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.
That isn't how it works. Scholars don't judge something authentic because they haven't seen that the primary source is lacking a basis which would support authenticity. They question the authenticity until they are shown that the primary source does support authenticity. I am not an historical scholar but that doesn't mean I shouldn't follow the same principles.
In some circumstances I might not be so finicky, but to me the quote just doesn't sound genuine. However I give far more weight to the evidence that nolu chan produced calling into credibility that particular newspaper, The New York Citizen.
Yet the states had to go thru "readmission" - can't have it both ways.
It's been said many times in these threads that this is -not- what happened. The core Republican Party stance throughput the whole war was that the Union was indissoluable. That is why the great mass of loyal volunteers came forward -- to fight for an indissoluable Union.
What was at issue post-war was the seating of congressmen and senators. It was their "readmitance", not the states, that was at issue.
It's been said many times in these threads that this is -not- what happened. The core Republican Party stance throughput the whole war was that the Union was indissoluable. That is why the great mass of loyal volunteers came forward -- to fight for an indissoluable Union.
What was at issue post-war was the seating of congressmen and senators. It was their "readmitance", not the states, that was at issue.
Walt
There is absolutely no evidence of that.
Here is what President Lincoln said in regards to compensated emancipation and colonization to border state representatives in the summer of 1862:
"Upon these considerations I have again begged your attention to the message of March last. Before leaving the capitol, consider and discuss it among yourselves. You are patriots and statesmen, and as such, I pray you, consider this proposition; and, at least, commend it to the consderation of your states and people. As you would perpetuate popular government for the best people in the world, I beseech you that you do in no wise admit this. Our common country is in great peril, demanding the loftiest views, and boldest action to bring it speedy relief.
Once relieved, it's form of government is saved to the world; it's beloved history, and cherished memories, are vindicated; and it's happy future fully assured, and rendered inconceivably grand. To you, more than any others, the privilege is given, to assure that happiness, and swell that grandeur, and to link your own names therewith forever."
And on 12/1/62:
"To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territrorial acquisition...In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
After that, President Lincoln said not one word with regards to colonization.
As his aide Hay said in 1864, he "sloughed off" the idea of colonization.
You can't put words in his mouth to support it.
What he -did- do, and is amply on the record for, is suggesting that black soldiers be given the vote.
You have no shame, or you would be shamed into silence after the lies you've told.
Walt
So Yankees now are stupid and cowardly. How about the Yankees that crushed the rebellion in 1860-65?
Were the rebels even more stupid and more cowardly?
No --group-- of people exhibits more stupidity and cowardness than another, or more nobility and courage either.
It's racist to say that they do.
Walt
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States, at such time as he may deem best for the public interest, may submit the constitution which was framed by the convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, on Tuesday, the third day of December, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, to the voters of said State, registered at the date of said submission, for ratification or rejection; ...Please oh mystical wizard, point to the section & clause of the Constitution that grants the President and Congress the power to power to propose, amend or submit the constitutions of an existing state, one that was "republican" [representative]? In the debates, Morris asserted that 'a republican government must be the basis of our national union; and no state in it ought to have it in their power to change its government into a monarchy.' The states of Virginia, Texas and Mississippi were not ruled by monarchs - they had just ratified the 13th Amendment, but had failed to ratify the 14th.Sec. 3 And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States may in like manner submit the constitution of Texas to the voters of said State at such time and in such manner as he may direct, either the entire constitution, or separate provisions of the same ...
Sec. 4 And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States may in like manner resubmit the constitution of Mississippi to the voters of said State at such time and in such manner as he may direct, either the entire constitution, or separate provisions of the same ...
Sec. 6 And be it further enacted, That before the States of Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas shall be admitted to representation in Congress, their several legislatures, which may be hereafter lawfully organized, shall ratify the fifteenth article, which has been proposed by Congress to the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.Where in the Constitution is the federal government delegated to power to FORCE a state to ratify a pending Amendment as condition of representation? FYI, NO state had ratified the 15th at this time, the first to do so was Nevada, over two months later.
The Wade-Davis bill stated that 'the President of the United States, who, after obtaining the assent of congress, shall, by proclamation, recognize the government so established, and none other, as the constitutional government of the state.'
Secession Acts by the people in Converntion, NO recognized government, NO federal representation, FORCED to rewrite existing state Constitutions - which were good enough to ratify Amendment 13 & reject the 14th, FORCED to ratify amendments - just how is that remaining in the union?
Nonsense.
Are you saying that the US Marines are not more noble or couragous than the attendees of a Susan Sarandan(sp?) rally where they cheer her calling the president an idiot and tossing out unfounded accusations against him?
Are you saying that the B-2 pilots who've been awake for 29 hours on their way from Whiteman to Afghanistan exhibits no more nobility or courage than the Frenchmen burning American flags and insisting that the pilots are doing the work of a despot?
