Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Southern Pride - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Jul 5th, 2006 06:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I am trying to understand why people who are into the Southern aspects of the civil war try to convince others that Northerners have rewritten history.  Can they just not get over the fact that the stronger of the two nations took the road paved to victory?  I respect the South, but dislike the bitterness that goes along with it.  What is the reason for this?



 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2006 12:03 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
rrhrjs
Member
 

Joined: Tue Jun 13th, 2006
Location: Storrs, Connecticut USA
Posts: 12
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

My guess is that hypocrisy is a factor. And I say that as a Connecticut Yankee and the proud great-great granddaughter of a Union soldier from Indiana. But I also think that the North could sound awfully high and mighty when in reality, it had its own serious problems with race and racism.

Last edited on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 01:57 am by rrhrjs



 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2006 01:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

burnsideshot,

  Much of the problem comes from the way the North treated the South after the war. The people who support the North tend to forget what happened during reconstruction. They make it sound as if the North went down South and made it a better place than it was. They want you to believe the Negros had it far better then slavery. While slavery was wrong and had to be eleminated former slaves never had it a good as the Northern history would have you think.

   Lincoln is another example of the problem. He ignored the Constitution when it suited him and he never freed the slaves as the North teaches. Lincoln changed what he said when it suited him. Since this is not a thread about Lincoln I will not go into details, unless someone wishes to start a Lincoln thread.

   Secession is another issue, which is discussed on these boards. The North would have you believe that it was illegal without showing you in the Constitution it is forbidden.

  Slavery as the main issue of the South cause of the war is another issue. The South clearly fought over states rights. The North denied the South of its' right to regain its' property. Yes, the property was slaves, however slavery was a states right.

   The North would like to think they were the saviors of the slaves when in reality they had slaves, their military commander at Appomattox General Grant own three slave at the time, while the Confederate commander had none. Many Northern states at the time had laws making it illegal for former slaves and some Negros to stay in their state for more the 30 days. Lincoln did not care if the Union was all with or without slavery as long as the Union remained intact.

   I agree with rrhrjs that the North can sound awfully high and might. I believe the South has plenty of reasons to be bitter.

   Sorry I got so long winded, but there are many instances of history not being exactly told as it was.

   By the way I am from Pennsylvania, so I am not speaking as a Southerner.

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)

Last edited on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 01:21 pm by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Thu Jul 6th, 2006 07:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Shadowrebel wrote: burnsideshot,

  Much of the problem comes from the way the North treated the South after the war. The people who support the North tend to forget what happened during reconstruction. They make it sound as if the North went down South and made it a better place than it was. They want you to believe the Negros had it far better then slavery. While slavery was wrong and had to be eleminated former slaves never had it a good as the Northern history would have you think.
Does not history show that the freedmen's plight got much worse *after* reconstruction ended and state's rights were reinstituted in the South?

   Lincoln is another example of the problem. He ignored the Constitution when it suited him and he never freed the slaves as the North teaches.
What does the North teach and what really happened?Lincoln changed what he said when it suited him. Since this is not a thread about Lincoln I will not go into details, unless someone wishes to start a Lincoln thread.

   Secession is another issue, which is discussed on these boards. The North would have you believe that it was illegal without showing you in the Constitution it is forbidden.
Perhaps that's what the war was all about? 

  Slavery as the main issue of the South cause of the war is another issue. The South clearly fought over states rights. The North denied the South of its' right to regain its' property.
How did the North do that?Yes, the property was slaves, however slavery was a states right.

   The North would like to think they were the saviors of the slaves when in reality they had slaves, their military commander at Appomattox General Grant own three slave at the time, while the Confederate commander had none.
bosh Many Northern states at the time had laws making it illegal for former slaves and some Negros to stay in their state for more the 30 days. Lincoln did not care if the Union was all with or without slavery as long as the Union remained intact.correct

   I agree with rrhrjs that the North can sound awfully high and might. I believe the South has plenty of reasons to be bitter.

   Sorry I got so long winded, but there are many instances of history not being exactly told as it was.

