Why Obama Should Give Neo-Confederate Bigots What They Want This Memorial Day
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White
Ever since Woodrow Wilson's administration, American presidents have been honoring a group with racist and secessionist undertones, which is influenced by religious extremism. This Memorial Day, President Barack Obama will have the choice to either break with this shameful tradition or continue it.
My advice to him is this: Keep it going.
Presidents have consistently sent a wreath to a monument in Arlington National Cemetery 
honoring the Confederate side of the Civil War every year for decades. In recent years, this has taken place on Memorial Day, though in the past, presidents have favored the June birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The monument goes further than just honoring dead soldiers, however. The language inscribed upon it glorifies the ideals of the Confederacy itself, and detractors say it is used as an excuse to embrace racism and neo-Confederate ideology.
There is a movement brewing to encourage Obama to stop legitimizing neo-Confederates by refusing to send the obligatory wreath to the monument. The effort is led by a group of thoughtful scholars influenced by good intentions. While I agree that it is morally reprehensible to honor the deaths of those who killed their own brothers in an effort to destroy our country, I respectfully disagree with their interpretation of the reality of the situation facing our president.
The argument for sending the wreath championed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the group that originally gathered the funds to build the monument in Arlington National Cemetery to honor the remains of over 200 Confederate soldiers that were re-interred there in 1900, is ostensibly historic. Ever since the memorial was erected in 1914, presidents have been paying homage annually. But that's not why I think Obama should send the wreath. I think he should comply with this tradition because it's cheap.
I don't think the Daughters of Confederate Soldiers are this genteel southern ladies' group they pretend to be. They have a history of cavorting with the Klan and other white supremacists and they do not deny that the monument was built to glorify the ideology of the South during its secessionist period. I don't want to oversimplify an incredibly complex period of our national history, but the South stood for the right to practice brutal slavery and used violence to resolve its issues with the Union. These are not American values, and Obama does not personify them. But if the only thing these wackos want is a wreath I have to say that frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
That's right; give the intolerant bastards their silly wreath. OK, can I have my universal healthcare now?
There are scores of conservative groups circulating lies and opinions about how the president has dishonored the military. Obama not sending a wreath to the Confederate monument would be one more round to add to their arsenal, so to speak. They would take the nugget of truth to the story and mix in all the conspiracy theories about Obama being a socialist Muslim atheist Black Panther born in Africa who is bent on destroying the country. The last thing these loose cannons need is ammo.
Take for example this comment on a poll asking whether or not Obama should send the wreath (the site on which the poll is posted seems to be politically neutral, but the user who submitted the question is decidedly conservative. The question itself, though, is phrased in a relatively non-combative way). The comment comes from a writer who identifies him or herself as "Extremist Soldier of Christ" and accompanies the comment with a picture of Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii:
No... I think we should change the tradition- Let Obama put his birth certificate on it and tell the people that you don't need to be a citizen and die for this great land. Just pay the people and use big black national liberation thugs to scare you at the polls. Let this replace the wreath.
BO snubbed the Salute To Heroes Ball, which honors all the Medal Of Honor recipients, on inauguration day to hang with the MTV party crowd. Chances are the muslim [sic] bastard will snub this event as well.
Dozens of historians and scholars have signed a May 18 letter urging the president to not send a wreath to the monument. You can read the letter and view some of the signatories here at the History News Network site.
The letter argues that the "monument should not be elevated in prestige above other monuments by a presidential wreath." One of the main arguments in the letter seems to be that the monument and its proponents suggest "that the humanity of Africans and African Americans is of no significance."
The mere existence of President Barack Obama flies in the face of such an assertion. I can think of no better way to illustrate the backwardness and complete irrelevance of such an assertion than a gift from the first black president of the United States. Obama has the opportunity to illustrate that he is the better man here. While the notion of a big tent should not include the bigot tent, it is important to light the way for those who are willing to break from racism and join the rest of the modern world. Isolating these people has the chance of allowing the wound of intolerance to fester and attract more flies.
Religion also plays a role. The letter also states that the notion that "the Civil War was a holy war between an orthodox Christian nation (the South)" and the unholy north is "a view widespread in the neo-Confederate movement" that inspires north-south animosity to this day.
Obama has done more to broaden the recognition of various traditions of religion and spirituality -- as well as traditions of atheism and agnosticism -- in this country than any other modern president. This is why the religious right has been actively attacking the president and sustaining the lie that Obama is a Muslim and/or atheist, a story neo-Confederates are comfortable repeating.
One need only compare the electoral maps of 2004 to 2008 to see a change has come in the way we define red states and blue states. In the aftermath of George W. Bush's re-election, there were actually concerns that a new Civil War would emerge from the red-blue (and generally north-south) divide. But this past election season showed that majorities in states such as Florida and Virginia were comfortable voting for a black president.
There has been no indication from the White House as to whether or not they will be sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Memorial, but my guess is they will. The Obama Administration is a pragmatic one that picks its battles, sometimes to a fault. Perhaps the left would might be more forgiving if Obama gave the symbolic concessions such as this wreath while also taking real progressive action in a trade.
My humble suggestions:
- Send the wreath for the fundamentalist religious zealots, but make gay marriage legal and never again invite the intolerant Rick Warren to pray over the country.
- Send the wreath for the flag-waving ditto-heads, but give every veteran PTSD screening and lend support to a truth commission to find out how we got into the Iraq war.
- Send the wreath for the backwards racists, but give the country fair immigration reform and stop neo-redlining and other discriminatory practices in lending.
In other words, let the bigots have their pomp and circumstance, but whistling Dixie is not the change I voted for.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Image courtesy of cliff1066's photostream on Flickr.
