Why do neo-Confederate morons call the Civil War...

[ButterflyBlood]

"The War of Northern Aggression"?

and how do they reply when you point out the South actually attacked first and started it?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

1. I always thought it was an inside joke

Designed to piss off yankees.

[Buns_of_Fire]

139. It IS an inside joke, among my northern friends

As a southerner, I find it best said with an authentic Foghorn Leghorn accent, along with "Y'all show a frightful lack of honor."

But mostly, the subject never comes up at all. The only place I find the Civil War being refought is around here.

One side won, one side lost -- 140 years ago. It's probably time for both sides to get over it.

[ozymandius]

2. I've never asked.

But then, my great-grandfather (a Civil War veteran) died in 1903. His side lost.

[VermontDem2004]

204. My great grandfather also did serve in the south

[Avalux]

3. They're pissed

they lost. That's about it - a pride thing. My ancestors fought at Gettysburg; my great-great grandfather (or something like that) had a farm on the battlefield. It's an historical site now. Don't get me started on the neo-confederates...

[sabbat hunter]

4. southern reply

they say that the north provoked them by refusing to pull out of fort sumter and that by attempting to restock (with supplies that probably included arms) the took an agressive act.
additionally they will point out that with the exception of gettysburg, the major battles of the war took place in the south in offensive campaigns. that the south did not want the war, for if the north simply let them go their own way, there would have been no war. the south did not want the war, they wanted to peacefully have their own slave nation, away from the abolitionist north.

btw i once saw a guy who was from the south wearing a t-shirt that said
"The south will rise...and win again!"

they won the first time?

peace
david
:hippie:

[depakid]

53. The southern states wanted a piece of the action

out west, so that they could maintain some balance with the non-slaveholding states of the north. They knew that if all of the western territories entered as free states, their socio-economic system would be in jeopardy. Ironically enough, even with reconstruction, that didn't happen- at least in the mid-term. They got Jim Crow and sharecroppers anyway, and so for a time held their declining position as well as they could.

From a purely economic standpoint, plantation and business owners would have been far better off with a peaceful transition and acceptance of the righteous and the obvious. But that's easy for me to say, here in the 21st Century. It's all about the context, and who knows what any of us would have thought then.

Also, I should add that Lee invaded the North twice. The first time culminated at Antietam (Sharpsburg) where by fortune a messenger rolled Lee's entire battle plans into a cigar and dropped it by accident along a road, where some union guy saw it (and perhaps thinking it a huge joint) picked it up, recognized what it was, and hand delivered it to the Union commander, McClelland.

McClelland, peacock that he was, failed to fully capitalize on what he had- leading to a bloody standstill- and the most battle casualities in American history. The whole event is worthy of Greek Tragedy- Lee's army escapes due to heroics and Lincoln (having gained credibility) appeases Europe by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

[AntiCoup2K4]

92. The South DID win the Civil War. It just took a while.

Look around....

They completely dominate the Repukelican leadershit (not a typo).

And some will insist that the Democrats cannot win the White House without a Southerner on the ticket, and recent history would seem to prove them right. The last three Presidential elections were a choice among ALL Southern candidates

1992: Clinton - Arkansas
Bush Sr - Texas*
Perot - Texas

1996: Clinton - Arkansas
Dole - Kansas#
Perot - Texas

2000 Gore - Tennesee
Bush Jr - Texas*

#(Kansas was a pro slave, pro Confederate territory in 1860)

*(yes I know they're really Connecticut yankees but that's beside the point)

So while I'm not a "South basher" by any means, it certainly would appear that this one region of the country has gained disproportionate political power, which is especially dangerous on the right wing side. For while I do NOT believe that the South has any monopoly on inbred backwards hicks, the political systems in some of those states certainly seem to be dominated by such people. How else do explain the perpetual re-election of brain dead racist fossils like Strom Thurmond (Burn In Peace) and Jesse Helms?? :shrug:

[jagguy]

117. not to mention that...

...when the northeast was dying economically at the hands of the Japanese et al, the South was rapidly becoming an economic power house.

We are patient down here and we plan for the long term unlike our northern neighbors.

Funny how that southern thing haunts politics at the national level huh ?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

120. Because of scab labor

no unions down where you are...factory jobs moved down South because of cheaper labor, and now they're moving offshore. Karma...what comes around, goes around.

[JVS]

194. An economic powerhouse that takes more from the Fed. Govt. than it gives

And then its people brag about their accomplishments as they suck the money and jobs out of the rust belt and bring them to the bible belt with the lure of right-to-toil laws.

[MaverickX]

172. The South is overrepresented in govt...

They have the most dispersed populations yet Texas and Florida determine who our President is.

[Liberator_Rev]

210. You are so RIGHT. Look at who controls Congress.

Lott and Gingrich have been replaced by Frist & Delay.
Check out http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/racism on the South, Civil Rights and the Party of Lincoln.

[Walt Starr]

5. It was the War of Southern Treason

That's how I always answer that crap.

[liberalhistorian]

11. "The War of Southern Treason",

lol, I like that, since it about sums it up. I'm so sick of the neo-Confederates in the South blaming the North for the "War of Northern Aggression" as they so stupidly and pathetically refer to it. I think they wanted the war, and they fired on Fort Sumter knowing full well what Lincoln's response would be.

And I'm even more tired of said neo-Confeds refusing to acknowledge that the war was 140 years ago, they lost, and that it's time to move on and GET OVER IT! And I'm really, really, REALLY sick of their bizarre, off-the-planet, bullshit assertion that slaves actually liked slavery, that they were generally happy and believed they were probably better off. Makes me want to put them in a time machine and make them endure being a slave just for a couple of days and see just how happy they are then!

[Walt Starr]

13. It does sum it up

Secession was treason, plain and simple. The South would have served itself well had it never seceeded and allowed the abolition of slavery to take its natural course. There was no way around it, slavery was going to end.

Had the South never seceeded, they would wield at least twice as much political power in this country as they do today. The Southern states would be an economic juggernaut that the North could never touch. I doubt New York City would be sitting as well off as Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, and a host of other cities if the South did not have to absorb the economic losses of that war.

[fabius]

40. "War of Northern Aggression"

Actually I've heard more "War between the States", which seems factually accurate. The more accurate term would be the "War to End Slavery".

Read a book called "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz for a clever cultural exploration.

Some Southerners tell you to look at Atlanta to see what they were trying to prevent the Yankees from doing to them.

You say..."Had the South never seceded, they would wield at least twice as much political power in this country as they do today. The Southern states would be an economic juggernaut that the North could never touch..."

I kinda doubt it. Slavery was in its essence a regressive, stagnant system that impeded the South's development. Kind of like the plutocracy-wage slavery system that Bushites are trying to implement.

I case you didn't notice, the South has risen again and has given us Shrub. Revenge indeed!

[Gore1FL]

134. except

It wasn't the war to end slavery until after Antietem -- and then it only ended slavery in astates fighting the Union. -- Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky, technically were not involved in the emancipation proclaimation, despite being slave states. This effort was largely a political move to stave off the interveation of France and England.

Slavery was the issue that spurred the states rights debate in the first place, but troops were sent (and recruited) to put down the rebellion the Southern states (which prompted an outcry which brought 4 more states into the seccessionist cause.

If it would have preserved the Union, his primary goal, Lincoln would have kept slavery as an institution.

The South burned Atlanta in a "scorched earth" strategy. Sherman (who did do a lot of scorching himself) didn't set Atlanta ablaze as many contend.

[diamond14]

122. Henry Adams: "I think [Robert E.] Lee should have been hanged"

"I think Lee should have been hanged. It was all the worse that he was a good man, had a good character, and acted conscientiously. It's always the good men who do the most harm."
Henry Adams

[carolinayellowdog]

27. My FPC ancestors

were worse off than slaves, who at least knew where their next meal was coming from

[Walt Starr]

31. Look at how the Irish immigrants lived in Five Points

Rich men in both the North and the South made fortunes off the backs of poor people. The Northern industrialists made slaves of their workers every bit as much as the Southern plantation owners.

The sad thing is, it's still happening today, and like the 1860's, the poor people fight the fights of their rich masters.

[rasputin1952]

63. A while back, I was thinking of trying to put the CW in modern context..

what I came up with was that if we looked at the politics from a contemporary point of view, The Confederates would basically be the neo-GOP.

They were conservative, in the notion that things should not change; they were true believers in 'states rights'; they believed in the subjugation of several classes of people; they had the notion that European class systems were the epitome of social strata; and they used religion, usually a perverted form of Christianity to advance their views and uphold their system of privleedge and subjugation.

Of course, not all Southerners believed this, but the most powerful did, and hence, the CW began, (more for economic reasons than any other).

When I was stationed in the South, while in the Army, I found the Southerners to be decent folk, that were hard working and trying to make a living under some pretty difficult conditions. (One study found that the South did not reach pre-CW population and productivity until 1938!) As usual, it is the most vociferous, not the majority, of people, that hold the abstract views. When I was in the Army, I saw little animosity between those from different regions of the country, and the little there was, was generally dissipated during Basic Trng. The Army is fantastic for their apptitude to get people to work together, (since survival rates go up dramatically if this is the case).

The War of Northern Aggression is a myth, if Beauregard didn't fire on Ft Sumter, the South would have never been invaded.

As an aside...If it were not for the CW, we very well could have wound up like Europe, a nation of states forming a region with a vast amount of differing opinions and ideologies that would constantly be at odds with each other. The CW melded us into a nation, and for all of the horror and bloodshed of that conflict, we should be grateful for the sacrifices of all involved for that simple fact.

[Yupster]

75. Rasputin - you mean that

if the CSA didn't fire on Ft Sumpter, Lincoln would have let them go peacefully?

I find that hard to believe having read so much of what he had said about preserving the union. You think he just would have let them walk away?

[rasputin1952]

98. No not at all....

I was refering to Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural; after the war, his notion was to bring the Souoth in peacefully.

As for firing on Sumter.....that was an act of war and treated as such.

[Yupster]

99. As far as Lincoln being killed

I agree that was a disaster.

When President Davis was told about the assasination in North Carolina, his first reaction was to voice regret too. He knew Andrew Johnson and had been an enemy of his long before the war. He expected no leniency from a President Johnson.

[maha]

106. WWLD -- What Would Lincoln Do?

Originally, Lincoln thought the secession thing was a fad and that the southern states would come to their senses and come back to the Union eventually.

But the question is, had South Carolina not started the war by firing on Fort Sumter, would Lincoln have started it eventually? I do not believe he would have, but that's a guess.

Lincoln was determined to keep federal military reservations and customs offices in the South in federal hands (what was left of 'em, anyway; Buchanan had let a lot of them go). If the war hadn't begun at Fort Sumter it would have begun somewhere else, but I think Lincoln would have let the South start it, even if that meant waiting them out for a while.

