Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought about something I saw in high school. Not every slave state seceded. DE,MO,KY, and MD were border states. However, there was a guy on the track team who had a shirt with an outline of the slave states with a Confederate flag on it. I had to think "if the Confederate cause had nothing to do with slavery, then why does your Confederate flag shirt feature every slave state instead of only the CSA"?
Have you ever served in the military? I am sure that a lot of the Respect the southern generals and all the soldiers who fought for the confederacy receive is simply their courage in battle against who they believed were their enemy. Somewhere along the line a lot of people have forgotton that the south was basically given a blanket pardon for their being "traitors". It was a unique time which called for that to happen. If the south had been painted as being forever traitors,things would be much worse today.
Its not all just about slavery.........
No, I was never in the military. Why does that even matter? I am talking about facts. Facts that I researched. Yes, the Confederate soldiers fought with bravery. It doesn't change the fact that the Confederate cause was driven by the fear of slavery being abolished. Articles of Secession. It does not change that a USA military installation was attacked.
Slavery might not be the only part in this. That said, it was a major part of it. This is why I have no respect for anything related to the Confederate cause.
No, I was never in the military. Why does that even matter? I am talking about facts. Facts that I researched. Yes, the Confederate soldiers fought with bravery. It doesn't change the fact that the Confederate cause was driven by the fear of slavery being abolished. Articles of Secession. It does not change that a USA military installation was attacked.
Slavery might not be the only part in this. That said, it was a major part of it. This is why I have no respect for anything related to the Confederate cause.
Then you will never understand the point I was making. We are basically a sum of our experiences.....it is not always black and white for everyone. I am willing to bet 75% of those confederates who fought did it for their state,county,or home. sometimes its that simple.
Thank you for pointing this out. I've said it over and over. Lee swore an oath to protect the USA and its Constitution. By fighting for the CSA, an enemy combatant according to the paragraph of the Constitution you provided, he committed treason. He fought for an army levying war against the USA. The USA might have been voluntary states. However, it was still the USA, and Lee was beholden to protect ALL of those states. It didn't matter if his "beloved Virginia". He had a duty to the remaining USA.
Lee had a duty to uphold the Constitution. Even if it meant upholding it without Virginia or the rest of the South.
I want to add something more. I get that Lincoln was no friend to the Blacks. I get that the North had its prejudices. I get that there were some slaves in the North. That said, the northern states were voluntary abolishing slavery. The northern states were not trying to secede for the desperation to keep slavery. Secession is not the issue for me. WHY the southern states wanted secession is the problem. If secession is because of true oppression, that is understandable. If the secession is a last ditch effort to keep slavery, then there is a problem. The Articles of Secession spells out how slavery was needed. There is also some language in there stating how the Black race needed to be enslaved and controlled.
Why would anyone want something like that to represent their heritage?
I see your question and raise you a question. Have you ever met a left-leaning neo-confederate? You, Jersey Girl, ChiGeekGuest, Phetaroi and a host of others on this nearly 30-page thread have repeatedly listed the actual historical and sociological occurrences related to this issue (supported by documentation and facts) over and over again to only be met with, "nope, that's not the way I see it" and supposition about the sentiment of ancestors these individuals have never met.
Literally in the same thread, these individuals are asking African Americans and descendants of abolitionists to FORGET the impact of slavery and completely dismiss the sentiments of these individuals ancestors. The only answer I can surmise is straight up collective COGNITIVE DISSONANCE among Southerners.
I have said on City-Data before that Lee was a gallant fellow from a well-heeled American family. He is also a traitor to the United States of the highest order. If Lee is not a traitor, then who is? Confederates were born American citizens and even after renouncing citizenship, took loyalty oaths and reaffirmed their citizenship AFTER the Civil War. If everybody's Confederate granddaddy was so noble, why not go to Cuba after Appomattox and continue the "cause" from there? Isn't that what the Nationalist Chinese did upon the Communist takeover?
What does racism in the North have to do with the price of tea in China? From the Constitution's inception, the North bent over backward for the South. There should have never have been a Three-Fifths Compromise but yet the North allowed for Congressional and Electoral College apportionment based on a population that would never be allowed to vote in the South. The Civil War was undoubtedly about slavery. But it wasn't a war to KEEP slavery. The Southern states were in no peril of losing the institution as long as Doughfaces kept getting elected to the Presidency. The war was about white supremacy AND the expansion of slavery into free territories that did not want it. There are literally individuals that do not believe Southerners went armed into Northern territories with the aim of expanding slavery. Does "Bleeding Kansas" not ring a bell to any neo-Confederate?