   By the way I am from Pennsylvania, so I am not speaking as a Southerner.

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 04:18 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC,

Thank you for your reply. So you are telling me that the Freedmen, as you call them, had it better during Reconstruction? That their plight only got worse after Reconstruction? It got no worse after Reconstruction then it was during Reconstruction, that is the Yankee myth. The Yankees never improved the plight of the former slaves. It was not until the 1960s that the Negro began to get his due and today have not fully been given their due.

As to Lincoln, or Honest Abe as Northerners like to call him;

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus despite a ruling from Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that he did it illegally.

 

When Maryland voiced its support for the CSA and appeared itself ready to secede, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of Baltimore (the nation’s 3rd largest city at the time), and a US Congressman from Maryland, as well as numerous editors and publishers. As noted Lincoln scholar Mark Neely writes in The Last Best Hope of Earth, Lincoln arrested the Marylanders "without much agonizing over their constitutionality" (p 133).

 

Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53).

 

John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the  opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law.

 

The Great Emancipator never freed any slaves, the greatest of Yankee myths. It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. I do believe Lincoln was dead by that time. He proposed three 13th amendments to the Constitution; Lincoln's Three Proposed Constitutional Amendments of 1862

1.  Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2.  Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3.  Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of
the United States of free blacks by their own consent.


He really was a friend of the slaves with these proposals. Abolish slavery by Jan. 1, 1900 how can you call him a friend of the slaves? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

So much for Honest Abe, the Great Emancipator.

  The war was from the Union side about preserving the Union; I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm



   The South fought for States Rights, here is a website with all 13 Declaration of Secession which clearly show the South fought for States rights. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp


   The North denied the South of its' right to regain its' property.
How did the North do that?
     Have you ever heard of the Underground Railroad? Also see the Declaration of Secession for more details.

   You deny that Grant and his wife owned slaves during the war and only freed them after the passage of the 13th Amendment or that General Lee was a slave holder at the time of Appomattox? Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.(Simon, p347) Lee had freed his slaves in 1862.

I await your reply and souces of you reply.

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 01:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Yeah rr and shadow.  I understand the points you are making.  I can understand how those things can happen.  While on topic though, I thought it was Grant's wife that owned a slave or 2.  I do respect Jackson for never having a slave. Why is it that if Lee felt slavery was immoral as he preached, he had slaves.  This I don't understand, him being sort of morally superior in many minds.  I agree too that blacks in the North didnt have it great.  Unlike slaves, they were not guaranteed food or a roof over their heads.  At the time, slaves may have even been a necessity.  Its not the point Im trying to argue though.  I was just curious about the whole Lee paradox.  Thanks :)



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 01:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Jackson had a slave.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 02:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


Oh boy... this could thread could get ugly...

Everyone has made some great points. I personally feel that people in general (BOTH north and south) are pretty ignorant when it comes to REAL American history. They tend to look at things in the shortest and most rudimentary sense and not the whole story - especially from different perspectives. Often this results in the "defeated" foe being portrayed as a villain. Many people in the South are outraged NOT because of the Northern victory - but how their Cause was (and is) depicted. Slavery was absolutely an issue - but not the only issue. I've spent the first half of my life living just a few hours from Gettysburg and the last half living in Fredericksburg. Growing up in Pennsylvania, I was taught the Union's point of view, while my adult education in Virginia has focused more on the Confederacy's. Regardless of what "side" you line up on, it should bother all of us that "Rebs and Yanks" living in the same country are being intentionally skewed in their understanding of the Civil War. In the North, "the Gray" is often portrayed as the bad guys, a bunch of barefoot, slave-owning ingrates. In the South, "the Blue" is often remembered as an evil dictatorship, hell-bent on invasion and the nullification of states' rights. In many ways both are right, and both are wrong. Now, given the relaxed teaching standards in schools today, imagine what our kids think. Ultimately we are losing the next generation of Civil War buffs to the Playstation and Cell phones. I think that this lazy attitude makes people angry and more defensive.