[Yupster]

124. I don't think there's a chance in the world

that Lincoln would have just calmly let the southern states walk away peacefully.

[maha]

141. I never said he was calm.

He wouldn't have "let" the South walk away. He would have used means other than war to bring the states back, even if it took time.

[Llewlladdwr]

182. I think it's quite clear what Lincoln would have done.

"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union, and it is not either to save or 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; if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." From a letter to Horace Greely.

I don't believe that Lincoln would ever have accepted the secession of any State regardless of the status of any Federal military reservations or other Federal institutions left behind. Any open declaration of independence from the United States would have resulted in armed suppresion by Federal troops.

[maha]

187. ???

"Any open declaration of independence from the United States would have resulted in armed suppresion by Federal troops."

A few states had already openly declared independence from the United States before Lincoln was inaugurated. Yet he waited for the South to start the war.

[jobycom]

206. You know, if you exchange "Iraq" for "South"

then Bush or Ashcroft could have written that post to justify the US invasion of Iraq.

The point is, either liberals are consistent or we aren't. An invasion is an invasion or else it can be a war of liberation, whether the nation being invaded is Iraq or the Confederacy. If you buy the US explanation of the invasion of Iraq (the US wrote the history, just as Bush is writing the history of the Iraqi invasion), then the exact same explanation of the invasion of the south holds. The "enemy" brought it on themselves. They were evil, they abused people's human rights, they broke treaties and agreements, and they will be a threat to us soon if we don't defeat them now.

A lot of history is just the propoganda repeated so often by the the winner that there is no one left to question it. The Iraqi invasion will be remembered just the same as the southern invasion. There was an economic threat to the US, and they ended it militarily and justified it on humanitarian grounds. Meet the new boss.

The fact that a great good came about because of the Civil War no more justifies it than the fact that a great good could come about with the overthrow and eventual assassination of Sadam Hussein in Iraq. Maybe you have to be a southerner to fully understand that.

As for the South being treasonous for seceeding-- the proper place to have decided that was through the courts. There was no immediate reason to invade, no immediate threat from the south that in any way endangered the North (sound familiar?). The issue to this day has not been brought up before the courts. Many legal historians from the North as well as the South believe the North would have lost if it had been.

It's a dead issue, of course, but all matters of history are important as examples to demonstrate the present and future. The lesson here is that the winnig side's propoganda becomes history, and those not attuned to the way history is written are condemned to accept it. Your kids will be learning about Iraq as the same type of heroic, humanitarian endeavor that you have learned about the Civil War as. And those who disagree will be ridiculed just like I will be for this post.

As for Neo-Confederates-- silly people, really. I'm not one. Slavery was atrocious, and needed to be ended, and the south was wrong for it. You can find evidence that many slaves were better off materially before than after Emancipation, but that ignores the reality of the emotional and human toll of slavery. Slaves could be and were raped, murdered, robbed, sold away from their families, and beaten and punished on the shims of their owners. Even the most generous and fair owners could not overcome the reality that they were denying the basic human rights which our Declaration and Constitution guaranteed to ALL men (though not to women). So don't take anything I said as a defence of slavery or even of the south, anymore than any of us are siding with Hussein when we condemn the US invasion of Iraq.

[onehandle]

6. That was a term from the time...

Wars usually have many names, from many viewpoints:

"The war was and is also known in the South as The War Between the States, The War of Northern Aggression, The War of Southern Independence, or simply as The War. More obscure southern names for the war include The Second American Revolution and The War in Defence of Virginia. Northerners often referred to it as The War of the Rebellion, The War to Save the Union, or The War for Abolition."

[Yupster]

16. The War for Southern Independance

seems the most factual and unbiased.

[inthecorneroverhere]

7. A modest proposal>>>>

So.....here's my proposal.

How-s about we make Yankee-Dem - vs. FDRoosevelt Southern peace????

Shall I, as a Southern Dem who greatly admires FDRoosevelt and his investment in infrastructure and jobs during the Great Depression, pledge my vote to Patrick J. Buchanan in November 2004???

It's totally and completely obvious that you and your Northern 'social-liberal' friends have written off any Southern democratic votes.

I absolutely detest *shrub and what he has done to destroy our infrastructure (including the power grid) and our American jobs. I will never vote *shrub or for any of his ilk's supporters.

Yet, the 'politically correct' Dem's bash the South.

As an 'adopted-not-even-native' Southerner, I feel rejected.

I am ready to commit Buchanan!!!!

Tell me otherwise, or I will vote Third Party (not Green though)!!!!

[Darth_Ole]

8. I hear "The South will rise again" a lot.

The south never rose in the first place.

[Walt Starr]

10. The South fell

Apomattox Courthouse, 1865.

[Bake]

14. I'm about ready to join you.

And why the hell shouldn't I?

I'm a white male and I make over $100K a year. I'd like to keep more of it, instead of sending it to Washington where those idiot South-bashers just want to give it to somebody else. I'll GLADLY put my liberalism on the back burner in order to provide for my family, even if it causes me some cognitive dissonance! I'm sure all the northeastern superior intellectual gay atheist whatevers can successfully get their candidates elected without my vote, since they obviously don't give a damn whether I vote Democratic or not. F'ing yankees. Let 'em sit there in the dark with no A/C and their food rotting in the fridge. I'm gonna go turn all my lights on.

Bake

[monarch]

59. Redistributing wealth by federal taxes

I'd like to pose my own question. Why is it that southerners complain the loudest about federal taxes when they are the beneficiaries? For example--my state, Connecticut, gets back 62 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington, while Mississippi gets back $1.78.

[SharonAnn]

169. Yes, and cutting Federal Taes will mean the South gets less in

total.

Example:
If the revenue was $1,000 and Alabama got $1.78 for every dollar, then Alabama would get $1,780.

If there's a 10% drop in tax revenue, then the total tax revenue is $900 and Alabama gets only $1,602.

Just don't understand why Southerners would want Federal taxes cut since they pay the least and receive the most.

[Yupster]

76. You tell em dbaker

You sound like a modern Jubal Early.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

121. What a fucking nice inclusive thought

any other negative invectives toward us Yankees while you're at it?

[salin]

161. I would hate

to see you go. There are always a few highly unenlightened folks around - who so enjoy to demonstrate their lack of sophistication by clinging to stereotypes as an easy analogue rather than to try to understand complexities. What I personally find interesting, is the lack of self-awareness in the sense that the reaction - at least in DU threads - is much more towards the unaware lazy poster doing the bashing (as in more folks become more aware of the poster and the lack of sophistication/thought) than a chiming in of the chorus to agree with the unenlightened perspective.

Btw - I only bash Kentuckians - and then only right before IU is poised to take a whupping in football or dish out a rout in basketball ;-)

[liberalhistorian]

15. I don't think the Dems, even on here,

are necessarily bashing the whole South and all Southerners, just the neo-Confederates who, you have to admit, make the South look like a bunch of ignorant, racist Billy Bob rednecks who are still stuck in the 1860's and who simply cannot get over the fact that the South lost 140 years ago.

Most Southerners really aren't like that, but a lot of people associate the neo-confeds with everyone in the South, as unfair as that may be.

[Walt Starr]

18. That was what I took away from the first post

I guess it struck a chord with some, though.

:shrug:

[ButterflyBlood]

54. that's exactly who I was referring to

it's not bashing an entire region to say it has some idiots, even though all do, but bashing them based on specific traits doesn't bash the whole reason. You can bash the outstate hicks here who voted for Coleman just because the media threw a whiny fit about the Wellstone memorial and I won't complain.

[salin]

162. However, context matters

and this thread - in the context of a series of straight out bashing threads - appears to this reader (and by reaction by other readers) to be couching more bashing in just a slightly more acceptable wrapping.

[Yupster]

100. Here's the ultimate neo-Confederate

Check out these photos

http://www.southerncaucus.org/hk24.htm

[roughsatori]

29. Vote for who you like, that is your right

I have never written anything "southern-phobic" and have lived in the north all my life. I have stayed in Meridian Mississippi, New Orleans and Nashville--all during various summers, it was too hot for me. But I remember everyone I visited being polite, friendly, and really going all out to put out a good meal for a visitor. In Meridian I did hear straight out racist language. But not nearly as much as I've heard living in Philadelphia. Plus some of the best American literature comes out of the South, you got to love that.

I'm not too fond of moderate Democrats though, but, I'm working on it.

[loyalsister]

42. Until I got to know some southernors

personally, I may have had more sympathy for the bashers.
However, I have a totally different perspective now. I have learned that aside from the negative stereotypes there is a very unique and charming southern culture. The whole romanticized idea of the old south and it's most endearing characteristics are something people try to live up to. Gentlemenly manners, etc. At the same time, phrases like "The South will rise again" and the confederate flag have taken on alternate meanings. If a word can have a double meaning, why not a flag?
It's all matter of perception. People from the midwest or south sometimes view New Yorkers to be rude because largely they live in a fast paced city and move fast. They are also very cautious because they live in a city with a high crime rate.
These stereotypes are all a matter of perception based on things that are usually not related. Lay off of the southernors. There have been so many of these threads and this is a terrible line of posting.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. when did I bash all Southerners?

I said neo-confederate morons, and never implied that all Southerns were neo-confederates.

[Walt Starr]

85. I know what you said

That's why I think all this crying of "Southern Bashers" is just a bunch of bullshit.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MattNC]

22. which carolina are you from?

i'm from NC (obviously).

[carolinayellowdog]

26. North, live in Warren County

which was a stronghold of secessionism, but most of my CW ancestors were from Bertie, which was 46% Union, 54% Confederate. The Unionists were black and poor white, and 3 of my direct ancestors were in the latter group and served in the First NC (Union) Infantry. One gg grandfather, bastard son of a very rich farmer, fought for the Confederacy, was wounded and captured at Gettysburg, came home from the war and married a girl whose daddy had fought for the Union.

What about you?

[knight_of_the_star]

126. None who fought

My ancestors down my mom's side were either in Minnesota or on their way to California. Down my dad's side they hadn't left Britain yet, but I CAN claim the distinction of having ancestors who fought for the Crown in WWI and WWII.

[TankLV]

38. if the shoe "DOESN"T" fit, don't get your panties in a twist.

From the original post, I doubt it was referring to enlightened persons like you. Rather it refers to the bigoted, racist, pukes, which is almost a redundant set of terms now.

[TomNickell]

65. 14 years old before....

you knew 'Damn Yankee' was -two- words?

[carolinayellowdog]

71. 49 years old before

I had any real appreciation of the hatred for the South that exists in the North. Growing up in the Hampton Roads area, with one side of the family from Michigan and the other from North Carolina, I always framed North/South hostility as something historical and not current. Later, living in Michigan myself, I realized there was a certain contempt aimed in the general direction of the South, but it seemed like West Virginia got more of it than Virginia. And it wasn't really hateful, just kinda teasing, just like the way "Yankee" was used back home.