Technorati Tags: Analysis confederate race bigot obama monument history wreath arlington cemetery memorial soldier daughters civil war- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
My last post
This will be my last post. For those who think that I have cherry picked any information, please feel free to visit the website posted at the end of this paragraph. While it may appear to be a pro Confederate site, it is actually a National Parks Service (NPS) site. You can see that everything I have posted is verified in this general summary of the events. Read it and then do you own research of the events that is the only way you will get a complete understanding of what the TRUE facts are surrounding the start of the war.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fosu/decision.pdf
Susie, you never were my target. You were just a vehicle that allowed me to keep posting factual information. My true target is those people who have an open mind and are willing to learn I know you can't change the mind of the ignorant, closed minded, biased and prejudiced people in the world. The best people like you can do is insult, make cute little remarks and try to pass these actions off as intelligence. You fail horribly
Susie please feel free to have the last word.....
Anyone wanting to have a civil discussion can contact me at this website---
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com
Have a Dixie day.
George Purvis
Gulfport Miss.
Point of information, Georgey ...
You have a "Dixie Day" too, Georgey ... which I presume means, go inside the double-wide, watch some Jerry Springer, and have relations with a relative.
Just your usual day in Gulfport.
BTW - Georgey, what do you mean my posts gave you the opportunity to keep posting factual information?
You never started.
We want a War
U. S. TRANSPORT ATLANTIC,
[New York,] April 6, 1861- 2.30 p. m.
Hon. WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:
DEAR SIR: By great exertions, within less than six days from the
time the subject was broached in the office of the President, a war steamer sails from this port; and the Atlantic, built under contract to be at the service of the United States in case of war, will follow this afternoon with 500 troops, of which one company is sappers and miners, one a mounted battery. The Illinois will follow on Monday with the stores which the Atlantic could not hold.
While the mere throwing of a few men into Fort Pickens may seem a small operation, the opening of a campaign is a great one.
Unless this movement is supported by ample supplies and followed up by the Navy it will be a failure. This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. You will find the Army and the Navy clogged at the head with men, excellent patriotic men, men who were soldiers and sailors forty years ago, but who now merely keep active men out of the places in which they could serve the country.
If you call out volunteers you have no general to command. The general born, not made, is yet to be found who is to govern the great army which is to save the country, if saved it can be. Colonel Keyes has shown intelligence, zeal, activity, and I look for a high future for him.
England took six months to get a soldier to the Crimea. We were from May to September in getting General Taylor before Monterey. Let us be supported; we go to serve our country, and our country should not neglect us or leave us to be strangled in tape, however red.
Respectfully,
M. C. MEIGS.
LOLOLOLOL ......
wow.....
Did not think so
Susie,
Doesn't bother me that you dispute this in any way. You see that tactic is old-- disputing first hand accounts and sources while not offer ring any other fact to counter the evidence with.
Did not think you were smart enough to know what you are reading. Oh well, what can I say, just proves that you are not the history scholar you thought you were.
GP
The peace aggrement
Note the last esentence "shall remain as at present." That is the part of the aggreemnt Anderson violated. By this agreement Anderson was clearly the aggressor.
****************************************************************
The State of South Carolina, by the Convention of the People of the said
State, to Robert W. Baruwell, James H. Adams, and James L.Orr:
Whereas the Convention of the People of the State of South Carolina,
begun and holden at Columbia on the seventeenth day of December, in
the year of oar Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, and thence
continued by adjournment to Charleston, did, by resolution, order “That
three Commissioners, to be elected by ballot of the Convention, be di-
rected forthwith to proceed to Washington, anthorized and empowered
to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of
the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate, with their ap-
purtenances, withiu the limits of South Carolina; and also for an appor-
tionment of the public debt and for a division of all other property held
by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated
States, of which South Carolina was recently a member; and, generally,
to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made
and adopted in the existing relations of the parties, and for the contin-
uance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Govern-
ment at Washington”;
And whereas the said Convention did, by ballot, elect. you to the said
office of Commissioners to the Government at Washington:
Now, be it known that the said Convention, by these presents, doth
commission you, Robert W. Baruwell, James H. Adams, and James L.
Orr, as Commissioners to the Government at Washington, to have, to
hold, and to exercise the said office, with all the powers, rights, and
privileges conferred upon the same by the terms of the resolution herein
cited.
Given under the seal of the State, at Charleston, the twenty-second
day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and sixty.
[L. S.] D. F. JAMISON,
President.
iSAAC H. MEANS,
Secretary of State.
Attest:
B. F. ARTHUR,
Clerk of the Convention.
----------------------
[President BUCHANAN writes]
In my message of the 3d of December instant I stated, in regard to the property of the
United States in South Carolina, that it “has been purchased for a fair
equivalent, ‘by the consent of the legislature of the State, for the erec-
tion of forts, magazines, arsenals,’ &c., and over these the authority ‘to
exercise exclusive legislation’ has been expressly granted by the Con-
stitution to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made
to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this
I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has
received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency
the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads
of the assailants.”
This being the condition of the parties on Saturday, December 8,
four ofthe Representatives from South Carolina called upon me and re-
quested an interview. We had an earnest conversation on the subject.
of these forts and the best means of preventing a collision between the
parties, for the purpose of sparing the effusion of blood. I suggested,
for prudential reasons, that it would be best to put in writing what they
said to me verbally. They did so accordingly, and on Monday morning,
the 10th instant, three of them presented to me a paper signed by all
the Representatives of South Carolina, with a single exception, of which
the following is a copy:
WASHINGTON, December 9, 1860.
His Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN,
President of the United States:
In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you onr
strong coavictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people
of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States forts iu
the harbor of Charleston previously to the action of the convention, and we hope and
believe not until an offer has been made, through au accredited representative, to ne-
gotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and Federal
Government, provided that no rc-enforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their
relative military status shall remain as at present. JOHN McQUEEN.
