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.
Because you say so? We have a quote supposedly made in 1861 the first record of which appears in 1867 and you claim that's not a cause for questioning it? Get real!
Why did the Confederates states have to be re-admited to the "union" then? What about Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island & Providence Plantatations after the Constitution was ratified by the 9th state? What about Vermont, that was an independent state since 1777? What about Georgia, that was not a member of the Articles of Association, despite being in existance for decades prior?
Kind of like that famous 'But what will I do about the tariff' quote that Lincoln is supposed to have made? A quote made in 1861 that is first detailed about 5 years later in a deposition? Get real!
But on the other hand if you have a quote from Davis that contradicts what he said about slavery then I'm sure you'll post it, right?
Wrong. I know for a fact that my gggrandfather and his 4 brothers volunteered in 1861 - my ancestor volunteered twice, and served in multiple infantry units and the cavalry. The 3rd GA Volunteer Infantry was organized in late April 1861, as were numerous other Ga volunteer units. Virginia's governor had asked for support from Georgia, to which our Governor Joseph Brown responded on 19 Apr 1861, "Will do all in my power to get the companies for Virginia."
On 25 Jul 1863, Gov. Brown wrote Secretary of War James A. Seddon,
The 51st Regiment was tendered as one of the twelve, and, with the other eleven and several additional regiments which offered their services all volunteers, was accepted by the President, as organized and officered by the State.Confederate monies were not printed until May of 1861, and if their value was deflated, it was due to 'an effort to debase this currency, the North printed counterfeit Confederate money and circulated it in the south.'
Illogical is right. Is this some form of plausible deniability? That the President is shielded, and oblivious to everything occurring during his administration?
It's interesting that the court's decision is just the opposite of the expected given that it held Texas never seceded.
free dixie,sw
damnyankee apologists are nothing if not consistent;they believe everything done by the damnyankee filth was WUNERFULL, WUNERFULL.(sic).
nothing ever done by southern leaders & our hero-martyrs was correct in their eyes.
free dixie,sw
Marse Robert NEVER owned a single slave. he was far too poor to own one, even had he wanted to.
free dixie,sw
i've not seen so much meaningless/ignorant/arrogant nonsense since the long ago days, when i taught 9th grade social studies in the public schools.
at least my students had the excuse of being KIDS. what's your excuse?
free dixie,sw
Ok. But not in a deposition. The meeting occurred 22 Apr 1861:
Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.And this one of the same incident:
"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!" [italics in original]
Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.
"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."
Evert A. Duyckinck, National history of the war for the union, civil, military and naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861.
The meeting was written up in the 23 Apr 1861 edition of the Baltimore Sun, and two other Baltimore papers the following day. Not 5 years after the fact.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
No non-seq. It's just common sense. If I am sending a single report of my plan to the president I don't go over to the GPO and have a truckload of them printed up for mass distribution.
But in any case had Mitchell been presenting policy then why did he address it to Lincoln alone?
You obviously aren't too familiar with GPO publications. Their title almost always includes the primary recipient - i.e. "Report to the President" or "Report to the Attorney General" etc.
Well, the mohammedan religion is a dangerous and pervasive heresy. As Thomas Aquinas says there is only one way to deal with heretics of this form and it ain't a pretty one.
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.