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.
you have NEVER admitted the TRUTH about the THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES committed by the damnyankee army.
my advice to you is to NOT come south of the mason-dixon line;you will NOT be well received.
free dixie,sw
I would like to direct you to this posted on shucks.net . Is it my imagination or is Davis suggesting expelling all slaves up North if the North wants to take care of them?
No kidding.
No, as I stated above, that's what "many other states" means. Not Northern states, not Southern States, not Western states, simply "states". One could add Indiana (even as late as 1862) or Delaware (1811) to the list of states that prohibited black immigrants.
IF true, so what? Where are any lies?
Start with the economic history of the US. Your version is entirely fictional and totally off the wall compared to all the statistics ever compiled either by DeBow's or the southern dominated government. Of course, you repeatedly deny that, but you are absolutely not correct in that regard.
Please note that the constitution called for the end of the slave trade in 1807, and that the service clause does not refer to servitude as southerners came to later interpret it
Read the debates and you'll find otherwise.
I already quoted Madison from the debates. It's like a conditioned reflex, a hysteric reaction with you. Something you totally beyond your ability to comprehend.
The Northern states all ended slavery by 1807, with the exception of the states where existing slaves were grandfathered under the laws that ended slavery otherwise.
Guess again. Illinois practiced slavery under the guise of "indentured servitude" until 1865. The prohibited blacks from immigrating into the state, as did many other states. They had a law immigrating slave hating southerners put on the books, but it was systematically ignored. You're Wilsoning again. But Illinois was a western state, not a northern state, and it never allowed southern slavery. Indentured servitude by contract is still essentially legal in the US today, though I doubt anyone calls it that.
Using the constitution as a defense of slavery in the manner you do is a major feature of the official texts of the KKK. and it remains a delusion of most white power organizations
Wrong again. I defend the Constitution, which legalized it until ended by amendment.
No, it was never legalized by the Constitution. The constitution says nothing about slavery other than that the 'slave trade' can not be outlawed before 1807. Show me where it says 'we legalize slavery, the denial of habeus corpus and the treatment of human beings in the legal category of furniture. SHOW ME.
I condemn slavery, and those who who made the profits off the slave trade - only to discover morals after the money dried up.
Good. At least you now condemn that trash traitor rag like any US citizen should always. Burn that horse manure rag of treason. It is, was and always will be an offense in the sight of God.
It was the flag that African slaves saw flying from American ships, but I doubt that the flag of the US is an offense to God oh mystical one. Pray tell, but how would you know what God's opinion on this is?
Sorry, the Spanish flag was the predominant slaver's rag. There goes your Wilson again. There were no laws in the US forbidding southerners to invest in ships, and once they were tranferred to Spanish flag, no way for them to grabbed if they were high quality New England vessels. The south, of course, never acquired the art and technologies of ship building. You have to learn to read and write for something like that.
Now, explain how 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' fits into the notion of southern slavery.
Exactly.
so are the fictions posted by its defenders.
Walt
I'll call Father Mark after lunch and let him know his services are no longer needed. I suggest you guys do the same with your respective pastors.
I don't think it's God that's talking to them.
(NIV) 1 Timothy 61 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.
2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions.
I'm not? Please post your evidence.
I already quoted Madison from the debates. It's like a conditioned reflex, a hysteric reaction with you. Something you totally beyond your ability to comprehend.
One qeustion. How could slavery not be legal if the importation was?
But Illinois was a western state, not a northern state, and it never allowed southern slavery. Indentured servitude by contract is still essentially legal in the US today, though I doubt anyone calls it that.
The case of Phoebe v. Jay, 1 Ill 268 (1828) recognized that "voluntary servitude" was the same as slavery. In Pollock v Williams 322 US 4 (1944), the Supreme Court stated, 'When the master can compel and the laborer cannot escape the obligation to go on, there is no power below to redress and no incentive above to relieve a harsh overlordship or unwholesome conditions of work.' Indentured servitude is slavery.
Show me where it says 'we legalize slavery, the denial of habeus corpus and the treatment of human beings in the legal category of furniture. SHOW ME.
Ok.