Mr. Toombs on Fort Sumter:
From Mr. Toombs, Secretary of State, CSA, April 24, 1861:
(to Hon. W.L. Yancy, P. Rost, Dudley Mann, Commissioners of the Confederate States)
When you left this city (Montgomery) you were aware that Commissioners from this government had been sent to Washington with the view to open negotiations with the government of the United States for the peaceful settlement of all matters in controversy, and for the settlement of relations of amity and good will between the two countries. They promptly made known to the Administration at Washington the object of their mission; gave the most explicit assurance that it was the earnest desire of the President, Congress, and the people of the Confederate States to preserve peace; that they had no demand to make which was not founded on the strictest justice, and that they had no wish to do any act to injure their late confederates, (and) they did not press their demand for a formal reception or a recognition of the independence of the Confederate States. So long as moderation and forbearance were consistent with the honor and dignity of their government, they forebore from taking any steps which could possibly add to the difficulties by which the Cabinet of Mr. Lincoln was beset.
(They) received the most positive assurances from Mr. Seward that the policy of his government was peace; that Fort Sumter would be evacuated immediately; that Fort Pickens would soon be abandoned; that no measure was contemplated “to change the existing status of things prejudicially to the Confederate States;” and that, if any change were resolved upon, due notice would be given to the Commissioners.
Incredible as it may seem, it is nevertheless perfectly true that while the Government of the United States was thus addressing the Confederate States with words of conciliation and promises of peace, a large naval and military expedition was being fitted out by its order for the purpose of invading our soil and imposing on us an authority which we have forever repudiated, and which it was well known we would resist to the last extremity.
Having knowledge that a large fleet was expected hourly to arrive at Charleston harbor with orders to force and entrance and attempt to victual and reinforce the fortress, and that the troops of the Confederate States would be thus exposed to a double attack, General Beauregard had no alternative left but to dislodge the enemy and take possession of the fort, and thus command absolutely all the approaches to the port of Charleston, so that the entrance of a hostile fleet would be almost impossible.”
(Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1861-1865, James D. Richardson, Editor, US Publishing Company, pp. 13-16)
Lincoln's "supply" fleet
You can call this fleet a supply fleet if you wish, but the list proves without a doubt that this was clearly a fleet outfitted for war. This list was released to the newspapers, it is unbelieveable to think that the Confederates did not have thsi information and would act upon it.
The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of the fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-
Vessels of War
Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.
Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.
Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.
The Steam Transports
Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7.
Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands. The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9.
Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton. The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock.
The Steamtugs
Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent. The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night.
The Launches
Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.
Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men
Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200
Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275
Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96
Steam Transport Atlantic 353
Steam Transport Baltic 160
Steam Transport Illinois 300
Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew
Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew
Total number of vessels 8
Total number of guns (for marine service) 26
Total number of men and troops 1,380
It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies.
________________________
Those ships that were assigned specifically to Charleston.
The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reenforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pochaontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats. The rest of the ships listed in the New York paper went to Pensacola.
George Purvis
Heritage
Wreath at Confederate Monument at Arlington
So That Explains It!
"...through his mother's family President Obama is the descendent (sic) of a Confederate soldier from Overton County, Tennessee."
I guess that is supposed to explain everything and make it all better now, right professor? And you were a professor of what subject? It certainly wasn't spelling! It's spelled "descendAnt". But the ink on your diploma probably dried up and blew away long before this, so how are you going to know?
"Never have I read so much vitriol and outright hate expended in the name of diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance."
You get what you give, Reb!
When you secesh scum start honoring the existing nation - and everyone in it - more than you do the land of cotton-clad treason, maybe then we can have a civilized discussion on how to keep war between opposing national factions from happening again. Maybe then the sacrifices of those you honor won't have been only in the cause of defending evil. Maybe then they will deserve honor for enlightening the ignorant with their deaths.
Not justified
“secesh scum” ?????
Secession wasn't treason. It is not written anywhere in the constitution that any state gave up the right of secession.
Confederates are American vets too what makes you think they are their descendants are any less patriotic than anyone else?
Maybe when you ignorant people with the frozen brains quit attacking the South and the Confederacy and start telling the truth, quit expecting us to bow down to the way you believe, we will quit posting factual information you cannot disprove. The Prof‘s post did not contain post any sort of insult, hate or disrespectful remarks toward anyone. Your attack is unjustified.
Go ahead insult me that is about all you Yankee folks are good at.
George Purvis
Well said
Prof,
"No one in the 19th Century shared 21st Century values nor should we expect them to have done so."
I do not share the same opinion about Obama that you do, but I will say this I gave my time to the service of our country so that we both could maintain the right to chose. Your statement above I certainly can agree with it is an absolute fact.
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss
Ignorance
Read most of these comments, I will say this has to be the greatest collection of ignorance that has been amassed in one place. I have only read a couple of general references to the WBTS, nothing that was the whole truth. For one I cannot believe that you folks believe the war was actually fought over slavery, or for that matter the entire cause of secession was slavery. That is one of the most ignorant, public school system excuses for the secession and the war that I have ever read. There is tons of information on the web, why don't you folks try to enhance you history facts a little bit? Here are a few facts you may want to research -- Lincoln provoked the war, he was determined to start a war either at Pensacola or Charleston, Major Anderson broke a treaty with the South and the Confederate Constitution went farther to free the slaves that the US Constitution, secession was not illegal until after the war, no slave ship ever flew the Confederate flag, the Confederate Army had all races serve in mixed units, not so with the Union, the last slave state admitted to the Union, West Virginia by Lincoln, The Emancipation Proclamation did not really free any slave, Lincoln the racist, The Northern Black codes, last but not least, the official flag of the KKK is the United States Flag. Prove me wrong, go ahead and try. Save your insults and cussing that doesn’t impress me – been there and done that already. Prove me wrong and then you have done something
Strange but I agree Obama should not have placed a wreath at the Confederate memorial. You see he simply hasn't earned the right. The man does not believe in anything that a true American believes in. he has been nothing but apologetic to other countries, taken us to financial ruin and actually tried to get Muslim terrorist released into this country. You are correct he should NOT place a wreath on the Confederate monument, you are correct, but for all the wrong reasons. You see, Obama hasn't earned the right to lick the mud off my 30 Confederate ancestor’s boots, much less honor them.
I leave still amazed at the number of people including Meg White who is willing to put their ignorance, biased, racial, prejudiced intolerant opinions on public display. Amazed!!!!!
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss.
C'mon Georgey ...