Living in the Deep South later I got more of a feel of the "Damn Yankee" sentiment, but again nothing serious. My college in Louisiana had plenty of northern students and no one made an issue of regional identity.

With a brother living in Boston for 25 years now, and having visited New York, Chicago, and California a half-dozen times each in recent years, you'd think I'd have gotten *some* clue about hatred for the South. But no, everyone everywhere treated me with a warm welcome and talked about Virginia as if they admired it.

So now I'm pushing 50 and am suddenly discovering that Southerners are deeply, intensely hated by a shocking proportion of people I assumed were all my friends-- liberal Democrats.

It's VERY hard to absorb.

[Capn Sunshine]

108. hey yellowdog don't do that

there's lots of antisocial Neast I'm more liberal than you and therefore more pure assholes on this board. But after awhile, they grow on you. No one understands California either.

[SayitAintSo]

12. The War of Yankee Arrogance ....

Is another term I've heard ... not as common as others, but perhaps more appropos....in that it stands the test of time ......

[Yupster]

17. well, the only yankee to die at Ft Sumpter,

blew himself up.

[Darranar]

94. No yankees died at Fort Sumter...

several confederates did, accidentally blowing themselves up while testing the new equipment.

[Yupster]

101. Better go reread Darranar

Only one I knew who died was a Yankee who died during the 21 gun salute after the surrender.

[diamond14]

19. confederates are traitors to America....they attacked an American

fort...they tried to KILL America, so they could have their slaves to pick their cotton and tobacco...it's the ultimate "cheap-labor conservatives"...just work them to death and pay them NOTHING....

just like those who attack American military facilities today, like the Pentagon in 2001, the confederate traitors should be minimally remembered in history as traitors to America, and loosers all around...just like the 9/11 attackers...we should NEVER be naming streets after traitors...

yet, here in Alexandria, Virginia...where Black people could NOT use the public library through the 1960's and into the 1970's...and Federal courts had to force integrations, which Virginians responded to by building PRIVATE schools for white children, and even today, few white children attend PUBLIC schools....these traitor confederate generals are triumphed EVERYWHERE with statues and streets named after loosers and traitors...it stinks to live here with lee highway, pickett street, beauregard Street., and more sickness...and for Black Americans living here...it's is just another slap...some of my friends saw lee prominently displayed in the Crystal City Virginia Marriott Conference Center...in the 'lee room' with one painting displaying lee triumphing over black slaves, and only white people cheering lee as he rode through the streets...it was so pathetic that we had to leave, and take our money elsewhere...and we let them know exactly why that offends so many from the free NORTH...

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[carolinayellowdog]

57. Adding insult to injury and untruth

FYI, in 1970 I lived in DC with my INTERRACIAL family, and know that accusing the public library in Alexandria of refusing admission to blacks in the seventies is an outrageous falsehood. Did not enter the profession until later in the decade, have never acted as your "opinion" accuses, and am deeply disgusted that my objection to a lie was deleted while the original lie still stands and has now been added to with a baseless personal insult.

[pizzathehut]

44. Wrong about Lee

Actually Lee freed his slaves. He also was quoted as saying he had no problem with blacks serving in the Confederate army. Unlike Union generals like McClellan and Grant who had to be forced to accept them. Also blacks serving in the Confederate army got full pay while those serving the Union only were paid half as much as whites.

[Yupster]

79. Irony can be so ironic

The day after Richmond fell, there was only one legal slave still in the city. He belonged to General Grant's wife.

As he was professional army his whole life, General Lee never owned slaves. He was left a fairly large group of slaves just before the Cicil War when a relative died. The relative's will called for the slaves to be freed within five years, and Lee did that. In fact quite a bit of correspondence during the war revolves around the paperwork involved with freeing the slaves and when this person wants to go and where, and how provisions could be arranged for them to go where they wanted.

Lee's personal situation was made more difficult because the US government had seized his family land and his wife was an invalid, but they ended up in Richmond and Lee's wife and daughters spent the war sewing thousands of socks for soldiers.

After Lee died, a court ruled that Lee's family's land had been seized illegally, and the government paid something for it to the surviving family. The land of course is now Arlington Cemetary.

[maha]

145. Grant wasn't in Richmond.

Neither Ulysses nor Julia made any appearances in Richmond after the city fell.

[maha]

111. Lee didn't free his slaves.

The truth about Lee and Grant and slaves:

Lee did not free his slaves. He actually didn't own any slaves to free, as he didn't have any money in his own name. When the Civil War began he was living with his wife and her parents on their plantation at Arlington and the wife and the in-laws owned the slaves.

Lee did not accept African-Americans in the Confederate Army. Stories about black Confederate troops are mostly neoconfederate revisionist history. I say "mostly" because there were a handful of black Confederates, but they were exceptions and served without the approval of the generals.

When African American Union soldiers were captured by Confederates in Virginia, Lee put some of them to work within Union artillery range bulding fortifications. Lee refused to exchange black prisoners on the same basis as white prisoners -- blacks were either returned to their plantations or kept as laborers for the Confederate army -- which caused Grant to stop prisoner exchanges. Grant insisted that black soldiers be exchanged on the same basis as white soldiers.

Ulysses S. Grant, who actually did free the only slave he ever owned personally (a gift from his father-in-law), accepted African-American troops willingly and spoke highly of their service in his memoirs.

[Yupster]

118. Read above post 79 for Lee and slaves

He did own some, at least temporarily by inheritance just long enough to free them. It was a pretty sizable number if I remember -- more than 10 anyway.

[diamond14]

123. lee beat his slaves and whipped naked slave women..119 slaves

lee beat his slaves and whipped naked slave women...

...lee complained a lot about his great lifestyle, especially when you consider that lee enslaved 196 humans to serve him...lee's treatment of his slaves resulted in these TWO letters being published in the N.Y. Tribune (note that these letters state there were 15 children born from lee's father and his slave women, which means they were raped)...

http://www.nps.gov/arho/ppphotos/arho%2Ejpg
lee kept 196 slaves and 1100 acres of land at this major house (much nicer than the housing for his slaves)


SOME FACTS THAT SHOULD COME TO LIGHT

To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

Sir

It is known that the venerable George Washington Parke Custis died some two years ago; and the same papers that announced his death announced also the fact that on his deathbed he liberated his slaves. The will, for some reason, was never allowed any publicity, and the slaves themselves were cajoled along with the idea that some slight necessary arrangements were to be made, when they would all have their free papers. Finally they were told five years must elapse before they could go.

Meantime they have been deprived of all means of making a little now and then for themselves, as they were allowed to do during Mr. Custis's life, have been kept harder at work than ever, and part of the time have been cut down to half a peck of unsifted meal a week for each person, without even their fish allowance. Three old women, who have seen nearly their century each, are kept sewing, making clothes for the field hands, from daylight till dark, with nothing but the half-peck of meal to eat; no tea or coffee — nothing that old people crave — and no time given them to earn these little rarities, as formerly.

One old man, eighty years old, bent with age, and whom Mr. Custis had long since told "had done enough," and might go home and "smoke his pipe in peace," is now turned out as a regular field hand. A year ago, for some trifling offense, three were sent to hail, and a few months later three more, for simply going down to the river to get themselves some fish, when they were literally starved.

Some three or four weeks ago, three, more courageous than the rest, thinking their five years would never come to an end, came to the conclusion to leave for the North. They were most valuable servants, but they were never advertised, and there was no effort made to regain them which looks exceedingly as though Mr. Lee, the present proprietor, knew he had no lawful claim to them. They had not proceeded far before their progress was intercepted by some brute in human form, who suspected them to be fugitives, and probably wished a reward. They were lodged in jail, and frightened into telling where they had started from. Mr. Lee was forthwith acquainted with their whereabouts, when they were transported back, taken into a barn, stripped, and the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her. They were then sent to Richmond jail, where they are now lodged Next to Mount Vernon, we associate the Custis place with the "Father of this free country." Shall "Washington's body guard" be thus tampered with, and never a voice raised for such utter helplessness?

A.

Washington, June 21, 1859.



The other letter was briefer... :

To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

Sir: I live one mile from the plantation of George Washington P. Custis, now Col. Lee's, as Custis willed it to Lee. All the slaves on this estate, as I understand, were set free at the death of Custis, but are now held in bondage by Lee. I have inquired concerning the will, but can get no satisfaction. Custis had fifteen children by his slave women. I see his grandchildren every day; they are of a dark yellow. Last week three of the slaves ran away; an officer was sent after them, overtook them nine miles this side of Pennsylvania, and brought them back. Col. Lee ordered them whipped. They were two men and one woman. The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped her himself . These are facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as good farm hands.

Yours,
A CITIZEN.

Washington, June 19, 1859.



http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/22*.html

[Llewlladdwr]

140. Still spreading the lies Amen?

The site you pulled this from said it was bullshit. Best not to link to a site that refutes you. See post 128.

[maha]

142. I'd need a link for that.

I'm a civil war nerd goin' way back and have read biographies of Lee. I believe the stories about good Massa Robert freeing his slaves are myths.

[Yupster]

77. Confederates didn't try to kill America

they tried to separate from America.

America would have gotten by just fine without them.

[diamond14]

83. WP: schools failing in Alexandria VA...'rich' at private schools

These people LOVE shrub's school programs...all the 'toniest neighborhood' kids (in half-million dollar homes) are in PRIVATE schools in Alexandria Virginia...gated communities and private schools leave all those poor kids in totally failing schools with no chance....


N.Va. School Fails Federal Standard
Alexandria's Maury Elementary Must Offer Transfer Options


By Elaine Rivera and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 16, 2003; Page B02

-snips-

An Alexandria elementary school faces sanctions after being named among dozens of Virginia schools that failed to meet new federal achievement standards.

Although the elementary school is in one of Alexandria's toniest neighborhoods where homes easily sell for a half-million dollars, a majority of Maury students come from public housing, school officials said. More than 70 percent of the children are in the free and reduced-price lunch program, school records show.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1295-2003Aug15.html

[WilliamPitt]

20. They'd probably react the way most do to flamebait

:eyes:

[harrison]

21. Well, where to begin. The South went to war to protect its "machines".

The "machines" happened to be people who were bought and sold as chattel. The machines were the reason the gentry class got so wealthy in the South. However, it needs to be pointed out that the North probably made more money dealing in slaves than the South did.

No question in my mind that the war was fought over slavery. Just read the secession articles of Mississippi and Georgia. They spell it out. However, most of the soldiers from the South didn't own slaves, but joined up because of the fact that Union troops were coming down South to quell a rebellion.