92_SJ0005
1 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION2 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois, at the time of its
3 acceptance into the Union in 1818 and for a longtime
4 thereafter, practiced de facto slavery masqueraded as
5 "indentured servitude"; the census of 1840 enumerated slaves
6 in Illinois in violation of the Ordinance of 1787, which
7 outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories; and
8 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois passed the infamous and
9 unjust Black Laws (1819), otherwise known as the Black Codes,
10 which were a denial of human rights designed to cover up
11 slavery and the slave trade within the borders of the State;
12 and
13 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois supported the Black Codes
14 for more than forty-six years until they were finally
15 repealed; and
16 WHEREAS, In the State of Illinois the majority of
17 Illinois citizens favored closing the State to
18 African-American residents and withholding the right of
19 citizenship from those African-American residents already
20 living in the State; and
21 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois passed dehumanizing laws
22 stating that slaves were not persons, but property, and as
23 property the ownership of enslaved Africans was to be fully
24 protected by Illinois law; and
25 WHEREAS, For many years, Black people, free or
26 otherwise, had no legal status as citizens in the State of
27 Illinois; and ...
Good. At least you now condemn that trash traitor rag like any US citizen should always.
Umm, no. I still fly my US flag. They were the traitors to the Constitution
The south, of course, never acquired the art and technologies of ship building.
Why build a ship when it was cheaper just to ship? If you own a mom & pop store, are you going to invest in tucks, or pay someone?
Now, explain how 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' fits into the notion of southern slavery.
See #908.
free dixie,sw
Some Yankee stole my "r"!
I suppose I haven't convinced you either. Dispute on these matters has been going on for over a century and won't end anytime soon. Much of the argument is not so much over what the Constitution says, but over the conceptual background that is presumed to be valid on issues where the Constitution is silent, or over how presumed conflicts between clauses are to be resolved. The very fact that such argument goes on and on with no sign of abatement is an indication that more caution was required in 1860 than the secessionists displayed.
You're right, the Constitution clearly states that the several states may not violate federal laws or the tenets of the document. However, since there is no Constitutional prohibition on secession, nor was there an extant federal law as of December 1860 stating such, so secession was clearly not illegal or contra-Constitutional.
The plan he outlines entailed moving the first 150,000 of them there. It was going to use the surplus navy ships that were no longer needed with the war over.
Already did. See post 848. Now it's your turn: show me one time from ANY point in Lincoln's career where he even so much as offered a single word in repudiation of colonization.
You cannot because none exists.
No Walt. I have an historical letter from Lincoln's attorney general responding to his request to keep Mitchell for pursuing colonization.
As Non-Sequitur noted, if President Lincoln supported colonization late in his administration, where is the condemnation of that from people like Sumner and Douglass? It's not there, because it had become a non-issue.
I don't know about condemnations from Charles Sumner but it certainly was not a non-issue after 1862. The Senate even formally requested a colonization report from the Dept. of Interior on March 25, 1864 and Lincoln transmitted it on June 29th.
That's pretty common, in a general sense, for most unionists. Many of them insist that secession was "unconstitutional," or "illegal," but when you ask them which article of the Constitution prohibited secession, or which law specifically outlawed the action, they respond only with vague generalities.
They 'don't have anything to show.'
;>)
Here's a little excerpt from the US history of the Democrat Party:
"Our government...must fight to uphold American interests -- promoting exports, expanding trade in agricultural and other products, opening markets in major product and service sectors with our principal competitors, and achieving reciprocal access. This should include renewed authority to use America's trading leverage against the most serious problems." - Bill Clinton's New Covenant with the American People, adopted by the Democratic National Committee, August 1992
Interestingly enough the only person around here who sounds like that is, well, YOU.
N-S: No, I'm just pointing out the folly of believing that the government or the states can act in a unilateral fashion where the interests of other states are involved.
Actually, you did not appear to be "just pointing out the folly of believing that the government or the states can act in a unilateral fashion where the interests of other states are involved ." You stated that:
"There is nothing that prevents [the federal government from expelling a State]. According to Ariticle IV Congress can create a state. In fact according to the Constitution only congress has a role in creating a state, not the President, not the courts, not even the people of the state itself. So where does it say that Congress can't uncreate one?"
You seem to be insisting that the federal government can indeed "act in a unilateral fashion." You asked a question, citing Article IV of the Constitution as grounds for your argument. Care to answer your own question?
"[W]here does it say that Congress can't uncreate [a State]?"
It was your question: what's your answer? Some kind of mystical unwritten law - or the United States Constitution?
(I suggest you try the Constitution - it's in there... ;>)
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.