I remember in sixth grade, the Civil War took up months of our history-class curriculum. Today, it seems that many schools are glazing over the conflict in a matter of weeks. Many of the newer textbooks, for example, leave out important events and present what is left over in a very generic and politically correct manner. This can be partially blamed on teachers who blindly use whatever lesson plan is presented to them from the book-of-the-month club. Also, parents are at fault--as we often accept this "generic" American history (in abbreviated format) as adequate material for our children's education. Finally, writers and historians (me included) share the guilt as we often present our own findings with a loyalist attitude. So we are all guilty of "favoritism" in one way or another.

The South today is also very much like the South back then in regards to praising and preserving the memories of their ancestors. No general in the North ever received the love and admiration of the Southern generals during the war or after. There was no Jackson or Lee that were (and are) regarded as "godlike" figures. You cannot even begin to imagine how much these men are loved and revered. I'm sure that my efforts are certainly in support of that. In addition, I have found through contacts in both the historical and re-enactor community that the idea of the U.S. Government "turning" troops on its own people still harbors anger and animosity. Many believe that this can and may happen again someday. Therefore, they feel that they can directly "relate" to the notion of big government pushing its citizens around (I think we all can). This widens the gap of separation and recalls an "us vs. them attitude" that harkens to their ancestor's plight.

One other observation came to me this weekend and really brought to light just how little "really" changed (following the war) in regards to race relations on a nationwide scale. AMC was showing "Gone With The Wind" and during one of the commercials the host mentioned that Hattie McDaniel had won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (the first black-woman to do so), but that she had to sit in the back of the room at a table by herself. This is an outrage and shows just how guilty the north-south-east-and west were of racism - not just the CSA.

BTW: Jackson had a manservant who received pay for his service - technically, he was not a slave in the sense of "forced labor".



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 02:03 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Michael:

Are you saying Joe could have stopped working for Jackson and gone to work for someone else, don't split hairs?



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 02:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Shadowrebel wrote:Oh, please...If you are merely going to cut and paste from LewRockwell.com, I can just read it there, if I were so inclined...HankC,

Thank you for your reply. So you are telling me that the Freedmen, as you call them, had it better during Reconstruction? That their plight only got worse after Reconstruction? It got no worse after Reconstruction then it was during Reconstruction, that is the Yankee myth. The Yankees never improved the plight of the former slaves. It was not until the 1960s that the Negro began to get his due and today have not fully been given their due.

As to Lincoln, or Honest Abe as Northerners like to call him;

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus despite a ruling from Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that he did it illegally.

 

When Maryland voiced its support for the CSA and appeared itself ready to secede, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of Baltimore (the nation’s 3rd largest city at the time), and a US Congressman from Maryland, as well as numerous editors and publishers. As noted Lincoln scholar Mark Neely writes in The Last Best Hope of Earth, Lincoln arrested the Marylanders "without much agonizing over their constitutionality" (p 133).

 

Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53).

 

John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the  opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law.

 

The Great Emancipator never freed any slaves, the greatest of Yankee myths. It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. I do believe Lincoln was dead by that time. He proposed three 13th amendments to the Constitution; Lincoln's Three Proposed Constitutional Amendments of 1862

1.  Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2.  Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3.  Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of
the United States of free blacks by their own consent.


He really was a friend of the slaves with these proposals. Abolish slavery by Jan. 1, 1900 how can you call him a friend of the slaves? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

So much for Honest Abe, the Great Emancipator.

  The war was from the Union side about preserving the Union; I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm



   The South fought for States Rights, here is a website with all 13 Declaration of Secession which clearly show the South fought for States rights. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp


   The North denied the South of its' right to regain its' property.
How did the North do that?
     Have you ever heard of the Underground Railroad? Also see the Declaration of Secession for more details.

   You deny that Grant and his wife owned slaves during the war and only freed them after the passage of the 13th Amendment or that General Lee was a slave holder at the time of Appomattox? Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.(Simon, p347) Lee had freed his slaves in 1862.

I await your reply and souces of you reply.

