not lie, but liars sure know how to figure.")
free dixie,sw
neither is suitable reading for the bedtime entertainment of children!
there was NOTHING ACCIDENTAL about the tortures, denial of medical treatment, rapes, robberies & murder of POWs;it was part of the yankee war plan!
that is FACT.
free dixie,sw
As I said, President Lincoln thought it probably best that the races be separated, but he never suggested that anyone be forced out of the country.
It's easy to show you up for the charlatan you so clearly are.
President Lincoln's letter to Governor Andrew was over a year after his special address on 12/01/62. His ideas had changed; he was working for complete assimilation of blacks into American society.
Walt
"Criminal idea?" Exactly which clause of the federal Constitution did State secession violate? Funny how these foaming-at-the-mouth unionists never manage to cite a specific constitutional provision that was violated by the Southern States.
Obviously, they prefer some sort of 'unwritten law.' And (IMHO ;>) government officials that give priority to their own personal 'unwritten law' over the United States Constitution should be fired - and jailed...
;>)
Constitutional revisionism began with the Taney court. See Madison and his comments on the use of the world 'servitude' and the reasons 'slave' was not used in the constitution. The Fugitive Slave Act was a constitutional fraud.
I would also point out that when J Q Adams got up in Congress to mention the right of Massachusetts to secede from the Union, it was the southern Congress that censored him for it. Some actually wanted to boot him. What weak kneed and unconscionable hypocrites you draw your political inheritance from.
Go read Woodrow Wilson some more. He's got a lot of pointers for you.
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.