To be honest, it’s a little hard to decipher your post (it’s in English, right?), but I’ll take a whack at it.
“For me to keep you on the line so to be and for you to keep insulting that just gives my facts more credibility and makes this whole exchange fun.” – No idea what that’s supposed to mean, but the part about your facts having “credibility” was pretty funny.
“Your ancestors have just got to be so proud that you can't whip one backward, uneducated redneck with facts. I mean given your Yankee education in the public school system I should be a pushover. That is about right took five of your Yankee kin to whip one of mine. BTW ain't it just a kick in the butt that mines also out shot yours too??? “ – Uhhhm, it is a “pushover”, Georgey. In fact, it’s so easy, I’d call it more of a “nudge”-over than anything else. Hell, Georgey, I should have my 4 year-old, public school educated child write the response, but I fear she wouldn’t be able to make it simple enough for you to understand. And the fact that your ancestors “out shot” mine – who weren’t even in the country yet, as you acknowledge in your next sentence – must make you very proud. It’s not everyone who can “out shot” a non-existent person. Besides, from what I hear, your “kin” weren’t all that tough, or smart. Richard Pittman, for example. Isn’t that the guy who had a rather unnotable career fighting for the slave-holders until he managed to get himself killed at Chickamauga?
wow…
you must be so proud.
Guess your ancestors could shoot, but they couldn’t figure out how to duck, huh? Looks like it took zero of my ancestors to “whip” one of yours, huh, Georgey?
(BTW - What is it with people who's lives are so pathetic that they make a full-time hobby out of vicariously re-living the past "glories" of their ancestors, even when their ancestors were fighting for the right of their government to enslave others? I never got that.)
As far as war crimes go, I have no doubt that atrocities were committed by both sides (ever hear of Andersonville, Georgey?). That being said, this is what I mean about arguing with a five year-old who believes in Santa. If you think anyone would ever accept the word of an uneducated, Confederate apologist and your “list” of crimes over the word of Civil War scholars, you’re even dumber than you appear …… no small feat (not those things on the bottom of your legs). Atrocities committed by some soldiers on the Union side in no way makes the Union itself equivalent to the Nazis ….. only a deluded Confederate apologist would even try to make that argument. On the other hand, the federal government was acting to prevent the secession of some states that believed that they had the God-given right to enslave other humans. The federal government was acting to stop the sale of human beings, who could be bought and sold like furniture and killed at the whim of the “owner”. The Confederacy did, just like the Nazis. Yes, you must be a proud Confederate, indeed.
“Jeff Davis was never a hero of Marx, Stalin, Lenin or Hitler, guess who was” – I presume you mean Lincoln. Lincoln was a man to be admired for many reasons, including (mostly) how he dealt with the traitorous South. The fact that evil men chose to admire him, or why they choose to admire him, is no reflection on Lincoln. Beyond that, why would they admire Jefferson Davis?
He was a LOSER, in all senses of the word.
“One who is scared to use his name”? Scared of a semi-literate (emphasis on "semi") redneck? No Georgey ….. just smarter. Then again, … … that’s not really saying a whole lot, is it?
BTW – Re: “Sarah” –I got the name wrong. I meant to say “Sheree”(what is it with rednecks and choosing names that always land you on Jerry Springer?). She’s one of your fellow SHAPE (Southern Heritage Advancement Placement Education) nuts, right? Hey, …. hope all is well over there after that “civil war” you had with the other apologists. In any case, tell Sheree she might want to consider spending less time complaining about Obama on resistnet (nice name), and a little more time on the treadmill. Come to think of it, ...
if you threatened to roll her over on me, I would be scared.
I knew it
I knew it wouldn't be long before you took to the old Yankee trick of attacking my family past and present. Just like some little punk girl fighting for some sort of recognition and trying to make everyone look at her. As I have said before, been there and done that already. Why do you think I tell ignorant people to save their insults and useless comments? Can't beat me with facts so you attack the dead and my kids. Typical. What next gonna burn my house, kill my dog? Typical tactics of an ignorant bigot.
Actually the war had NOTHING TO DO WITH ALAVERY. As I have said before no major player gas said they were going to war to either free or enslave anyone. Show me one instance. Only someone total void of facts can say the North was trying to free the slaves. I hear your opinions but they are just that opinions and have no historical backing.
Andersonville was also partly Lincolns fault. He was offered the opportunity to exchange the prisoners because the South could not care for them, in fact a delegation of POWs was sent to Lincoln and he refused to do anything. The POWS in the Northern prisons Chase, Douglas and especially Elmira were deliberately tortured and abused, and starved. Lots of difference there.
The men I mentioned didn't admire Lincoln for his finer points. They admired him for his ability to gain control of the government, imprison, those who disagree with him. They admired him for his total war tactics and laying to waste all that would stand in his way. All would prove to use these tactics, later as they began their climb to power.
Yep just an old ignorant redneck I am, one that you still haven’t proven wrong on any matter. The best you have is insults, put the kid up at least we can have a factual conversation about Santa. No doubt in my mind the kid is smarter than you. Heck I think I take my pathetic self out fishing on my pathetic boat and do some fishing today while your ignorant behind is at work. At life grand when you can retire young???
Civil War on SHAPE??? What are you talking about?
Oh I might just call you Susie, seems you may have more in common with a woman than a man.
George Purvis
Gulfport
Can't read, Georgey?
"Actually the war had NOTHING TO DO WITH ALAVERY. As I have said before no major player gas said they were going to war to either free or enslave anyone. Show me one instance. Only someone total void of facts can say the North was trying to free the slaves. I hear your opinions but they are just that opinions and have no historical backing." - Wow, Georgey! You went from arguing that you "cannot believe that you folks believe the war was actually fought over slavery, or for that matter the entire cause of secession was slavery," to arguing that the war had "NOTHING TO DO WITH ALAVERY(sic)". C'mon Georgey, look for a building in Gulfport called a "library". Inside, they have these things called "books", and inside those they have "information". Now, before you go running to "the internets," try reading a few of those books, just make sure you're choosing ones written by actual historians, not some neo-Confederate who's looking to make his life seem more important because his great-great-great-grandpappy managed to get himself killed in the Civil War.
"NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY"?!?!? .... you're a funny man, Georgey. Even some of your Confederate-apologist predecessors didn't try to make that ridiculous a claim. For example, even apologist John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA, in 'Reminiscences of the Civil War," wrote "If asked what was the real issue involved in our unparalleled conflict, the average American citizen will reply, "The negro"; and it is fair to say that had there been no slavery there would have been no war. .... Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict." That's a lot of big words there, Georgey, but I'll translate for you. What the rebel leader is pointing out, is that most Americans knew the War was about slavery, and that slavery, while not being the sole cause of the Civil War, was the biggest cause of the War. So simple, even a Confederate could figure it out.
How about the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who, in his "Cornerstone Speech" just before the War, acknowledged that slavery was the chief cause of secession, which was of course, the cause of the War. If you want to check it out, Georgey, you can read it right here. Stephens, that racist, redneck idiot, was dumb enough to actually state, among other things: "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. 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." Yeah, he changed his tune after the War (who wants to go down in history as a bigoted, racist urging others to fight for their right to enslave others?), but made the mistake of spelling out the reasons for the South's secession for all to see. (BTW - That's called a "link," Georgey, one of those fancy internet things that us "public school educated Yankees" know how to do. Maybe you can find a Yankee in your area to help you post a few links to your "evidence", Georgey! I know I'd find it entertaining.)
I could go on and on with many, many links to evidence from real historians, Georgey, but you get the point. Besides, you'd just stomp your feet and say, "It's not true. Those historians are liars and I gots some proof from a website! Such is the way delusional denial works. Oh well.
Hey, ... almost forgot. Did you catch anything today? You're right about me going to work, though, but it's okay. I don't mind going to work to support all those lazy rednecks fishing and watching Jerry Springer in their double-wides. You see, us Yankees are used to a big chunk of our tax dollars going to support those Southern states, like Misissippi ..... you guys call that "welfare" when a minority is getting it, right? Oh well, it's been going on for so many years I guess we're just used to it. I even thought of you and Sheree for a moment (I can see the ocean from my office) when I saw an old man struggling with his little dinghy and trying pathetically ....
..... to catch up with a big, white whale.
Guess which one reminded me of Sheree ... ;) I could post an additional
Refute Away
Susie,
I saw your post just didn’t have time to answer before I went fishing. Because you refuted something doesn’t mean it is fact, it just means you are ignorant. Refute away, I really don’t care.
Argue all you want, but until you can find a document that states the war was over slavery then you cannot prove you point. I can prove mine. I quote Abe Lincoln “"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either 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; and if I could do it by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone I would also do that." - Lincoln to Horace Greeley of the NY Tribune August 22, 1862. Find me any war resolution of any state that says we are going to war to free the slaves. Perhaps you should be the one library??? See the difference between us is the fact that I really don’t need someone who calls himself a historian to tell me how I should think or what I should believe I am capable of doing that myself.
Gordon did not start the war nor is he more important that any other general in the Confederate Army. Let’s try this one general Edward Porter Alexander “fighting for the Confederacy page 25, “I told McPherson we were going to fight for our liberty. That was the view the whole South took of it. It was not for slavery but for the sovereignty of the states, which’s practically the right to resume self government to secede.” There it is plain as day . Even a ignorant public educated bigot like you can understand that.
Ahhhhhh Stephens, you are using that I am surprised since no orginal document of that speech is know to exist and the closet thing we have is an account by a reporter. Since you are so high on refuting you should know Stephens refutes the reporters account. Now regarding the Cornerstone speech, I would just take Stephens word over yours. You can understand that. Now that is called fact. Fact unlike linking is not someone’s speculation of how his ought to read but how history actually reads some thing we do here in the South in some of the worst schools in the nation. Speaking of racist and bigot, let’s see what Lincoln has to say –
1858 speech at Charleston. Ill.
“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Sort of clear cut don’t you think??
Well shoot I could use a bigger boat, I would like something in the 35 foot range. Think you can get a second job???? At this point I could say something about you getting a job using you mouth, or about the wife making more money, but that is below me. You see I don’t have to attack your family to look superior to you or more intelligent, it just shows in my factual post.
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss.
Not even a decent attempt, Georgie
Yes, Lincoln would have done virtually anything to keep the South from seceeding ... so what? The underlying source of most of the tension was slavery, and it was the focus of the election.
Re: - Stephen's Cornerstone Speech - "No original document of that speech is know to exist" - No kidding, Georgie. Check a history book out of the library. Like most political speeches of that era, Stephens gave the speech extemporaneously (look it up), which means he didn't have a prepared text to read from. There was no document, and it's absence proves nothing. There's no videotape of the speech either, Georgie. Nonetheless, every account of the speech indicates the same thing - namely, that he acknowledged that slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy and its desire to secede. It's not my word against Stephen's, Georgey, it's everyone's ... well, with the exception of the few "Lost Causers" like yourself. Of course you'd take the word of a racist, bigoted white-supremacist over the word of that of the entire community of historical scholars, Georgey. Who'd expect anything less. Then again, I can't blame Stephens. After all, who wants to be seen as taking their country to war for the right to enslave other people? I guess it's no surprise that he recanted the speech after the War. Heck, even the Nazi apologists tried to make up other reasons for their Holocaust ...
You know what's also strange? On April 29, 1861, Jefferson Davis himself gave a critical speech to the Confederate Congress , on the eve of the ratification of the Confederate Constitution. In it, he gave a brief history of the causes of the tension between the North and the South - from the Southern perspective (i.e. blaming the North), of course. The strange part, though, is that he specifically points out the issue of slavery as a major, underlying factor in the deterioration of the relationship. Strange, huh Georgey? Slavery, according to you, has "NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR", yet it's cited prominently by none other than the President and Vice President of the Confederacy, and given special protections in their Constitution.