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 02:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David, The man we are referring to, best known as Jim (not Joe) was an employee who applied for the position of manservant/cook at the start of the conflict and accompanied Jackson into the field. He did have some slaves - but was not your typical master...

Jackson was instrumental in the organization in 1855 of Sunday school classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they in turn referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major." Jackson's family owned six slaves in the late 1850s. Three (Hetty, Cyrus, and George, a mother and two teenage sons) were received as a wedding present. Albert requested that Jackson purchase him and allow him to work for his freedom; he was employed as a waiter in one of the Lexington hotels and Jackson rented him to VMI. Amy also requested that Jackson purchase her from a public auction and she served the family as a cook and housekeeper. The sixth, Emma, was a four-year-old orphan with a learning disability, accepted by Jackson from an aged widow and presented to his second wife, Anna.

James Robertson wrote about Jackson's view on slavery: "Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times."



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 02:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Michael:

Thanks for confirming my point that he did own slaves and correcting my error.  Regardless of whether he whipped the snot out of his slaves every night or tucked them into bed with milk and cookies, the best one can say about old Stonewall, and Lee, for that matter, is that they were not opposed to slavery due to their both having control of slaves.

The southern revisionists always like to say Lee and Jackson opposed slavery and even cite their words as "evidence."   However, their actions, regarding slaves, speak louder, however "nice" they were to said "property." 



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 03:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David,

Define Southern revisionist.  Is your definition a Southerner trying to justify the actions of the South by modern day standards with modern day rights and wrongs in an attempt to try to make the old South look... flawless in principle and in the process, changes historical content?  I stand corrected on Jackson's slaves then.  I honestly didn't think he had any.  I thought they were paid servants.  My mistake. :D <---used car salesman smile.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 03:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

No, it is those who try to eliminate or explain away slavery as the primary source of friction between the north and the south leading to hostilities.

I did not apply modern standards to Lee or Jackson, I merely want the straight facts out there that they did not oppose slavery but rather accepted it, reluctantly or not.   I am not 100% sure in the case of Jackson wheter it was reluctant or not but I am pretty sure in the case of Lee it was not reluctant.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 03:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I cannot argue with that sentiment David and I am certainly guilty (to a certain extent) of presenting that perspective in my own bios. No one can defend the institution of slavery in good conscience and I would be a twit to try. However, as a Presbyterian (and please don't misunderstand as I am NOT trying to inject a religious debate here), I can fully understand the rationale in Jackson's philosophy towards predestination and will. I have not written or studied Lee (in a Christian sense) like I did with Jackson and Stuart, so I cannot comment intelligently on his specific doctrines of faith, but if one believes that God's will is a central force that drives our earthly existence, then to believe that many of man's sins (including slavery) were destined for a greater cause is entirely logical. The moral conflict of the ownership of another human being is still there and to deny it would be ridiculous, but I personally believe that these were men who were decent and compassionate patriots, who shared a distaste for war, wrestled with their consciences, and conducted themselves with honor.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 03:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Amen Michael, I agree.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 03:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Gotcha.  I was always sort of wondering what people meant when they said revisionist.  Do people really think slavery was the main issue?  I'm up north, and ah, I think slavery was a huge issue, but that unequal representation in government, overtaxation and lack of southern issues being addressed in congress was probably even moreso the cause of friction.  Who knows though.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 03:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Burnside:

All I can say is do a Google search of the southern Ordinances of Seccession for all of the states and then dig a little deeper into the Declarations of Seccession behind those ordinances.  Read what they say, all have one common denominator about slavery issues (Fugitive slave act, negro suffrage, etc).  Most only mention those type issues.  Yes Georgia talked about the tariff but no one else did (explain that Lew Rockwell).  IMO, Texas had the best grievance about not being protected against the Indians but the emphasis everywhere was on slavery and other issues surrouding blacks.



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 04:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
calcav
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jan 28th, 2006
Location: Corinth, MS
Posts: 160
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I rarely respond but I just felt compelled to add my two cents.I apologize for the length of my response.