Lincoln saw the whole thing as a rebellion. The South saw itself as a new country who had the right to secede. Of course, the Confederacy didn't like it when a couple of counties in Alabama and Mississippi tried to secede from the Confederacy.

Frankly, as a 5th generation Mississippian whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy, I know how wrong the South was and how sorry a lot they were for fighting to preserve such an odious institution as slavery.

On the other hand, I also understand how sorry a lot the people of the Northern states were before and during that time who made their money out of the slave racket.

Lincoln saw it all. He understood that the whole country was guilty because of slavery.

Folks in the South made the slight miscalculation of fighting for an immoral cause, but the North had its hand in the financial cookie jar of slavery as well which helped set the whole system up.

[SayitAintSo]

24. ain't nobody clean ...

on either side of this ...

[Walt Starr]

25. The war was also glorified on both sides and became a matter of

"honor", which is such a bullshit reason to fight a war.

Unfortunately for both sides, the technology outstripped the tactics by a few decades, resulting in horrible casualties in every engagement. Then you have to take into account that there were far more casualties due to disease than to battlefield wounds.

Personally, I feel that both the South and the North should consider William Tecumseh Sherman the REAL hero of the war. He saw that lining both sides up on a battlefield and shooting everybody on the other side dead just was not cutting it any longer. He was a visonary who realized only total war would be capable of bringing the conflict to an end. He implemented this vision and burned a swath across Georgia in his march to the sea. Both the soldiers on the field and the citizenry that supports the soldiers would have to be defeated in order to see the war to its end. War is bloody hell, and it was time for the "honorable" soldiers and civilians to see the reality of that fact.

Had the war continued on the same "honorable" footing with the same tactics, it would have drug on for so much longer.

edited to add the following

Had Lee been the military visionary that Sherman was when he entered Pennsylvania, The South would have won the war easily. If he started burning everything in his path, Lincoln would have had no choice but to sue for peace and the United States of America would havfe taken an entirely different course.

[SayitAintSo]

32. Sorry ... But I can't put Sherman in the visionary category just yet ....

Having lived in both Atlanta and Columbia .... both on the receiving end of Sherman's pyro-technic legacy, and well saturated in the history of Sherman's march and the tragic attendent loss, hero is not the word that comes to mind ....

[Walt Starr]

33. The truth hurts, but Sherman was the greatest hero of the CW

And a military visionary is what he was in his day.

Had there been no march to the sea, thousands upon thousands more would have died.

If you don't like it, you're free to have you're opinion. It is the truth and the South should be thankful for Sherman. He is directly responsible for many Southerners ever existing.

[Dob Bole]

47. This is the whole "Hiroshima" line of rhetoric...

War saves lives! War brings peace! How is this different from one of Bush's arguments for war?

Similarly, there is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki complex, where people insist that the most catastrophic events in war bring peace and save lives. I don't buy it. Look at Iraq now.

I'm not fully convinced that Sherman's brutal march to the sea, where he burned churches, homes, and schools, saved any lives at all. All we see from our viewpoint is the ruins.

[SayitAintSo]

61. Bingo ... thanks ....

stated it well ....

[Walter_Bowman]

62. Change your viewpoint, then (nt)

nt

[Walt Starr]

67. You will never be able to convince me Hiroshima and Nagasaki

were not necessary.

Never.

[Yupster]

80. I have no problem with Hiroshima

I wish they would have waited more than three days before Nagasaki. I dont think they gave the Japanese time to investigate wahat happened to them and come to a decision in three days.

[Walt Starr]

86. Nagasaki sealed the fate of the war

Hiroshima could have been written off as a fluke or as a one time shot.

Turning around and doing the same thing three days later proved the point, surrender or be decimated.

[Gore1FL]

136. Agreed

Much of what Sherman did in the march to the sea was devistating. The fires his troops did cause (not atlanta) but others are at best atrosities.

Interstingly, more damage was casued by a band of deserters (from both sides) who followed the march and looted, burned, raped, as they progressed.

[Bake]

127. Then by your logic, we should turn Iraq into a melted nuclear parking lot

Because after all, war is hell.

Bake

[Walt Starr]

147. We're getting what we deserve in Iraq

There are two choices with war. Either you go at it to win which means total war and destruction, or you don't go to war.

Iraq took the same philosophy as Vietnam. We're now paying the consequences.

If the people of the nation are not prepared to stomach the horrors of total war, then war is not justified.

[maha]

112. My great-great granddaddy ...

Corporal Fielding King served with a Missouri volunteer infantry regiment and marched through Georgia with Crazy Bill.

They say I take after him. :bounce:

[Gore1FL]

135. Not Atlanta

The south burned Atlanta in retreat. Sherman's guilt was that the fire was in response to his success in his march tot he sea.

[VOX]

56. The "hero" Sherman went on to practice total war on Native Americans...

and played a major role in their genocide. The merciless warfare waged on civilians in the South was only a warm-up for "Uncle Billy."

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_042500_wars18501900.htm
The next year {1866} General William Tecumseh Sherman took over the direction of the "Indian Wars." Sherman's strategy rested on continued punitive attacks on villages, the destruction of tribal horse herds, and the pursuit of Indians even during the winter months. In maneuvers, the army was to follow the general plan of "convergence." The idea was to send out several (usually three) different forces by different routes who would then converge on an Indian village in a well-timed and coordinated attack.

http://kinfish.plala.jp/usa/americanindians.html
In 1867, General William Tecumseh Sherman said: "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the {Lakotas, known to whites as the Sioux} even to their extermination, men, women and children."

[Walt Starr]

66. I only claimed he was the biggest hero of the CW

and that he was.

He broke the spirit of the Traitorous rebels and that was necessary to end the war.

I only wish that McClelland would have realized what was necessary to win that war. It could have been over years before it was.

Thank goodness Lee was a military hack caught up in what was at that time ancient tactics. If he had Sherman's vision about how a modern (for 1860-65) warfare should be conducted, The South could have easily defeated the North.

[Yupster]

81. No respect for Sherman here

You might even be able to argue for burning opponent's cities, and killing the livestock, but the evacuation of the entire population, and then the digging up of hidden silverware and bringing the loot back up north? Nope - no respect here.

[Walt Starr]

87. Fine, and I have no respect for the most traitorous bastard in

American History either.

That man's name was Robert E. Lee, and yes, he was the worst traitor in American history. That is an undeniable fact.

[diamond14]

90. I wish they'd take the traitor's name off the BIG highway in VA....

such glory really does encourage other traitors, and even terrorists to attack American military installations (like the Pentagon)...

there should be a movement to STOP encouraging traitors by naming streets after them, and putting up statues and other monuments....

[Walt Starr]

91. I agree with you

Lee's name is stained with treason forever. I cannot believe anybody would put up a statue to that traitorous bastard.

[diamond14]

102. worse, OUR National Park $$$ pays for a MEMORIAL to LEE.....

look at this memorial to a traitor, located on the sacred ground of Arlington National Cemetary...a traitor to the USA....

and ALL Americans pay for this crap...in desecration of the graves of BRAVE American Soliers who remained true to America, despite fighting in unpopular wars....the graves of OUR patriotic American soldiers lying in Arlington National Cemetary are desecrated by this huge monument to a TRAITOR, a West Point Military Graduate who turned against the United States of America....

http://www.nps.gov/arho/

[Yupster]

96. Especially on DU, I'm surprised that someone would

call someone else a criminal when he was not convicted.

Lee was indicted for treason. He was never tried. If the government thought they had a case they should have tried him. In Lees case, he thought it best to just not push the matter and be a good example to the population, almost every family of which had a soldier that served under General Lee

President Davis was not nearly so quiet. He was also indicted for treason, and was never tried either. He demanded a trial -- a public and speedy trial which was his Constitutional right if the government thought he was an American. He was represented by a group of high powered northern lawyers, and funding for the defense was assured by Horace Greeley, the old abolitionist, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, the New York railroad tycoon. Those two also paid $ 50,000 of Davis' bail money.

While secretary of State Seward and War Stanton wanted Davis tried, Attorney General James Speed gave the president his opinion in writing. Speed wrote that any competent and independent tribunal, would acquit Davis of treason.

He gave three arguments for his opinion.

1. The USA itself gave the CSA nation status by its treatment and exchanging of prisoners.
2. The trial constitutionally would have to take place in Virginia, and he would never be convicted there.
3. The rebellion was a general one throughout the south and foreign countries had given belligerant rights to the south.

Still, Johnson's cabinet, in a split vote, agreed Davis should be tried. But he never was.

How would any of you like the government to indict you for a serious crime. -- Let's say child molestation -- then never put you on trial or never drop the charges. For the rest of your life you would just be an indicted molestor with no chance to clear your name. Would that be a pretty horrible thing to do to someone? You could demand a trial to prove your innocence, but never get one.

And then how would you like it if 20 years later people still pointed to you on the street and said there goes that child molestor. I would be surprised if people at DU didn't speak out against such government behavior.

Personally I think Davis was innocent of treason becauise when Mississippi left the union by vote of special convention, he ceased being an American citizen at the same time his state left the union. That's why the congress threw the southern representatives out of their seats if they hadn't already left. If Davis was not an American, but was in fact a foreign leader, he could hardly commit treason against the USA.

[Walt Starr]

148. Lee swore an oath to the United States of America

He violated that oath by taking up arms against the United States of America.

That's treason.

Case closed.

[Llewlladdwr]

152. Except that you're completely wrong.

If the Oath Lee took was anything like the Oath Commisioned Officers take today then it was to the Constitution of the United States, not the Government of the United States. Two completely different animals. If the Government was in violation of the Constitution (which one could certainly argue) then the Oath specifies that one MUST take up arms against it. I'm still waiting for a link to the Oath Lee took if anyone has it.

[leftofthedial]

201. Lee renounced his commission

Along with hundreds of fellow officers.

The US Army let them go and released them from their commissions.

You're wrong.

[Dob Bole]

23. No Constitutional Mandate to Prevent Secession

was ever instated until the Civil War Amendments. Seceding wasn't illegal; the states entered into an agreement to form a union, and reserved their right to dissolve it; they did mostly over the tax issue.

In that sense, neo-confederates see themselves as an occupied people.

[MaverickX]

164. they could only legally secede if..

The Federal govt violated the Constitution. How did the Feds do that?

[Dob Bole]

165. Don't know...

something about "taxation without representation" and the whole clause about powers reserved for the states. It was as much of a states' rights secession as anything.

[MaverickX]

168. how were they being taxed without representation?

The South were masters of taxation without representation. They only had a one party control in the South. In fact due to the electoral college and the way the Senate was set up the South actually had overrepresentation. The South certainly had representation.

[Yupster]

186. Maverick?

Why would you say they could only secede if the government violated the Constitution? Where did that come from?

I think it's debatable whether had the right to secede or not, but I've always thought they did or they didn't. I've never heard it argued that it was a conditional right -- that the right to secede was based on actions of the federal government.