Guess the War did have something to do with slavery after all.
BTW - Nice job, changing your mind. Previously, you challenged someone to name "one major player" from the Confederacy who acknowledged that slavery was a cause of the War. Yet now, you reject Maj. Gen Gordon Brown's statements because he was just a General and he "didn't start the War." Nice job at moving the goal posts, Georgey. Unlike Alexander, however, Brown was not "just a general". He was a major player in the CSA, a Major General who was one of Lee's most trusted, a governor of Georgia, and later a US Senator.
I know, Georgey, facts are inconvenient things. Well, ..... for you Confederate apologists.
BBTW - Not quite sure what you're trying to say about "the wife making more money". Actually, my wife earns quite a nice income, but that's not really an insult up North here. I know you rednecks get upset about that kind of thing, but up here, we've advanced into the 21st century.
A "job using my mouth", huh, Georgey? No, thanks, but I appreciate the fact that you're thinking about it, you big tease.
Do the images keep you "up" at night?
No doubt you're amazed
Meaning
Meaning that hate is all around? What am I delusional about?
Prove one fact I stated is wrong and then perhaps you have a case. You do have a bit of historical background don't you.
George Purvis
No, Georgey
Debating the Civil War with Confederate apologist is like trying to explain to a 5 year-old why Santa Claus is not real, but I'll humor you.
1) Slavery was the entire cause of secession - Who (besides you) said that it was? It wasn't the only cause of dissatisfaction and tension between the states, but it was the largest.
2) "Ignorant, public school excuses" - Over 96% of people alive today have been educated in public schools, including the the best and brightest from every field. Reading your posts, I can understand why you may feel the public school system failed you, but you're in the South (and particularly in Mississippi) which continually ranks at the bottom in performance. It's not the public schools, Georgey. Pretty much every school in Mississippi sucks.
3) "Lots of information on the web" - Let's see, .... Do I want to learn from real historians who have dedicated their lives to the study of history, or from some Confederate-apologist who finally figured out "the internets"?
Not really much of a decision, there.
4) "Lincoln provoked the war" - Oh, please. I presume you're talking about the resupply of Fort Sumter. All of his speeches from the time he was elected until the attack on Fort Sumter were words of compromise and conciliation. He stressed that he did not intend to end slavery in the States where it already existed. He maintained his position that slavery should not be expanded into the territories, but thought that was a fair compromise. With regard to Sumter specifically, he was resupplying troops at a US military base, which he had every right to do. If he wanted to provoke an attack, he probably would not have sent communications to the South Carolina government letting them know that he was merely providing emergency rations of food, that the supply ships would not be carrying weapons, ammunition, or more troops, and expressing hope that the situation could still be resolved diplomatically. Yeah, lemme guess - you believe the ships were stocked with additional troops, weapons, yadda yadda yadda ... What a surprise.
5) The Confederate Constitution went farther to free the slaves that the US Constitution - How? No one's claiming the US Constitution was good (it sucked) with regard to slavery, but how was the Confederate Constitution better? You mean by providing that any escaped slaves had to be returned to their owners?
wow...
6) No slave ship ever flew the Confederate flag - No kidding. By the time there was such a thing as a Confederate flag, the southern states had seceeded and needed what relatively few ships they had for more pressing matters. Not really so impressive, Georgey.
7) The Northern Black codes - What about them? You mean there was racism in the North, too? Did someone claim there wasn't?
wow ...
8) The Confederate Army had all races serve in mixed units, not so with the union - There was prejudice and racism in the North? No kidding? The Confederate Army had integrated units only because they had no choice. The Confederate Congress only approved the use of black soldiers as a desperate last measure on March 13, 1865, less than a month before the war ended. One (unnamed) Confederate Congressman objected by noting," "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?". They also ignored Lee's request to grant freedom to any black soldier who enlisted.
And you would argue that the Confederate Army and their "integrated" military was somehow better or more enlightened than the North because the North had segregated units?
You're funny.
9) The official flag of the KKK is the United States Flag. No, Georgey. There is no single KKK in modern times. The "KKK" consists of approximately 150-200 separate groups with about 5,000-8,000 members, so there is no single, "official" flag. Back when the KKK was formed, their official flag was something called the "Grand Ensign", as described in Klan's original Prescripts of 1867 (Google it, Georgey). Now there was a revival of the KKK between 1915 and 1944, who's leader declared the US flag to be the "official flag" of the Klan, but they're no longer around, you see. Today, there are many groups that identify themselves as the "KKK". Yes, some display the US flag, trying to convince others they're patriotic. Most of them agree with your views on the Civil War (big surprise, huh?). But take a look at a few of their websites, like this one. Notice anything strange? They do have ONE US flag for sale (according to you, their "official" flag), but they have FIVE versions of the "Stars and Bars" flag. Even stranger, all of the KKK stores are like that. Gee, Georgey, ..... can you guess why that is?
BTW - Your last sentence - Were you attempting to phrase that as a question? if so the answer is "Yes," and it's one that I developed through reading actual scholars (including those "historians" you disdain) and taking classes at a university, not reading some CSA apologist website.
A bit more difficult, to be sure, but you avoid the embarrassment of being an apologist for the Confederacy.
Susie, I know what it means.
Susie,
I know what it means. I think the term applies more to you.
1. Slavery was not the entire cause of secession. Only Mississippi said in their causes of secession that our position is thoroughly associated with slavery. If you read father down you will see "no provision ahs been made" I get my information from documents of the period where do you get yours?
2. Because a person was educated in public schools does not mean he or she has received an accurate education in history. Take you for example you are unable to post one fact to counter anything I have said. Yes I know the public education in Mississippi ranks near the bottom, thank you for making my point.
3. A lot of scholars have agendas. Rest of comment not worth replying to.
4. Re-supply? Lincoln was not re-supplying any fort, he was re-enforcing Sumter and was gonna have his war either in Charleston or Pensacola. BTW Anderson was drawing supplies from Charleston almost up to the time he broke an existing treaty.