  

They want you to believe the Negros had it far better then slavery. While slavery was wrong and had to be eleminated former slaves never had it a good as the Northern history would have you think.Even if the post-war conditions were not as rosy as some would have us believe, they were infinitely better than being in bondage.To even consider that someone’s life was better off as a slave is ludicrous. There is a plethora of written and oral histories left by former slaves. I have yet to find a single instance where an ex-slave longed for the good old days of bondage. I believe they were the only ones with the true prospective on this matter. 

 

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus despite a ruling from Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that he did it illegally. – Article 1, Section 9.2 of the Constitution states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in the cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It is quite clear that the Constitution provides for the suspension despite what the pro-southern Taney stated. The times were desperate and called for desperate measures, which was why President Jefferson Davis also suspended the writ of habeas corpus when he felt it necessary.

John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the  opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law. Despite Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807), the Constitution does not say if this suspension is under the authority of the Executive, Legislative or the Judicial. As for President Lincoln ignoring the law then I guess President Davis is also so guilty.

 

The Great Emancipator never freed any slaves, the greatest of Yankee myths. It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. I do believe Lincoln was dead by that time. – I would venture to say that the Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for the freedom of millions. Wherever there was a Union presence in the southern states there were runaway slaves that flocked to their lines. Contraband camps, Freedman’s camps, whichever name you prefer, sprung up around the Confederacy and the moment these runaways entered the protection of the amry these people were free. Yes, Lincoln was dead when the 13th Amendment passed, brutally murdered in the most cowardly act performed in the name of the Confederacy.

 

Slavery as the main issue of the South cause of the war is another issue. The South clearly fought over states rights. – I prefer to let the states speak for themselves. The following is an excerpt from the Declaration of Secession from the State of Mississippi. I can’t find the words “States Rights” anywhere in the entire document;  "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Lincoln did not care if the Union was all with or without slavery as long as the Union remained intact. I most heartily agree. The question of slavery in the country becomes moot if there is no longer a country. A conclusion that John Adams and Benjamin Franklin accepted when South Carolina threatened to vote against the resolution on Independence because of slavery. But this is not to say that Lincoln did not have deep feelings about slavery. A reading of his speeches and writings reveal what the man really thought.

The North would like to think they were the saviors of the slaves when in reality they had slaves, their military commander at Appomattox General Grant own three slave at the time, while the Confederate commander had none. Grant owned a single slave in his lifetime, a man named William Jones who was freed, not sold, in 1859 when Grant was still in financial trouble. The point can be argued about Julia’s slaves and that Lee did not free his until 1862. What is the point? These leaders that some go to such great lengths to demonize or canonize were just men, no more, no less. They were not demi-gods sitting on the right hand of the throne but merely men struggling under conditions we cannot possibly fathom.

I have always been amazed with the claim that the Northerners wrote the history of the war and the country has suffered under 140 years of lies and myths. Never in the history of the mankind or warfare has a conquered foe been given such a voice on the world stage. Every Confederate who chose to publish his version of events, his memoirs, diaries, letters, etc. had an eager audience, from both north and south. There are literally tens of thousands of books written from and about the southern prospective, not to mention the endless articles in Confederate Veteran, The Southern Historical Society Papers, Southern Bivouac, Battles and Leaders, etc. Despite this mountain of information coming up from the south there have always been, and always will, those that claim the south has been muzzled. We hear what we choose to hear.

The truth is out there but can only be found by one with an open mind and an open heart and a desire to learn what really happened.

Tom



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 04:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To me at least, “Southern Pride” (and the historical presentation of it) may tend to focus more on the positives – but no more than the rest of the country when it comes to “hiding” from our past. We ALL share the guilt of our forefathers whether it was unjust treatment of  blacks, indians, or women. Pointing fingers (over and under the Mason-Dixon line) is a futile effort IMO. We (the white man) commited some bad acts, made mistakes, and hopefully the majority of us have learned from them.



 Current time is 03:39 amPage:    1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2293 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 27 queries executed.