They either had the right or they didn't.

[coda]

193. "the states entered into an agreement to form a union"

That stretch, at most, might work for Georgia, the Carolina's, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland. Not the rest.

[goforit]

30. Well, We can call it the war of bigotry!.....The Neo-con way!

The day is here.
Full circle!

[neverforget]

34. The war is OVER and has been for 138 years!! Can't we all just get

along? :evilgrin:

[Dob Bole]

35. No Dammit!!!

I don't wanna! I want to find petty things to argue about, because I'm on DU.

(sarcasm should be noted here)

[TankLV]

36. Uh - because they're incredibally full of shit,

need excuses for unexcuseably continuing bad behavior and beliefs,

and basically severely bad psychological problems.

[Dob Bole]

37. This is the Thread of Northern Aggression nt

[ButterflyBlood]

51. it was never intended as an anti-South thread

I obviously don't think all Southerners are the type who celebrate the Lincoln assasination.

[carolinayellowdog]

58. You have previously advocated separatio

of the South from the USA, NOW, so Southerners who remember that thread have reason to suspect your motives in starting this one on a day that anti-South sentiment has been raging wildly here.

[PATRICK]

39. It helps distract

from every issue except the noble right of "self-determination"- for whites. It helps mostly to mask the bitter frustration of using a strategy of attrition only the North could win and wanting the "free" type of Confederate government that could not possibly cope with the Union in organization and pooling of resources. As for the North. Even staked to all the advantages they did come close to losing according to the South's insane self-contradiction.

It was all unnecessary madness and loss of life. The few redemptive bits of lessons learned are hereby thrown away in spiteful revisionist fantasy. Thus the honored dead become equally fools.

Math challenged? Just shout and throw up the gameboard. You still lose but you feel better.

[pizzathehut]

45. The Civil War was inevitable, like the first one of 1776

Unfortunately if it wasnt slavery I think another issue like taxation would have caused some civil war. (Actually their was a short one in the 1830's called the Whiskey Rebellion.) Similar to Englands war of the roses or the french revolution. It just seems like countries need to fight amongst themselves in order to become unified. And other countries need to stay the hell away and let them work things out.

[maha]

113. No,

The Whiskey Rebellion took place in 1794, not 1830. You're probably mixing up the Whiskey Rebellion with the Nullification Crisis.

Slavery was the wedge issue that split the country apart. No other issue would have done it.

[fabius]

41. BTW have some respect for Confederates...

...My wife's ancestors were Confederates. She's an authentic Southern Belle and yellow-dog Democrat. ;)

[VoteClark]

46. It sounds better then the "War to End Southern Repression of Blacks"

Point of view.


:kick:
J4Clark

[leftofthedial]

48. I don't know. Why do neo-Yankee morons keep dumping on the

South?

[ButterflyBlood]

52. that's like saying bashing Freepers is bashing the whole US

the South has lots of neo-confederate morons but not all Southerners are like them. The US has lots of Freepers but not all Americans are like them. I'll bash Freepers and neo-confederates, I don't bash all Americans or all Southernors. get it?

[leftofthedial]

55. got it

good?

What I said is EXACTLY like what you said, just focusing on the other side of the Mason Dixon line.

I think we'll bash the same people.

get it?

[Walt Starr]

68. I still say the most accurate name is

the War of Southern Treason, because that is EXACTLY what it was.

[leftofthedial]

78. treason?

secession is treason if you lose I guess.

Personally, I think the best name for it is

"The War that Ended 130 Freaking Years Ago"

[Walt Starr]

93. Yes, treason

Seccession was treason, plain and simple. Rebelling against the union is treason.

Ever last officer who had previously worn the Union Blues violated their oaths to the union. That is an undeniable act of treason.

To put it in modern terms, it is the moral equivalent of participating in the OK City bombing with the expressed desire of taking Oklahoma out of the union.

There is no other term befitting the act. It was treason.

[Llewlladdwr]

109. Exactly what Oath did they take?

I'd like to know. Do you have the exact wording?

[Walt Starr]

149. Absolutely

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Upon taking up arms, each officer who had sworn this oath became a domestic enemy to the United States and thus, a traitor.

[Llewlladdwr]

154. How So?

The Oath is to the Constitution, not the Government. One could argue that by denying the States their right under the 10th Amendment to seceed that the Federal Government had become a domestic enemy to the Constitution and those taking up arms against it were in fact fufilling their Oath.

[leftofthedial]

133. actually, state secession is not treason

neither is renouncing your commission in the Army.

neither is renouncing your American citizenship.

Even if it was treason, Lee died in 1870. Do you want to dig him up and shoot him, or what?


what possible purpose is served by your vitriol? No one alive today fought for the south. No one today is seriously advocating sceeding from the union. I have read a few threads on this very forum about liberals seceeding from "Murka." Does that make DU a den of treasonous conspirators?

There are plenty of treasonous assholes alive today we should be getting out of power as rapidly as we can. Let's all try to focus on that, eh?

[Walt Starr]

150. This is a thread about the War of Southern Treason

Resigning your commission in the army is not treason, on that I agree. Resigning your commission in the army then taking up arms against the United States IS TREASON. That is an undeniable fact.

Speaking truth is now vitriol. Sheesh!

[Llewlladdwr]

153. Again Walt, you're not speaking fact.

An Officer's Oath does NOT preclude taking up arms against the Government of the United States. The Oath specifies that one will defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Government of the United States acts contrary to the Constitution the an Officer would be duty bound to take up arms against it in order to defend the Constitution.

[depakid]

49. The misguided belief that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War

is central to the perception. Most of the people who use that moniker believe that the Civil War was fought over the right to self determination and because the North was oppressing the South via economic hegemony. Like most misguided beliefs, there are grains of truth to them. The North did, in fact, use its congressional majority to impose heavy import tariffs when it could, and the argument can be made that the states each had a right under the Constitution to do as they damn well pleased regarding their own "personal property practices," as there were no 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments.

However, those were ancillary issues. Slavery, plain and simple caused succession- and the issue festered throughout the post revolutionary United States. Unfortunately, it took "manifest destiny" and westward expansion to haul the issue out of moral bondage and grant it politico-economic significance. That's when Congress was finally forced to face the music (they'd debated since Franklin's time) and actually had to do something, first through Clay's Missouri Compromise and later through the Kansas & Nebraska Act. Think there's rancor in Congress now? Back then, this dude from South Carolina beat the shit out of a Senator from Massachusetts named ironically Charles Sumner. Busted the man's skull with a cane on the floor of Congress- leaving him brain damaged.

So the bottom line with the whole "Northern Aggression" bit is that it's misguided, revisionist history- propogated by those who've not bothered to read the material or who suffer with some personal needs for vindication of the Antebellum South. In short, they wish to elevate the glory and deny the shame, which is understandable enough.

No sense in trying to present facts to people who believe like that- they don't want to hear it, and like my mom, will probably harbor their beliefs until their dying day.

[leftofthedial]

84. I disagree

as do many Civil War historians.

The causes of the American Civil War were many, complex and had been simmering for generations.

States Rights was an umbrella that included issues like slavery and interstate commerce.

There were other issues as well.

Saying the American Civil War was about slavery is like saying the disputes between progressives and neoconservatives today are about taxes.

True, but grossly incomplete.

[maha]

115. It was too about slavery.

The Southern states seceeded to protect the institution of slavery. That was the only real issue. If you don't believe me, please read the documents drawn up by the secession conventions themselves giving their reasons to leave the Union.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

For example, Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

[Gore1FL]

137. The south seceded over slavery

but the war was fought over the right to seceed, not to seceed because of slavery.

Was slavery a factor? Absolutely. The south was afraid of the growing power of abolitionists. Seven stated rebelled because of this. Lincoln asked for volunteers from all states to quell the rebellion. This forced 4 more states to rebel.

Slavery was not addressed until the Emancipation proclaimation after the pseudo success at Anteitem. It was a political decison born from the need to stop foreign intervention in the contest.

[maha]

143. Oh, puh-LEEZE

"but the war was fought over the right to seceed, not to seceed because of slavery."

The only reason the southern states were even faintly interested in secession was as a means to protect the institution of slavery.

[Gore1FL]

144. Didn't I say that?

The war, however, was fought over their right to secede, not the reasoning on which they attempted to withdraw from the Union.

Had they not attempted to leave, there would have been no rebellion, no call to put down the rebellion, and no war.

You can parse it all you want. Lincoln didn't send troops to the South to stop slavery, he sent troops to the south to stop the rebellion. This is reflected in the slavery issue not even coming into play until after Anteitem, and then only as a political means to keep out France and Britian.

If the war was, in fact fought over slavery, the emmancipation proclaimation would have come much earlier.

The slavery issue was arguably the main of many reasons for the Southern rebellion, but the Southern Rebellion, not slavery, was the incident that caused the war.

Look it up.

[maha]

146. I don't need to look it up.

I've been a Civil War buff since before you were in diapers, I suspect. But the way you phrased the casus belli -- the "right" to secede -- is a little off. The war was fought over the fact of secession. The "right" was a supporting issue.

[Gore1FL]

151. Well sort of

You'll notice you just agreed to my overall point when you said "The war was fought over the fact of secession" despite evidently being a Civil War buff for nearly 40 years.

However, there was no "fact of succession" because they wearen't allowed to do so. They did not require re-admittance to the union after the war. Seccesion never happened. It was only attempted.

Interestingly, many who supported the right to seceed actually thought they shoudl be forced, as territories, through the re-admittance process.

I am signing off now. Likely by the time I return (around midnight) this thread will be long gone, so please excuse me for my lack of further responses on this issue.

[diamond14]

95. "cheap-labor conservatives"...wanted people to work for FREE

also known as slavery....

there are MANY beautiful plantations still in Virginia...and a whole elite of beneficiaries from the great wealth that slavery spawned for 'selected' plantation owners...the inheritors of those plantations seem to have little conscience about where their blood money came from...they just glory in having BIG houses, stables/horses, lovely antiques, and all the other trappings of Virginia OLD-Wealth, including political influence....confederate (traitor) flags fly freely all over Virginia...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. It sounds better than "The War to Protect Slavery"

Public Relations similar to BushCorp's "Liberation" of Iraq.

[TomNickell]

64. The War Between the States

The less aggressive name in the South has always been "The War Between the States". Implies a certain legitimacy to the Southern cause, I guess.

Many have pointed out that there was little 'civil' about the Civil War.

[Stuckinthebush]

69. You know, no one down here really calls it that

That is a joke. It is usually refered to as the Civil War or the War Between the States.

Contrary to popular myth, most Southerners don't have fond thoughts of the old slave-owning South.

The one thing that really pisses off Southerners about the Civil War is Sherman's needless destruction of the South. You'll notice that you will not find a Southerner named Sherman.