5. The CSA Constitution put an out right ban on the importation of slaves. The US Constitution did not. Other than that that pretty much mirrored each other. The Fugitive slave laws were a product of the United States. I am not sure the Confederate government even addresses the issue of run away slaves.
6. It is true all salve ships flew the US flag. What you are trying to do? Your post is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors trick by bringing up something else such as the South’s need for ships. As I have said The Confederate government banned the slave trade. Even though the trade was banned in the North, the fact still remains not slave came to America under the Confederate flag.
7. Just another smart remark that has nothing to do with this discussion.
8. Smart mouth comment not worth answering because some one wants too act ignorant.
9. Nope the official flag of the KKK is the US flag. Go to almost any website related to the KKK and you will see they are carrying the US flag. Go to this website on the history of the KKK http://www.kkklan.com/ this gives a little bit about the study of the KKK. If you click on the link “Historical Information about the Ku Klux Klan” it will open up another page with the “Title the True flag of the KKK “-- you should be able to find this paragraph “Now there remains one more TRUE flag of the Ku Klux Klan. We've covered the flag of the first Klan and the flag of the modern Klans, but what about the flag of the largest Klan? The great revival Klan of 1915-1944, which had the largest Klan membership, power, and influence ever, what was their True Klan flag? Imperial Wizard Simmons made it plain. He openly declared that there was but one official flag of the Ku Klux Klan and that was the Stars and Stripes. He made it Klan law that NO flag at any Klan function was to fly above it and NO flag was to fly equal to it. All flags would fly beneath the flag of the United States! And if you look at old photos of the revival Klan for the most part the ONLY flag you ever see IS the Stars and Stripes. So there. The photo below is a little hard to read but it declares the Klan's flag is the Stars and Stripes - Forever! That should settle the issue for the most rabid redneck and brain dead.” liberal alike!
Here is a letter thatwas written to my brother when we protested the use of the CBF by the Klan --
Greetings,
In response I felt it important to explain that the Ku Klux Klan is not a political organization nor a fraternal organization. The Ku Klux
Klan is a military organization which has fought anti-southern tyranny for 137 years, and has been quite successful. We do not consider the Confederate Battle Flag to be an issue of divisiveness. We are no longer using it in public, and have never sworn our allegiance to any flag but the U.S. Flag. The battle flag is simply an extension icon to pronounce our southern pride. As I said we no longer use the banner in public, so Its only fair that the S.C.V. and others quit using the KKK to play public apologetics. It's slanderous and inaccurate at best.
God Bless, thank you for you moment.
J.L.H.
Grand Dragon - Realm of South Carolina
Southern White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan,Inc.
scgranddragon@knightskkk.org
S.W.K.
South Carolina State Headquarters
P.O. Box 107
Lexington, S.C. 29071-0107
http://www.knightskkk.org/sc
If you are going to complain about something at least take the time and educate yourself about what you complaining about. Could you please explain to me which Stars and Bars flag you don’t like? If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know the Stars and Bars is not the same flag as the Confederate Battle flag or the 2nd Confederate Naval Jack. Guess those college professors and the public schools failed again??????
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss.
Sorry, Georgey ...
NazisConfederate defenders of slavery.1. Slavery was not the entire cause of secession – Once again, Georgey, no one is claiming that slavery was the entire cause of secession, but you claimed that “ALAVERY (sic) HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR.” Yet above you acknowledge that Misissippi explicitly stated that their secession was “thoroughly associated with slavery”. You can try (and fail) to make the claim that slavery was not a primary cause of the Civil War, but when you go further and claim that slavery had “nothing to do with the War”, while at the same time acknowledging your home state listed slavery as a reason for their secession, you only further expose your ignorance. BTW – I get my information from the entire historical record (not just a few, self-serving documents) and from historians, not the apologist “Lost Causers” with the agendas. Oh, that’s right, you believe the historians when they write about slavery in the North, just not when they write about the obvious – that slavery was a primary cause of the War. When that happens, they’re just a bunch of people “with agendas” trying to explain that the Earth isn’t flat.
You’re funny, Georgey.
2. My point was that it’s not public education in Mississippi ranks near the bottom, it’s all education in Misissippi. You may be happy with the low tax rates in your state, but the result is that your school systems (public and private) suck, churning out a bunch of semi-literate rednecks who are nonetheless happy, ‘cause they care more about fishing than doing anything with their lives. Thanks, but no thanks, Georgey. I’ll take my higher taxes, but well-educated workers and neighbors any day of the week.
3. A lot of scholars have agendas? So what, Georgey?!?! People in general “have agendas”. Like you for instance. You agenda is to try to make yourself feel better about having spent your entire life in one little corner of Misissippi by reliving the “glory” of your ancestors. So your hobby becomes futile, weak attempts to revise history and pushing a “Lost Cause” revisionist history, while the reality is that virtually every historian who’s spent their life studying the Civil War acknowledges that it was caused, in great part by slavery. Yet you demand that others “PROVE” that it was. What’s the point? It’s like a Creationist who believes that there’s no such thing as evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because they believe that Creationism is real.
4. You have no evidence that “Lincoln was gonna have his war in either Charleston or Pensacola”, and your list of materials and men proves nothing about Lincoln’s intent. As the POTUS, he was entitled to replenish food, supplies and even reinforcements by sending them to a US military base, despite SC’s claim to the contrary. You analogized it to the Cuban military crisis, but you should note one big difference. The US blocked Soviet ships from entering Cuba without inspection (arguably illegal), but they did not attack Cuba, like the Confederates did to Cuba. A better analogy would be the US military base on Guantanamo, Cuba. Like Lincoln, the POTUS has every right to send supplies and ammunition – even more soldiers and weapons – to Guantanomo, as he sees fit. If Cuba (like the Confederates) is stupid enough to claim that he doesn’t, claiming such is a “provocation”, and then attacks the base, then the Cuban government will “get what’s comin’ to ‘em”, as you Southerners are so fond of saying. 5. Re-supply? Lincoln was not re-supplying any fort, he was re-enforcing Sumter and was gonna have his war either in Charleston or Pensacola. BTW Anderson was drawing supplies from Charleston almost up to the time he broke an existing treaty. 6. “The CSA Constitution put an out right (sic) ban on the importation of slaves. The US Constitution did not.” – Uhhhm, ….. duh, Georgey. So what? (The US Constitution permitted the outlawing of the slave trade after 1808, which had been done decades prior). That does not mean, as you claimed, that “the Confederate Constitution went farther to free the slaves that the US Constitution.” The banning of the importation of new slaves does nothing to “free the slaves,” and the CSA Constitution did just the opposite. It specifically prohibited the national (Confederate) government from outlawing slavery in the following key provision: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress] – Article 1, Section 9(4).
