 |
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:39 pm |
|
21st Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]
Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/quotes.html
Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:41 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:49 pm |
|
22nd Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Slavery was already on the decline in the 60's, I hardly think it would have lasted into the twentieth century. Brazil ended slavery somewhere in 1888, and the South was much more developed than Brazil. And, if you'll recall, the North's war aim was not originally to free the slaves. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was probably just a motive to keep Britain and France from coming to the South's aid. And you can't really say most Northern soldiers were appalled by slavery. I mean Lincoln was no Dr. King. He was a man of his time.
"If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd resign and offer my sword to the other side."--U.S. Grant
Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:05 pm by James Longstreet
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:58 pm |
|
23rd Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
I must be getting overly-sensitive in my old age. To me there's something abhorrent about the concept that we should have allowed the forced bondage of other human beings because it "eventually" would have died a natural death. Maybe it's just me.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:04 pm |
|
24th Post |
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:08 pm |
|
25th Post |
naakke
Member
|
Here is an interesting note to insert about what occurs beneath one flag or another. Those that marched beneath the flag of the United States did not wholly march for the cause of liberating the slave. Read McClellan's statements on slavery. Lincoln's early political statements are certainly not unknown regarding his stand on slavery. When looking at what a flag represents, you have to ask yourself, why were those people marching beneath that flag at that moment in history. Now, I think just maybe that Shaara and the Turner film makers got a little out of control with the rhetoric. But I tell you what, Jeff Daniel's line that the Army of the Potomac marched to set other men free is a crock of horse manure.
Regarding the term Racism, you have to be a real retard to think that just because a man fought to free the slaves that he in any way thought there was some level of equality between him and a freedman. It all comes down to a small group of radicals (on both sides) driving the moderate mass to extreme reactions. But the men and women who rallied to, served under, and died for a banner did so because of the cause, not because of a political agenda. So, the flag represents the ideals of those who died for it. Racism was present in the South, that is not why they died beneath that flag. Abolition was present in the North, that is not why they died beneath that flag.
Unfortunately, after the the country was done hemhoraging, a small group of radicals decided to fly the CBF in the cause of racism. It royally sucks that they have polluted the icon that way.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:08 pm |
|
26th Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
James Longstreet wrote: Slavery was already on the decline in the 60's, I hardly think it would have lasted into the twentieth century. Brazil ended slavery somewhere in 1888, and the South was much more developed than Brazil. And, if you'll recall, the North's war aim was not originally to free the slaves. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was probably just a motive to keep Britain and France from coming to the South's aid. And you can't really say most Northern soldiers were appalled by slavery. I mean Lincoln was no Dr. King. He was a man of his time. In decline? There were 4 million slaves in 1860. Nearly 25% of families within slave states owned one or more slaves. (And I see you're trying to change the subject again in order to: 1. Make the north look bad. 2. Move the subject away from southern activities. 3. Both.)
"If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd resign and offer my sword to the other side."--U.S. Grant
Can you source this quote? I've seen it on many other sites (mostly neo-Con), and don't believe that it can be substantiated. Best guess is that it was made up by his political rivals in the 1870's.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:24 pm |
|
27th Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Sounds like all you want to do Indy is tear me down and attack the South. I am not changing the subject, and if you are referring to me as a neo-Confederate I find that very offensive. And do you really think that 25 percent of families owned slaves in Arkansas, the poorest and most undeveloped state in the South? I've read that it was closer to 10 percent, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to say something I don't have any evidence of. Arkansas was mostly made up of white farming families in poverty, who intially opposed secession, but when it came the majority joined the Confederate armies and died by the thousands. That's a good reason to keep the Confederate flag alive. I don't know how you know for sure he didn't make the quote--I guess you were just there. The quote is on sonofthesouth.net. Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:26 pm by James Longstreet
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:31 pm |
|
28th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Per the 1860 census
State
Free Population
Slave Population
Arkansas
324,335
111,115
North Carolina
661,563
331,099
Tennessee
834,082
275,719
Virginia
1,105,453
490,865
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:34 pm |
|
29th Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
James Longstreet wrote: Sounds like all you want to do Indy is tear me down and attack the South. I am not changing the subject, and if you are referring to me as a neo-Confederate I find that very offensive. And do you really think that 25 percent of families owned slaves in Arkansas, the poorest and most undeveloped state in the South? I've read that it was closer to 10 percent, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to say something I don't have any evidence of. Arkansas was mostly made up of white farming families in poverty, who intially opposed secession, but when it came the majority joined the Confederate armies and died by the thousands. That's a good reason to keep the Confederate flag alive. I don't know how you know for sure he didn't make the quote--I guess you were just there. The quote is on sonofthesouth.net.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html
Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.