[Walt Starr]

70. I consider what Sherman did to have been absolutely necessary

It was the only way to win the war. The South had to be utterly and completely defeated.

It was.

[Stuckinthebush]

72. I'm not going to argue that point

because it is probably correct.

But, that doesn't negate the intense dislike Southerners have for his acts.

[Walt Starr]

73. I know it doesn't

And Lee's "gentlemanly demeanor" doesn't lessen the fact that Lee was the worst traitor in American history, either.

[Stuckinthebush]

74. Bingo

There is a fraternity that is mostly (if not exclusively) in Southern colleges - Kappa Alpha. Their entire philosophy revolves around Lee and the mythical glamour of the "Old South".

It is funny, most of the other fraternity members at the Southern college I went to were disgusted by this reverence.

[Yupster]

82. In all things

"Always do your duty. You cannot do more. You should never do less."

RE Lee

I guess the hard part is deciding where your duty lies.

Incidently, Lee was no secessionist and neither were many of the leading Confederates.

Alexander Stephens was the most vocal opponent of secession in the south and led the fight against it in the Georgia secession convention, and was then elected Vice-president of the Confederacy by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Montgomery.

The last unreconstructed rebel, General Jubal Early voted against secession in the Virginia secession convention, but then fought hard for four years as a division commander under General Lee. It was Early's division who took York Pennsylvania in 1863 (check a map and be surprised).

Even Jeff Davis was no cheerleader of the secessionists. He stayed in Washington to work on a compromise long after most southern politicians had left. He also didn't attend the Constitutional Convention in Montgomery though he was Mississippi's best known statesman. He got elected president even though he wasn't there to lobby for the job. He probably was hoping to get the job of top general in charge of Confederate Armies instead of president.

[Walt Starr]

88. Lee took up arms against the nation he gave his oath to defend

That makes him a traitor.

He can never be a hero.

[diamond14]

97. lee was a West Point Military Officer graduate, a traitor to USA...

just imagine today, if a West Point Graduate, a Military Officer who commanded troops for the USA, then turned against America, supporting an overthrow of the United States Government in support of people who attacked an American Military base...like the Pentagon...and would we all be so generous in allowing such a traitor to be glorified by statues, National Memorial, highways, monuments....would we allow that today ??? and why don't we stop this...IMO, lee's house in Arlington National Cemetary, a memorial to a traitor, is an INSULT to my cousin who is buried there...my cousin received a silver star and a purple heart after he was killed in Vietnam...I have never gone to my cousin's burial plot, because of the lee house, declared as a National Memorial to lee, which is an insult to OUR brave soldiers, who fought in an unpopular war...and NEVER turned against America, like lee did....

truly a traitor, and nobody calls the National Park Service on it...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leebio.htm

look at the memorial to a traitor, located in the sacred ground of Arlington National Cemetary...a traitor to the USA....
http://www.nps.gov/arho/

[Llewlladdwr]

105. Except that Lee didn't support the overthrow of the Federal Government.

He fought for the right of the State of Virginia to leave the Union. Which at the time it was widely believed a State had the right to do. There was nothing in the Constitution at the time to say that they couldn't, and the Tenth Amendment could be interpreted as allowing it. So calling Lee a traitor is just ignorant. I have no idea what Oath Lee took upon receiving his Commision (if anyone knows, please share), but the Oath taken today says "I, _____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Nothing there about not raising arms against the Federal Government.

[Iluvleiberman]

110. States can still leave.........

It would just take another civil war to keep them in. Same for territories. What if Puerto Rico decided to become independent?

[Llewlladdwr]

114. Exactly.

The Federal Government has pretty much rendered the point moot by demonstrating it's willingness to crush any State that makes the attempt. Territories are a different matter. If Puerto Rico really wanted full independence it could probably be negotiated. Most of the Puerto Ricans I've talked to about this don't want it though. The Phillipines got their independence, if you want to use that as a precedent. At this point Statehood is pretty much a forever thing.

[diamond14]

119. lee beat his slaves and whipped naked slave women...

...lee complained a lot about his great lifestyle, especially when you consider that lee enslaved 196 humans to serve him...lee's treatment of his slaves resulted in these TWO letters being published in the N.Y. Tribune (note that these letters state there were 15 children born from lee's father and his slave women, which means they were raped)...


http://www.nps.gov/arho/ppphotos/arho%2Ejpg

lee kept 196 slaves and 1100 acres of land at this major house (much nicer than the housing for his slaves)


SOME FACTS THAT SHOULD COME TO LIGHT

To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

Sir It is known that the venerable George Washington Parke Custis died some two years ago; and the same papers that announced his death announced also the fact that on his deathbed he liberated his slaves. The will, for some reason, was never allowed any publicity, and the slaves themselves were cajoled along with the idea that some slight necessary arrangements were to be made, when they would all have their free papers. Finally they were told five years must elapse before they could go. Meantime they have been deprived of all means of making a little now and then for themselves, as they were allowed to do during Mr. Custis's life, have been kept harder at work than ever, and part of the time have been cut down to half a peck of unsifted meal a week for each person, without even their fish allowance. Three old women, who have seen nearly their century each, are kept sewing, making clothes for the field hands, from daylight till dark, with nothing but the half-peck of meal to eat; no tea or coffee — nothing that old people crave — and no time given them to earn these little rarities, as formerly. One old man, eighty years old, bent with age, and whom Mr. Custis had long since told "had done enough," and might go home and "smoke his pipe in peace," is now turned out as a regular field hand. A year ago, for some trifling offense, three were sent to hail, and a few months later three more, for simply going down to the river to get themselves some fish, when they were literally starved.
Some three or four weeks ago, three, more courageous than the rest, thinking their five years would never come to an end, came to the conclusion to leave for the North. They were most valuable servants, but they were never advertised, and there was no effort made to regain them which looks exceedingly as though Mr. Lee, the present proprietor, knew he had no lawful claim to them. They had not proceeded far before their progress was intercepted by some brute in human form, who suspected them to be fugitives, and probably wished a reward. They were lodged in jail, and frightened into telling where they had started from. Mr. Lee was forthwith acquainted with their whereabouts, when they were transported back, taken into a barn, stripped, and the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her. They were then sent to Richmond jail, where they are now lodged Next to Mount Vernon, we associate the Custis place with the "Father of this free country." Shall "Washington's body guard" be thus tampered with, and never a voice raised for such utter helplessness?

A.

Washington, June 21, 1859.



The other letter was briefer... :

To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

Sir: I live one mile from the plantation of George Washington P. Custis, now Col. Lee's, as Custis willed it to Lee. All the slaves on this estate, as I understand, were set free at the death of Custis, but are now held in bondage by Lee. I have inquired concerning the will, but can get no satisfaction. Custis had fifteen children by his slave women. I see his grandchildren every day; they are of a dark yellow. Last week three of the slaves ran away; an officer was sent after them, overtook them nine miles this side of Pennsylvania, and brought them back. Col. Lee ordered them whipped. They were two men and one woman. The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped her himself . These are facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as good farm hands.

Yours,
A CITIZEN.

Washington, June 19, 1859.



http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/22*.html

[Yupster]

125. Lee's father was

General Henry (Light Horse Harry) Lee.

He was a member of the Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, and then ended up losing his home and leaving the country for the Caribbean where he died because of gambling or some kind of scandal. Robert Lee was raised by his mother in good company but with little money. He did not grow up at Arlington.

This Custis guy who fathered the slave kids? I don't know who he was? Certainly he was not a relative of Lee's. He was absolutely not his father.

My guess is maybe he was a relative of his wife Mary's? Maybe her dad? I don't know? I seem to remember Martha Washington's family name was Custis, and Lee married into Martha Washington's family.

On edit -- It was Lee's father who gave the eulogy at George Washington's funeral where he uttered the now famous phrase "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

[depakid]

132. "Light Horse" had a little problem

He was demonstrably bipolar. Brilliant at times, reckless at others. What he did during his depressive stages isn't well recorded.

His son, Robert inherited part of his father- he was a perfectionist who could see beyond horizons, yet beneath the veneer lay a big heart. When asked to take control of the Union armies, he just couldn't fight aganst his fellow Virginians. He just couldn't- desite the fact that HE OWNED NO SLAVES and considered slavery a "moral and political evil." He was a torn man, not a traitor-

Even so, there were were plenty of people pissed off at him, even before he took command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Arlington House (he and his wife Mary's home) was looted and that's where Union troops derisively buried their dead. In Lee's front yard... which is now called Arlington National Cemetery.

[Llewlladdwr]

128. Sweet.

Did you even read the site you quoted from here? The section from which you took this says "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing. But false stories were spread, and on June 24, 1859, The New York Tribune printed two communications on the affair. One of them read as follows:" then prints your two excerpts. Following, it further states "This was Lee's first experience with the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators. The libel, which was to be reprinted many times in later years with new embellishments, made him unhappy, but it did not lead him to any violent retort." If you're going to slander an honorable man it's best not to link to a site that rebuts your claims.

On Edit: Removed Wanker. Sorry, but attacking a dead man with lies upsets me.

[diamond14]

155. Yes, these letters were printed in the NY Tribune in 1859....

those letters, from BRAVE American Patriots, tell of horrible conditions for lee's slaves....



your response (glorifying the slave-owning traitor lee):

1. oh dear me...we 'sons of traitors (confederates)' all have been told by our dittohead radio talk show hosts...that lee didn't own any slaves ! :nopity:

2. oh dear, don't you realize that lee was an 'honorable' traitor?
:nopity:

3. oh dear me...the people who wrote those letters were just EVIL people telling terrible things about glorious traitor, lee....:nopity:

4. oh dear, people writing those letters, about lee's inhumane treatment of his slaves, were just upsetting poor lee (traitor to the United States of America, BIG time looser, slave-owner who was willing to sacrifice thousand of lives for his 'right' to own and beat slaves)...oh dear, these people upset poor old lee..."made him unhappy".....how dare they make glorious traitor lee unhappy...those slaves should be serving glorious traitor lee to keep him happy at all times...:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[Llewlladdwr]

157. Again Amen, did you even read the link you had in your own post?

The author you quoted clearly said that those two letters were LIES.

Go read the link this time:

http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/22*.html

This is rich. You find a site that says "hey, people told these lies about Robert E. Lee" and then quote the lies as truth. I'm not even sure how to debate this kind of thing.