In this speech, Stephens himself stated the raison d'etre of the Confederacy was white supremacy:
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
The average neo-confederate doesn't even know who Alexander Stephens is much less know he was quite effusive in describing the reason why the Confederate States of America needed to be formed and that the ideals of Southerners could not peacefully co-exist within the United States of America:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. 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 of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... 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 idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Stephens cited African slavery as the immediate cause of secession and effectively insulted Thomas Jefferson, the founder of Republic ideals, to make his case. Yet the average neo-Confederate will some how assert that the Confederates sought to secede due to some ephemeral "state's rights" and then with a straight face go vote Republican. Neo-Confederates make the case that their ancestors were in the right because they denounced their American citizenship and then in this forum question why New Orleans wouldn't want monuments in public places to non-Americans whose sole purpose in life was to destabilize the United States of America. In the face of all this, you are attempting to defend the already completely-defended and sway those who will double-down to have no intention of being swayed.
I see your question and raise you a question. Have you ever met a left-leaning neo-confederate? You, Jersey Girl, ChiGeekGuest, Phetaroi and a host of others on this nearly 30-page thread have repeatedly listed the actual historical and sociological occurrences related to this issue (supported by documentation and facts) over and over again to only be met with, "nope, that's not the way I see it" and supposition about the sentiment of ancestors these individuals have never met.
Literally in the same thread, these individuals are asking African Americans and descendants of abolitionists to FORGET the impact of slavery and completely dismiss the sentiments of these individuals ancestors. The only answer I can surmise is straight up collective COGNITIVE DISSONANCE among Southerners.
I have said on City-Data before that Lee was a gallant fellow from a well-heeled American family. He is also a traitor to the United States of the highest order. If Lee is not a traitor, then who is? Confederates were born American citizens and even after renouncing citizenship, took loyalty oaths and reaffirmed their citizenship AFTER the Civil War. If everybody's Confederate granddaddy was so noble, why not go to Cuba after Appomattox and continue the "cause" from there? Isn't that what the Nationalist Chinese did upon the Communist takeover?
What does racism in the North have to do with the price of tea in China? From the Constitution's inception, the North bent over backward for the South. There should have never have been a Three-Fifths Compromise but yet the North allowed for Congressional and Electoral College apportionment based on a population that would never be allowed to vote in the South. The Civil War was undoubtedly about slavery. But it wasn't a war to KEEP slavery. The Southern states were in no peril of losing the institution as long as Doughfaces kept getting elected to the Presidency. The war was about white supremacy AND the expansion of slavery into free territories that did not want it. There are literally individuals that do not believe Southerners went armed into Northern territories with the aim of expanding slavery. Does "Bleeding Kansas" not ring a bell to any neo-Confederate?
In this speech, Stephens himself stated the raison d'etre of the Confederacy was white supremacy:
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
The average neo-confederate doesn't even know who Alexander Stephens is much less know he was quite effusive in describing the reason why the Confederate States of America needed to be formed and that the ideals of Southerners could not peacefully co-exist within the United States of America:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. 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 of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... 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 idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Stephens cited African slavery as the immediate cause of secession and effectively insulted Thomas Jefferson, the founder of Republic ideals, to make his case. Yet the average neo-Confederate will some how assert that the Confederates sought to secede due to some ephemeral "state's rights" and then with a straight face go vote Republican. Neo-Confederates make the case that their ancestors were in the right because they denounced their American citizenship and then in this forum question why New Orleans wouldn't want monuments in public places to non-Americans whose sole purpose in life was to destabilize the United States of America. In the face of all this, you are attempting to defend the already completely-defended and sway those who will double-down to have no intention of being swayed.
I have popped back in for this. Thank you, excellent post. Ideally the thread should end here but we all know a useless rebuttal or 10 that also deny basic facts of history are incoming from certain posters residing or from below the Mason Dixon...
but not everything about the flag is bad, proberly less than 5% which you want to make it 100%.
so I will ask the question again since you did not see it the first time. What effect does slavery of over 150 years ago have on you today. what issue you see daily is because of slavery.
no matter how much you hate it, 100% of American today feel the same way, you are fighting those that are on the same side as you.