Mississippi:
49%
South Carolina:
46%
Georgia:
37%
Alabama:
35%
Florida:
34%
Louisiana:
29%
Texas:
28%
North Carolina:
28%
Virginia:
26%
Tennessee:
25%
Kentucky:
23%
Arkansas:
20%
Missouri:
13%
Maryland:
12%
Delaware:
3%
Not surprisingly, the states with the highest percentage of slaves left first. The states that made up 4 of the last 5 were border states.
As for the Grant quote, if I wasn't there to NOT hear it, who alive today was there TO hear it???
Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:38 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:35 pm |
|
30th Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Javal, would it be safe to say that most of those slaves were owned by a much smaller group of wealthy planters?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:37 pm |
|
31st Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
That is amazing to me, I was completely wrong. So was my American history teacher...I guess it was just Arkansas bias. Thanks for the facts. Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:38 pm by James Longstreet
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:42 pm |
|
32nd Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
I don't know James, and honestly I don't see what difference it makes.
But let's do this... we're hijacking a thread that had some great posts about the Confederate flag. Realizing that the two are related, I would suggest that a full discussion on the slavery issue should have it's own thread. So whoever posts the next post on slavery without linking it to the flag issue, please open a new thread for it. naake, Albert and others have some great flag posts and I can see that we may distract from them if we keep up this discussion here. Much appreciated!
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:54 pm |
|
33rd Post |
Albert Sailhorst
Member
|
Thanks, jaaval!
The slavery discussion in here was getting too heated and uncivil for my tastes!
But, for my two-cents, the issue of slavery was NOT the MAIN issue for either side. Racism in the north was just as bad (i.e New York Draft riots). For people to poke sticks at one another over being a current Southerner or current Northerner is kind of a moot issue at this point in American history anyway.
Additionally, with the average slave costing around $250 (as per the book "River Run Red") it is doubtful that an average Southerner could afford to purchase one, let alone clothe, feed and house one; thus, many slaves were owned by few.
Thanks!
Albert Sailhorst, Scott's TN Battery
|
|
Back To Top
|
VaMike
Member
|
I have a problem believing that the every day poor white working farmer who had no slaves would fight a war and die to preserve slavery. I have to believe that there was a greater ideal at stake for all those individuals to fight for. I despise what the hate groups have done to present the CBF as a racist symbol, but I cannot abandon the Cause it represents because people misrepresent what it (the flag) stood for. I have a question. Why was the CBF composed of a St. Andrews Cross? Was the CW a holy war? Was the difference in Northern and Southern religions a cause to war? Did I just open a can of worms?
|
|
Back To Top
|
HankC
Member
|
There are differences as to why men enlisted and what caused the war.
An example from a later war: Americans enlisted due to Pearl Harbor, but Pearl Harbor did not cause the war.
There are many reasons men enlisted during the Civil War, probably as many as there were enlistees: defense of home and family, peer pressure, adventure, money, escape the draft, to impress a girl and, yes, their view of a noble cause.
Remember that very few people in April 1861 thought a war would be long and desperate.
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
Widow
Member
|
Joe, this anecdote is about flags, but not in the Civil War. Not even in the US.
My brother and his wife lived on the Turkish coast for 11 years, sailing on the Aegean Sea in the summer. A fellow sailor told them what happened to him and his flag.
The sailor is a Turkish citizen, but educated at Oxford and MIT. Nuclear physics, I think Rick said. The man and his wife had been at sea for a while and came into Bodrum Harbor. His boat was registered in the UK, so he flew the British flag. Also, as is customary, a small "courtesy flag" of the nation where you are in port. Rick's friend had a small Turkish flag up in the rigging.