[diamond14]

158. the letters were printed in 1859...the link does NOT deny that...

you are simply interpreting those letters, printed in the NY Tribune in 1859...the article also makes it clear that lee owned many slaves...most ditto-head sons-of-traitors try the old "gee...my goodness...slave owners were just really nice people...they wouldn't beat anyone or hurt anyone....gee...slave owners were truly "conscientious" people...and 'owning slaves added to lee's distress", so clearly the people who wrote these letters were lying about traitor lee, a really NICE slave owner :nopity:

here's snips from the article, very sympathic to the poor distressed unhappy traitor, lee...but never denying that those letters were printed, and never denying that lee owned slaves...


http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/22*.html
-snips-

The handling of the slaves, always a difficult matter to a conscientious man, added to Lee's distress. The Negroes at Arlington numbered sixty-three, and the majority of them belonged to a few large families. They were more than Lee could work advantageously with his available capital and land, consequently he had to hire out a few of them by the year in order to supplement the income from the property. The demand for servants was so limited in northern Virginia, and the return was so small that he was compelled to send some of the Arlington Negroes to work in eastern Virginia. This may have caused something of a rebellion among them, for two of them, a man and a young woman, ran away in the hope of reaching Pennsylvania. They were captured in Maryland and were returned to Arlington. Thereupon Lee sent them to labor in lower Virginia, where there would be less danger of their absconding. That probably was the extent of the punishment imposed on them. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing. But false stories were spread, and on June 24, 1859, The New York Tribune printed two communications on the affair. One of them read as follows:

SOME FACTS THAT SHOULD COME TO LIGHT

To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

Sir It is known that the venerable George Washington Parke Custis died some two years ago; and the same papers that announced his death announced also the fact that on his deathbed he liberated his slaves. The will, for some reason, was never allowed any publicity, and the slaves themselves were cajoled along with the idea that some slight necessary arrangements were to be made, when they would all have their free papers. Finally they were told five years must elapse before they could go. Meantime they have been deprived of all means of making a little now and then for themselves, as they were allowed to do during Mr. Custis's life, have been kept harder at work than ever, and part of the time have been cut down to half a peck of unsifted meal a week for each person, without even their fish allowance. Three old women, who have seen nearly their century each, are kept sewing, making clothes for the field hands, from daylight till dark, with nothing but the half-peck of meal to eat; no tea or coffee — nothing that old people crave — and no time given them to earn these little rarities, as formerly. One old man, eighty years old, bent with age, and whom Mr. Custis had long since told "had done enough," and might go home and "smoke his pipe in peace," is now turned out as a regular field hand. A year ago, for some trifling offense, three were sent to hail, and a few months later three more, for simply going down to the river to get themselves some fish, when they were literally starved.
Some three or four weeks ago, three, more courageous than the rest, thinking their five years would never come to an end, came to the conclusion to leave for the North. They were most valuable servants, but they were never advertised, and there was no effort made to regain them which looks exceedingly as though Mr. Lee, the present proprietor, knew he had no lawful claim to them. They had not proceeded far before their progress was intercepted by some brute in human form, who suspected them to be fugitives, and probably wished a reward. They were lodged in jail, and frightened into telling where they had started from. Mr. Lee was forthwith acquainted with their whereabouts, when they were transported back, taken into a barn, stripped, and the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her. They were then sent to Richmond jail, where they are now lodged.
Next to Mount Vernon, we associate the Custis place with the "Father of this free country." Shall "Washington's body guard" be thus tampered with, and never a voice raised for such utter helplessness?

A.

Washington, June 21, 1859.



The other letter was briefer but equally exaggerated:

To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.

Sir: I live one mile from the plantation of George Washington P. Custis, now Col. Lee's, as Custis willed it to Lee. All the slaves on this estate, as I understand, were set free at the death of Custis, but are now held in bondage by Lee. I have inquired concerning the will, but can get no satisfaction. Custis had fifteen children by his slave women. I see his grandchildren every day; they are of a dark yellow. Last week three of the slaves ran away; an officer was sent after them, overtook them nine miles this side of Pennsylvania, and brought them back. Col. Lee ordered them whipped. They were two men and one woman. The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped her himself. These are facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as good farm hands.

Yours,
A CITIZEN.

Washington, June 19, 1859.

[Llewlladdwr]

177. Wow. Unbelievable.

Amen, I have never denied that those letters were printed. Nor that at one point in his life Lee owned slaves. What I have said is that the allegations in those letters, that "Lee beat his slaves and whipped naked slave women" as you so delicately put it, are nothing more than lies put about through the "extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators". You yourself quote the author (Douglas Southall Freeman, who won a Pulitzer prize for his biography of Lee) as saying "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing. But false stories were spread, and on June 24, 1859, The New York Tribune printed two communications on the affair." I have also stated, and this is historical fact, that the slaves Lee inherited were freed exactly as specified in his Father-in-Law's will and in as timely a fashion as possible since Lee went to considerable lengths to not only free the slaves he held but to see that they had some means of supporting themselves once freed.

I'm done with this. It's quite obvious that neither of us will alter the other's thinking in anyway. I feel confident that we've put sufficient information forth so that others can do the research and come to their own conclusions if this interests them. Mahalo nui loa for the intellectual stimulation, and much aloha.

[diamond14]

181. finally, an admission that traitor lee DID OWN SLAVES... that

some concerned citizens wrote to the NY Tribune about lee's inhumane treatment of his slaves...and those letters were published in 1859....

now, there is simply YOUR contemporary interpretations...as you claim, that lee was a 'nice' slave owner, who did not beat his slaves, despite the letters, who cared about his slaves...

IMO, anyone who forces people to serve them WITHOUT PAY is inhumane and unethical...everybody deserves to be paid for their work...that seems to be the only area where we cannot agree...and I am certain that lee did not beat slaves who submitted to him, that is, served him as slaves and did not demand payment or run away, and submitted to lee even allowing him to rape their wives...those slaves likely did not get beat...but the very nature of slavery is horror and you seem to want desperately to justify slavery....

I do not believe that there is ever a justification for slavery....it's just that 'cheap-labor conservative' approach...forcing people to live in horrible conditions, rape their wives and children, humiliate them, whip them, make them submit, arrest them if they run away...and then claim...oh my....these ugly slave owners were just really NICE people, who cared about their slaves....sorry, that just doesn't make any sense at all....holding people against their will to work for FREE is an oxymoron with being NICE or KIND....

[Llewlladdwr]

183. Aw, Crap...

I can't believe I'm letting you suck me back into this. Oh well....

Look, I have never denied that Lee owned slaves. What I have denied is the truth of the allegations made in the two letters you find so oddly compelling. It would appear to be your belief that because the letters were printed in a newspaper a hundred and forty-four years ago they MUST be true, and my poor deluded attempts to point out that they were not accepted as such EVEN AT THE TIME is all just "contemporary interpretation". Look Amen, I accept that you find General Lee to have been one of the most evil men to walk the earth. I'm slightly more bothered that you seem to believe that I'm pro-slavery for having the temerity to disagree with you, but since you don't sign my paycheck I can live with that as well. Here is what I've learned from our little discussion:

1. Robert E. Lee inherited slaves from his father-in-law.
2. Robert E. Lee freed those slaves and provided for their continuing welfare in accordance with his father-in-law's will and his own natural inclinations.
3. Robert E.Lee served as one of the major Generals in a War that decided, among other issues, whether our nation would allow slavery or not. He was on the side that lost.
4.Many people now hate Robert E. Lee.

BTW, I assume you must be very active in the campaign to eliminate slavery in Africa and the Middle East seeing as how you find it so morally repugnant and all. How's that going?

[diamond14]

184. you said "I'm done with this..and much aloha", how disappointing

your actions are ...you simply tricked us all....and blame others for your actions...many of us were alsolutely thrilled that you were "done with this", for we could then carry on a civilized conversation amoungst those of us who are anti-traitors-to-the-USA, and anti-slavery...


Here is Llewlladdwr's post #177....

"I'm done with this. It's quite obvious that neither of us will alter the other's thinking in anyway. I feel confident that we've put sufficient information forth so that others can do the research and come to their own conclusions if this interests them. Mahalo nui loa for the intellectual stimulation, and much aloha."

[Llewlladdwr]

185. LOL!

Sorry to disappoint you of all people Amen. Think of it as me being simply unable to resist the lure of your oh-so-sophisticated debating style and witty and entertaining banter. I'll go my way now and not trouble you and your 'many' fellows on this thread again. I'll even give you the last word here since that's apparently what you so desperately crave. Ta ta!

[diamond14]

191. oh what tangled web you weave, Llewlladdwr, when at first you

try to deceive...no, llewlladdwr, I do NOT think of you as being "unable to resist", but rather as one who got caught in your own lies and then tries to laugh it off ("LOL") ???

IMO, you've exposed your own treachery....hopefully now, you'll leave this thread and keep your word...but nobody can really count on it...

[Yupster]

190. Personally, I admire Lee greatly

I think he maybe had the greatest burden on him of anyone in American history.

He had to fight constantly, always at a disadvantage, almost always with his back to the capital, always having to try to guess what his opponents were up to, knowing that one loss or one mistake could cost him his country.

Also, he had the incredible burden of having such a huge percentage of the men of his nation under his command. No general in American history ever approached the percentage he had under his command on a battlefield . He could personally see the blood of his country bleeding away, and he also had to constantly struggle to keep them tolerably well fed, clothed and shod, which he really failed to do.

Look at a picture of Lee before and after the war. He ages 25 years in four years, and I can understand why. I'm surprised his health didn't break long before it did.

And yet he served with little complaint, and with grace in victory and even more importantly in defeat. Somehow he was able to keep his head and think clearly throughout. I think it is an amazing record of accomplishment.

[Yupster]

159. I think the point is llew

that if a person is deemed evil, then it's okay to criticize them for anything, lies or truth because it's for a good cause.

Now since most people don't keep track of politics or history, they don't understand which side is evil. So, if you have to use lies or be unfair to convince them, that's okay because they end up in the right place and it just saved everyone the time and effort of really learning the issues, because if they did really learn them, they'd end up in the same place anyway.

[Llewlladdwr]

179. I know....

this saddens me tho'. The War was a terrible time for our Nation. It's easy to look back now and say "Well of course, it's obvious that the only moral thing to do was thus-and-so, and anyone who didn't do that was evil and should have their name blotted from the histories for all time." But damn it, it wasn't that easy, or the War wouldn't have been neccesary in the first place. There was plenty of evil to go around on both sides, and much good as well. The Patriot Act isn't a tenth of what Lincoln did during the War, but plenty here will raise him up a hero and nevermind that fact. Anyway, the truth is there for those who want to see.

[Iluvleiberman]

107. So was Samuel Adams

BIGTIME traitor. Just didn't get caught in time.

[electricmonk]

131. And Patrick Henry

And George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson among tons of other traitors. I got a whole history book full of traitors. "If this be treason, make the most of it." :evilgrin:

Not really taking sides in this whole argument since it's basically kind of stupid but in the early-mid 1800's people identified with their county first, state second, and nation third. So R.E. Lee and others would have probably been considered a traitor if they had taken arms up against Virginia instead of against the Union. I got a bit of a buzz so I hope that makes sense.