Do the Rangers parachuting into Northern Iraq to set up an airstrip have more courage or nobility than the Iraqi batallion who surrendered to a CNN camera crew? The navy crewmen strapping JDAMs onto F-18s?
FYI, The answers are: Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.
Yes there is and the fact that you intentionally choose to ignore it does not make it go away. As you have been shown many times, Lincoln was still pushing colonization as of November 30, 1864 - the date of Bates' letter informing him to keep Mitchell.
There is also Butler's testimony which, despite your claims to the contrary, corresponds to a documented meeting between the two at the specified timeframe.
What evidence do you have to doubt Butler's account? It supports virtually the same policy proposed by Mitchell. Butler also says that Lincoln took it up in 1865 now that the war was winding down, just as Mitchell had recommended that he do back when the gameplan was originally submitted.
In 1858 Lincoln discounted the whole idea purging the U.S. of blacks by noting the logistics involved made it impossible.
Yet if you read Butler's account you find Lincoln reconsidering the logistical issue on the grounds that tactics similar to the mass transport of troops in the war could possibly make it work. In fact that is why he met with Butler, who in the war had overseen the logistics of one of the largest troop transports. Butler states that Lincoln asked him to investigate logistical strategies based on his war experience and find a way to make it work.
You would have us believe that 7 years later he changed his mind and thought that expelling 4 million people was suddenly possible?
Considering that the war in between entailed the largest mass movements of troops seen to date on the north american continent, yes. If we are to accept Butler's account what Lincoln had seen in the war prompted him to AT LEAST inquire whether or not it was now possible.
Those were all small scale plans - pilot programs, if you will. And they were not at all out of line with what Mitchell was recommending that he do at the time. Mitchell specifically suggested that he do only small scale programs during the war and implement the larger one afterwards when funds were no longer tied up
Butler moves 30,000 men less than 100 miles up the James River and you equate that with the problems involving the transport of 4 million people overseas. But why talk to Butler in the first place? He did nothing special. Grant moved a larger army down the Tennessee river, why not consult him? Why not talk to Burnside, who actually moved an army out into the ocean and down to the Carolinas? Why not talk to McClellan who actually moved a larger army down the Potomac? Instead you would have us believe that he consulted Butler, probably the most inept of the Union commanders.
How do you do a 'small scale' forced expulsion? How do you decide who to expel and who not? And where were these 'pilot programs' you speak of? Every single proposal that Lincoln made was for assisted, voluntary emigration. Not a single proposal involved the forced, involuntary expulsion that Mitchell advocated. But they were still 'pilot programs'.
Butler's movement was admittedly a lesser ammount but that is not even the point. What he did was logistically impressive for the day and Lincoln asked him if he could translate the same techniques to a larger scale project of colonization. Whether Butler could have done so or not will never be known. He expressed his own doubts of being able to move the whole black population but did believe he could move some portions of it and began devising a means of transporting the first 150,000 of them.
But why talk to Butler in the first place?
Because they knew each other well and regularly consulted on military and political matters. Butler was even Lincoln's first choice for the VP nod in 1864.
Grant moved a larger army down the Tennessee river, why not consult him?
According to Butler, Lincoln fully intended to include Grant in the venture as well. He told Butler during the conversation "I may want to talk this matter over with General Grant if he isn't too busy."
Instead you would have us believe that he consulted Butler, probably the most inept of the Union commanders.
Nathaniel Banks was by far the most inept of union commanders. While Butler was no great general himself he was closer to Lincoln than most of the others in the union command. As a result Lincoln consulted Butler on many things throughout the war that he probably should have gone to somebody else for. Butler also had the longest experience of any general in commanding black troops, which was seen as a major component of the colonization issue.
The plan they first proposed was actually a small scale colonization. They set up a pilot colony in Haiti with a contracted businessman, but he turned out to be a con artist and the deal fell through in 1863. Just as Mitchell's letter indicates this was only a small scale colonization attempt and was intended to precede a larger one at the end of the war which could include forced colonization.
Yes there is...
Quote President Lincoln.
If you can't do that, you have nothing.
After 1862, President Lincoln dropped the idea of colonization.
He worked for voting rights for black soldiers instead. I can quote him on that subject.
You need to --quote-- him post 1/1/63 on colonization.
This all SO reminds me of the tablet down in front of the Georgia state capital put up by the UDC in the 1920's quoting "ol' peg leg Hood" (to quote Doctor Meade in Gone With the Wind). The tablet -- to quote Hood now, says that his army was still the master of Atlanta a week after the Battle of Atlanta on 7/22/64. I'd guess the UDC was pretty proud of that, just as you are of your scholarship on this colonization thing.
Problem is that the UDC's tablet doesn't mention that Hood shortly thereafter ordered the evacuation of Atlanta.
The points you make have similar merit.
Walt
You generalized by the group. That is racist by definition.
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.