The national flag of the Republic of Turkey is plain red, with a white star and crescent in the middle. The flag is made of red cloth, and the two emblems are bleached to make the star and crescent. It's not possible to buy a flag made any other way. One flag, one quality, no choice.
The Turkish police came to the dock and charged him with desecrating the national flag. Rick's friend was totally bewildered. "I'm a Turkish citizen. What do you mean?"
They pointed to his courtesy flag, red with white emblems. But the white star was gone. A perfect star-shaped hole next to the crescent. The police said he had deliberately cut the star out of the flag.
Desecration of the Turkish national flag is five years in prison. A Turkish prison. Nifty way to suppress political dissent.
He was arrested and taken in. Before his trial, he contacted some friends at the University of Istanbul, science professors. They proved to the court that the bleach had weakened the fabric, and as it fluttered the fibers just broke and wore out. The friend beat the rap.
Once again, we are reminded of how lucky we are to live in a country where you are free to buy a tiny plastic flag, a huge silk flag, or no flag. Patty
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 12:57 am |
|
37th Post |
JDC Duncan
Guest
|
yeah, read shane's post - tell me he went to "university" Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 05:23 am by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 02:10 am |
|
38th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
James Longstreet wrote: Slavery was already on the decline in the 60's, I hardly think it would have lasted into the twentieth century. Brazil ended slavery somewhere in 1888, and the South was much more developed than Brazil. And, if you'll recall, the North's war aim was not originally to free the slaves. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was probably just a motive to keep Britain and France from coming to the South's aid. And you can't really say most Northern soldiers were appalled by slavery. I mean Lincoln was no Dr. King. He was a man of his time.
"If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd resign and offer my sword to the other side."--U.S. Grant
Slavery was not on the decline in the states that would become the CS; the reverse was true. There was no economic, cultural or religious incentive to do so and w/ the going price of a good field hand at approx $1000 in 1860 slavery was a sizeable monetary investment.
As to the flag; what does it truly stand for? Some would say treason and racism... I tend to disagree. I see the CBF as a symbol of a desperate time and an attitude of standing behind something (right or wrong) when all hope is lost. Call it perceverence or simple stubborness. If the person flying it is honoring ancestors that is one thing. But when is a set of white sheets is hanging (pun intended) in the closet w/ a nice set of eyeholes cut in... I would truly love introducing such an individual to a short drop & sudden stop courtesy of a tall tree & short rope. I guess the irony of the role reversal would be too much for some. As it is I figure the ultimate irony for such a person would be judgement to discover God as black & a woman.
The quote attributed to Grant is a false quote. He never said it; its been bandied about the net for years but that doesn't make it a legit quote. IIRC it got started on a League of the South site quoting a supposed Democratic pamphlet... which noone has ever seen an original of. The foremost scholars of Grants life have repeatedly debunked it... but it keeps turning up.
Last edited on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 02:23 am by Johan Steele
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 02:48 am |
|
39th Post |
2nd. LT. Chapman
Member
|
You know that after the war the flag was furled and the men who furled it intended it to stay furled. However, we are where we are and we allowed the flag to be used by racist bigots and now many people see it that way. I have five G-G- grandfathers, that I know of, who served in the Confederate army and I belong to the SCV but I rarely fly my flag. In April, it will see a little air.
There really isn't a lot we can do to rehabilitate the flag's reputation. It has become too political and everything political is filled with lies.
Julien
Last edited on Sun Mar 25th, 2007 02:03 am by 2nd. LT. Chapman
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 03:43 pm |
|
40th Post |
ole
Member
|
You know that after the war the flag was furled and the men who furled it intended it to stay furled. However, we are where we are and we allowed the flag to be used by racist bigots and now many people see it that way.
Very well said, Lieutenant; bravo!
My first exposure to the CBF was some time ago when it was used to incite support for Governors Faubus and Wallace. That was a taint on the banner that's lasted until recently when some particularly persuasive gentlemen convinced me that some honestly use it to honor men who valiantly fought under it with their brothers. That we can see today that their "country's" cause was faulty does not detract from their sacrifice.
Unfortunately, the stain remains and will never be overlooked. Fly it; don't fly it. The damage is done.
Ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 02:18 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