[Gore1FL]

138. He put state before Country

As he felt he had a higher duty to Virginia.

He could be a traitor to either.

The Civil war was an extraordinary time. To blame Lee in restrospect forces an ethnicentricic evaluation, which cannot be fairly made.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletlib]

89. Let's cool down!

First and foremost we are all Americans. We all need to stick together to get bushco out of office.

Second--my own opinion on these idiots that go around with the confederate flag and ballyhooing the greatness of the War is that they are a bunch of yahoos to put it nicely. I am personally convinced that these are "johnny come latelys" whose ancestors probably hadn't arrived here via Ellis Island before the war started.

I can say this because I am Southern bred and born. My family was in Tennessee in the 1700's. I had a distant relative who was "excused" from the war for health reasons. He had a note he carried around with him to show the generals. We had it in a drawer in a chest (over 100 yrs old, handbuilt and still in the family). I doubt if any of my family ever owned slaves as they were never rich. I don't know if I had any relatives actually in the war but every one who lived in the south was affected. (One day I'm going to do a thorough family tree).

Finally, the south lost a war they deserved to lose. Slavery as a system was wrong. They knew it then and we know it now.

The problem as I see it is the NATION'S PROBLEM. We as a nation refuse to have an honest realistic and repentive discussion on the effects of slavery on all of us: our African-American brothers and sisters most of all, but the entire psyche of the nation has been "stained" by this sin. We all need to face up to that.

I think a lot of the South bashing is done by guilty northerners (Who may not even realize it) and vice versa.

[MiltonLeBerle]

103. Kinda like our latest "War of Iraqi Aggression"-

I guess.

[Iluvleiberman]

104. Being a Southerner I do believe the South and North were growing apart

the North prevented that. Now try to take away Southerner's guns like you NEstern's are trying to do and we just might rise again.

[MaverickX]

166. only militia nuts think..

The government wants to take their guns. The South seceded because they feared slavery would be banned and because the Federal govt slapped heavy tariffs to protect infant industries. If we had free trade like the South wanted we would've been reliant on Britain for manufactured goods.

[TennesseeWalker]

116. "Neo-Confederate Morons"

Heh. Indeed. or is that Morans?

[ButterflyBlood]

130. Finally a southerner

who realizes I wasn't referring to all southerners in this thread.

[Dob Bole]

167. Not that I thought you were referring to all Southerners...

but it was still offensive, because Southerners are raised to not participate in name-calling, under which "neo-confederate morons" definitely falls.

[MaverickX]

171. not all Southerners were Confederate supporters...

Most German and Irish Southerners supported the Union. The Scotish and English Southerners were the ones who supported the Confederacy.

[MaverickX]

156. just defeat them by calling it...

The war to enforce the Constitution. Ask them what state rights were being violated that gave the South the right to secede. Don't let them get away with broadly saying the South seceded to protect state's rights.

[Yupster]

160. I don't think any rights had to be violated

for a state to have the right to secede. They had the right to secede anytime they wanted to.

A 19 year old can leave home even if everything is peachy keen. He just decides he'd be better off on his own. I know some moms that would like to use force to keep the kid at home, and I know some dads who would like to use force to kick a kid out, usually once he hits 30.

[MaverickX]

163. I disagree...

The Constitution is a contract between the states for one. Plus, not everyone in the South had a say over seceding. The South violated the Constitution, not the North. The South still needs some major political and economical reforms. It's economy is too reliant on land and resource exploitation and "free trade"; also they have terrible right to work laws that should be changed.

[Dob Bole]

170. If it's a contract between the states...

then the states reserved their sovereignty and ability to leave the contract. Prior to the Civil War amendments, of course. After those, states' rights theory diminished.

[MaverickX]

173. no I disagree...

There's nothing in the Constitution that mentions state "sovereignty" in fact it says the Federal Constitution is the Supreme law.

[Llewlladdwr]

180. Amendment 10

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Sounds pretty definitive to me. Now, what's not in the Constitution is any prohibition against a State leaving the Union. In fact, it was implicitly assumed by most States that they could leave the Union if they so decided, and doubtful that the Constitution would have been ratified had they believed otherwise. Remember, at this time in our history most folks thought of themselves as citizens of their State first and citizens of the United States second. Regardless, the Federal Government pretty much rendered the point moot by demonstrating its willingness to crush the citizenry of any State that tried to assert its independence

[MaverickX]

202. which power of the state...

Was being violated? The power to hold blacks as slaves?

[Yupster]

188. 10th Amendment seems clear as day to me

Unless explicitly given to the federal government, power rests with the states. Couldn't be much plainer.

[MaverickX]

203. the word explicitly...

Was intentionally left out of the 10th Amendment. Anyway, which power not delegated to the Federal government was being denied to the states?

[MaverickX]

174. I'm more of a supporter of what John Brown did..

Slaves were justified in killing their masters.

[WoodrowFan]

197. Me too.

Hey Mr. Skinner, how about a John Brown avatir? avitir, avetur, ummmmm, symbol-thingy!

[amazona]

175. this phrase is always tongue in cheek

I have never heard it used otherwise. And I have lived in the south over 40 years.

When not pulling your leg, they may call it The War Between the States rather than the Civil War.

Just calling it the Civil War is silly, as there are many civil wars that have occurred and still occur in many countries throughout the world.

[Dob Bole]

176. Question: If the War was so Black and White....

Why did more than 2% of Southerners support the Confederacy? Only the wealthiest 2% (give or take half a percentage) owned slaves.

Why did the Native American tribes, including my own, support the Confederacy?

Why did the Prime Minister of England support the Confederacy? Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s.

Judah P. Benjamin, a Northern Jew, moved to Richmond and became the "brains of the confederacy." Why?

In Brazil, "Confederados" still celebrate the history of the confederacy. Obviously the reasons for the foundation of the Confederate States of America was not so simple as "them southerners wuz stupid an evil an wanted slaves and that's why."

If you want to study history, study history. If you want to watch TV, watch TV. Try not to get the two confused.

[maha]

178. Maha explains it all.

Question: Why did more than 2% of Southerners support the Confederacy? Only the wealthiest 2% (give or take half a percentage) owned slaves.

Answer: You are wrong.

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

The plantation class were a minority, but lots of ordinary white men owned one or two slaves to work their farm. Further, many non-slave-owning poor white men supported slavery out of racism. Being white gave one a little bit of status in that culture, and for a poor dirt farmer that little bit of status was a point of pride.

Question: Why did the Native American tribes, including my own, support the Confederacy?

Answer: Probably because they were pissed at being relocated to Oklahoma by the federal government.

Question: Why did the Prime Minister of England support the Confederacy? Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s.

Answer: Cotton. At that time the American south was the biggest supplier of high-quality cotton in the world. The blockade put a lot of Brits out of work and cost mill owners a lot of money.

Question: Judah P. Benjamin, a Northern Jew, moved to Richmond and became the "brains of the confederacy." Why?

Answer: I dunno. You'll have to dig him up and ask him.

Question: In Brazil, "Confederados" still celebrate the history of the confederacy. Obviously the reasons for the foundation of the Confederate States of America was not so simple as "them southerners wuz stupid an evil an wanted slaves and that's why."

Obviously? After the war, some plantation owners and other southerners moved to Brazil because it was one of the few places on the planet where slavery was still legal. Brazilians deposed their Emperor, who was a real good guy, when his daughter said something about abolishing slavery.

If you want to study history, study history. If you want to watch TV, watch TV. Try not to get the two confused.

Or, in your case, don't confuse history with neo-confederate myth.

[WoodrowFan]

196. Benjamin was NOT a southerner.

And Benjamin was NOT a northerner. Here is part of his bio from

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Benjamin.html


One of the most misunderstood figures in American Jewish history is Judah P. Benjamin, whom some historians have called "the brains of the Confederacy," even as others tried to blame him for the South’s defeat. Born in the West Indies in 1811 to observant Jewish parents, Benjamin was raised in Charleston, South Carolina. A brilliant child, at age 14 he attended Yale Law School and, on graduation, practiced law in New Orleans. A founder of the Illinois Central Railroad, a state legislator, a planter who owned 140 slaves until he sold his plantation in 1850, Judah Benjamin was elected to the United States Senate from Louisiana in 1852. When the slave states seceded in 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed Benjamin as Attorney-General, making him the first Jew to hold a Cabinet-level office in an American government and the only Confederate Cabinet member who did not own slaves. Benjamin later served as the Confederacy’s Secretary of War, and then Secretary of State.


BTW, I have studied history, I have a Ph.D. in American history and work as a professional historian. And I have little tolerance for neo-confederate attempts to rewrite it. (Maha, I liked your response, ty)

[maha]

205. I guess it was a trick question! n/t

[Yupster]

189. Why didn't

the Emancipation Proclamation cover Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky?

[WoodrowFan]

195. Because

They might have tried to leave the union as well. It does no good to remain consistent to your ideals if by remaining consistent your ideals lose the war. Those states were covered by the 13th Amendment.

[WoodrowFan]

198. Why the Cherokee backed the CSA< in their own words...

The Cherokee people and their neighbors were warned before the war commenced that the first object of the party which now holds the powers of government of the United States would be to annul the institution of slavery in the whole Indian country, and make it what they term free territory and after a time a free State; and they have been also warned by the fate which has befallen those of their race in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon that at no distant day they too would be compelled to surrender their country at the demand of Northern rapacity, and be content with an extinct nationality, and with reserves of limited extent for individuals, of which their people would soon be despoiled by speculators, if not plundered unscrupulously by the State.
Urged by these considerations, the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August, in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes.


Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes
Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the
Confederate States of America.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

199. In the CSA's OWN Words (long)

Here it is, in the words of the men who tried to break the Union to preserve the right to enslave other men, why they left the union...

Mississippi

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.


South Carolina
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Georgia
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

Texas
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.


the following are from.. http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/ordinances_secession.asp


Alabama

Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,


Virginia

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:


The other Southern states, including Florida, North Carolina and Arkansas pretty much said “we’re outta here” and mentioned the election of Lincoln.


Section 9.4 of the CSA Constitution…

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

From the “Cornerstone Speech” delivered by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, march 21, 1861.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.{emphasis added} Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men f that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


and last but not least, a good Civil War quiz… http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/e/mebuckner/civwarquiz.htm

[ArkDem]

200. who cares?

.

[Brian Sweat]

207. That phrase is usually meant in jest.

I believe the phrase originated on "The Beverly Hillbillies."

[tom_paine]

208. Ahhh, another virulantly divisive thread from ButterflyBlood

Like, I am so totally surprised.

[Fescue4u]

209. What a "NEO" confederate?

I keep hearing these neo terms, neo conservative, neo liberal, now neo confederate.

[Keithpotkin]

211. check

check 1 2, check 12