You are correct. The seven score and 10 years ago crowd are trying to use the old race card of white guilt for whatever agenda they choose. We keep getting reminded of slave ancestors. Some of us have states rights ancestors who NEVER owned slaves, but somehow we are supposed to have some phony white guilt. I think it is wonderful that people remember their heritage ... I certainly do. But here comes the question ... when do we accept what has happened in the past and move forward. I have no problem with any group that wants to put up statues of blacks. I have no problem with streets, schools, public buildings being named after blacks. I have no problem with blacks on postage stamps. What hypocrisy is in play when we try to rewrite history. Let me see if I can count the number of ML King things, or the Tuskegee Institute/airmen ... the list goes on. But somehow the historical revisionists focus not on the flag of the Confederacy (which is rarely shown) but on the battle flag of same ... and then get all indignant about their ancestors being slaves. What else they love to forget is exactly who sold their ancestors into slavery and why. I could mention something about current slavery in Africa today and just who is doing it to whom, but that's another topic and it doesn't involve any white guilt. One little side note about the historical slavery issue ... when does it end? With reparations? With actual acceptance of the teachings of the aforementioned ML King? I doubt it. And one reason it won't happen is the same reason posters continue to remind us of their slave ancestors. Once was enough, but not so for them. It is important to continue to stir the white guilt pot. A millennium after the fact, the moslems keep stirring the Crusaders pot so I guess the slave mentality will be with us forever.
You are correct. The seven score and 10 years ago crowd are trying to use the old race card of white guilt for whatever agenda they choose. We keep getting reminded of slave ancestors. Some of us have states rights ancestors who NEVER owned slaves, but somehow we are supposed to have some phony white guilt. I think it is wonderful that people remember their heritage ... I certainly do. But here comes the question ... when do we accept what has happened in the past and move forward. I have no problem with any group that wants to put up statues of blacks. I have no problem with streets, schools, public buildings being named after blacks. I have no problem with blacks on postage stamps. What hypocrisy is in play when we try to rewrite history. Let me see if I can count the number of ML King things, or the Tuskegee Institute/airmen ... the list goes on. But somehow the historical revisionists focus not on the flag of the Confederacy (which is rarely shown) but on the battle flag of same ... and then get all indignant about their ancestors being slaves. What else they love to forget is exactly who sold their ancestors into slavery and why. I could mention something about current slavery in Africa today and just who is doing it to whom, but that's another topic and it doesn't involve any white guilt. One little side note about the historical slavery issue ... when does it end? With reparations? With actual acceptance of the teachings of the aforementioned ML King? I doubt it. And one reason it won't happen is the same reason posters continue to remind us of their slave ancestors. Once was enough, but not so for them. It is important to continue to stir the white guilt pot. A millennium after the fact, the moslems keep stirring the Crusaders pot so I guess the slave mentality will be with us forever.
El Nox
Exactly. I for one am sick and tired of the whining. Get over it and move forward.
Probably because the viewpoint proposed, and correct me if I am wrong but, one viewpoint was proposed, is usually muddled by defensive stances such as yours when presented or challenged? Based on the marvelous economy of words from the OP, one would have to run with that, wouldn't they?
You can't throw things out and not expect a few clarifying stances or challenges, can you? And when those challenges present themselves the defense is: "oh, you got that out of context"...develop the viewpoint, mention a few clarifying points......and then, the challenges will be minimal....
When you defend the "CAUSE" around Michael Brown, just WHAT would that CAUSE be? How to rob stores and act innocent? It's not like his tape wasn't out minutes after the incident, was it? What did the OP miss? And, after quite some time to think about ALL that Michael Brown was, what cause COULD there be?
Maybe the cause to clear Darren Wilson's name would be a good start......Michael Brown represents NO cause....if his death is the catalyst to riot out of some perverse feeling of justice, save it for the kid that got gunned down in the streets of Chicago, NOT Michael Brown and his attempt to kill officer Darren Wilson who was later exonerated by a Grand Jury AND Eric Holder's hit-squad attempts to get him arrested by Presidential decree?
WHAT cause would that be? You know, I hate people, like you, who defend the indefensible....admit it, YOU ARE WRONG on this one...nothing more.....
As it relates to the name? Here's more proof that people, like you, should try to remember.....it's not WHAT you know, it's what you THINK you know.....right skippy?
Caleb is a self-deprecating humor shot at the name, nothing more.....Longstreet is one of my favorite generals of the Civil War due entirely on the fact that he, and he alone, stood UP to Lee at Gettysburg and tried to dissuade him of what later became Picketts Charge....a leader in a time when it would have taken great courage to stand against Lee than for him.....Longstreet actually PROVED his care for his men...and was later castigated by the South after the war.....Longstreet was a hero....as much a hero as Chamberlin was for defending Little Round Top......all you had to do was ask...not assume....
Again, it's not what you THINK you know that matters but, the truth.....in short, I'm not sticking up for Southern Whites and your obvious proclivity to dislike them but, historical FACTS.....much like the historical FACTS surround Michael Brown.....if you wish to dismantle statues of historical figures when a country was all but white, then make sure you met that "justice" equally to those who's status of questionable and dubious intents against another race as well???? and in justice for ALL....and all that?.....for the most part, those would be black (the party representing the intent to dismantle historical markers) are recent and of much more dubious (Michael Brown) distinction????
Sure, seems fair. Let's see you represent the same zeal and energy erasing this blight on the landscape as some would of say, Woodrow Wilson, TR, etc...etc......or, should I use that "point taken out of context" defense right about now?
Now, try to separate your emotions from historical FACTS and see if you are man enough to admit it....(go ahead....take a deep breath.....come off the walls....relax).......that defending Michael Brown's "memorial" is about as lame a "cause" as one could possibly come up with....Michael Brown, and his legacy, is a testament of all that is bad in parts (<-----see? clarification) in the urban youth culture of entitlement and it's as bad as white folks opining for a statue of David Duke or Charles Manson.....please....what cause would they serve? How to act like an idiot and be disgraced by your own race forever sans the lootin' n' shootin'?
There was never a time when Fort Sumter was not the sovereign territory of the United States of America. The fact that a gaggle of traitors didn't like that fact doesn't change it.
Wrong.
They weren't traitors, and Fort Sumter was no longer U.S property.
It was in the territory of South Carolina, which had seceded as was its right under the U.S. Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner
...I am sure that a lot of the Respect the southern generals and all the soldiers who fought for the confederacy receive is simply their courage in battle against who they believed were their enemy.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner
Then you will never understand the point I was making. We are basically a sum of our experiences.....it is not always black and white for everyone. I am willing to bet 75% of those confederates who fought did it for their state,county,or home. sometimes its that simple.
That's right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox
You are correct. The seven score and 10 years ago crowd are trying to use the old race card of white guilt for whatever agenda they choose. We keep getting reminded of slave ancestors. Some of us have states rights ancestors who NEVER owned slaves, but somehow we are supposed to have some phony white guilt. I think it is wonderful that people remember their heritage ... I certainly do. But here comes the question ... when do we accept what has happened in the past and move forward. I have no problem with any group that wants to put up statues of blacks. I have no problem with streets, schools, public buildings being named after blacks. I have no problem with blacks on postage stamps. What hypocrisy is in play when we try to rewrite history. Let me see if I can count the number of ML King things, or the Tuskegee Institute/airmen ... the list goes on. But somehow the historical revisionists focus not on the flag of the Confederacy (which is rarely shown) but on the battle flag of same ... and then get all indignant about their ancestors being slaves. What else they love to forget is exactly who sold their ancestors into slavery and why. I could mention something about current slavery in Africa today and just who is doing it to whom, but that's another topic and it doesn't involve any white guilt. One little side note about the historical slavery issue ... when does it end? With reparations? With actual acceptance of the teachings of the aforementioned ML King? I doubt it. And one reason it won't happen is the same reason posters continue to remind us of their slave ancestors. Once was enough, but not so for them. It is important to continue to stir the white guilt pot. A millennium after the fact, the moslems keep stirring the Crusaders pot so I guess the slave mentality will be with us forever.
El Nox
Well said.
And to those northern hypocrites who keep insisting that it is fine to honor slave-owners Washington and Jefferson while tearing down monuments to southern leaders and generals who supported slavery....sorry, you can't have it both ways.
If slavery was not okay for the South, then it wasn't okay for the North either.
They weren't traitors, and Fort Sumter was no longer U.S property.
It was in the territory of South Carolina, which had seceded as was its right under the U.S. Constitution.
Exactly.
That's right.
Well said.
And to those northern hypocrites who keep insisting that it is fine to honor slave-owners Washington and Jefferson while tearing down monuments to southern leaders and generals who supported slavery....sorry, you can't have it both ways.
If slavery was not okay for the South, then it wasn't okay for the North either.
Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves, but they were never traitors to the United States of America. We should not honor traitors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the face of all this, you are attempting to defend the already completely-defended and sway those who will double-down to have no intention of being swayed.