It also specifically guarantees the Confederate citizens the right to travel with their slaves without interference, something not guaranteed by the US Constitution: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.” – Article 4, Section 2(1)
The CSA Constitution also requires any new members to become slave states, unlike the US Constitution. “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government” – Article 4 – Section 3.
In summary, the CSA did not, as you claimed, “go farther to free the slaves” – just the opposite. It protected the institution of slavery by specifically prohibiting any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves”, requiring the Confederate government and its state governments to allow the transportation of slaves throughout the Confederate states, and requiring that any new Confederate states recognize the institutions of slavery. All of these were new “rights” (well, if you’re not a slave) that were not in the US Constitution.
Gee, Georgey … a constitution that virtually mirrored the US Constitution, yet the founders of the Confederacy felt it important enough to specifically protect slavery in their Constitution. I wonder why that would be ….
BTW – In case you’re interested, the Confederate founders only banned the importation of slaves from outside the US or Confederate states, not an “out right (sic) ban”, as you claimed. The reasons they did are noted here, but in short, they didn’t do so because they had a moral objection against slavery or the slave trade. “Prohibiting the trade was not an indication of antislavery sentiment but the result of the distaste for the African trade by some slave owners, fear of Africans themselves, and the fear that Europe would not recognize the Confederacy if it did not unequivocally prohibit the trade. Permitting the trade also might have discouraged Virginia and Maryland from entering the Confederacy because of the excess of slaves in those states. Those states might not have wanted foreign competition with their interstate slave trade.”
Just makes your eyes well up with pride, huh, Georgey?
6. No Georgey, not “smoke and mirrors”. The reason that “no slave ships ever flew the Confederate flag” (as you originally claimed” is because there was no Confederate flag when the slaves were brought to the US. You might as well say “no slaveships ever flew the flag of Mars”.
No kidding, Georgey?
wow 7. Just pointing out that you’re making a straw argument. Of course there was racism in the North …. No one claimed otherwise. So what? 8. No, Georgey. The only reason the Confederates had mixed units is because they had no choice. While the CSA had slaves and other blacks in their units in “support” positions (food prep, laborers, “servants”) earlier in the War, the Confederate Congress did not approve the use of slaves as soldiers until about a month before the War ended, when the CSA was in its death throes. At that point, they needed every body they could get, as fast as they could get them. That’s why they had integrated units, Georgey, not because they were morally superior to the US army.
9. Again, there used to be a single KKK with an official flag, but the first KKK had a different official flag, and the “second revival” KKK used the US flag. Currently, however, there is no single KKK or an “official flag”. Some use the US flag, some the Confederate flag, but there is no “official KKK flag” as you claimed. Go to many of those same sites, and you’ll see many Confederate flags as well. Strange, since you claim the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and racism. Hey! Here's some of your buddies flying the US flag, the Confederate flag and the Nazi flag together!
To sum up, Georgey, Lincoln probably would have allowed slavery in some form to continue if he could have avoided the War and prevented the South's secession, and he didn't want to antagonize them (particularly the border states) by explicitly stating the obvious - namely, that the War was caused by the secession of the South, which was caused primarily by disputes over slavery. That's what the election was all about, which is why the rednecks began to secede after the Republicans, running on a platform of abolishing slavery, were elected. You think there was a reason the debates focused so much on slavery and abolition, Georgey? Lincoln was merely trying to appease the Confederates and the border states, but they were stupid enough to think that, because their "pappy's showed 'em how ta shoot", they had the power, resources and the intellectual capacity to win a war.
Just as you are in your weak, illogical attempts to revise history and rationalize their secession, they were wrong.
Think of it this way, Georgey. Say that Sheree wants to know why her husband isn't attracted to her anymore. The truth is, because her ass is bigger than the broken-down pickup in your front yard. But Hubby, trying to keep the peace and avoid a "war" with Sheree and the "border" (members of the family), tells her she looks "jus' fine", and says she's very pretty, smart, etc. Is she? Is that what he really thinks? Hell no, ..... but he tells her what she wants to hear to avoid the War. See, ..... not hard at all?
(BTW – She only has a picture of herself and her kid for her Facebook profile … sometimes an indication that the hubby is long gone. Did he tell her the real reason he wasn’t attracted to her anymore …
…. or was it just that no one else could fit in the picture?
Just promise me one thing, okay? Promise me you’ll push for secession again, as the moronic governor of Texas recently suggested. Please, please, PLEASE, Georgey?
Hell, just losing Misissippi alone would probably mean a jump of 5 points in the national IQ.
Think of the improvement in the standardized test scores … BTW, Georgey, why are you calling me “Suzie”, again? I know what you said the reason was, but I’m thinking that maybe there’s another reason.
Why Georgey, …… I’m flattered …….
… but I just don’t swing that way.
Nice photo of the US Flag
Susie,
1. First of all Secession and the war are two different events. Secession was not illegal it was the rights of the states. The war was an entirely different event that was more of a power struggle than anything else. Slavery was only a small part of secession. The war was fought because Anderson violated a peace agreement. Nothing more nothing less. He did not free any slaves when he moved to Sumter nor were any enslaved when Beauregard fired on that fort. As I have clearly pointed out Lincoln was sending an invasion fleet to Charleston, not a supply fleet. Why don’t you actually read the facts I posted above? In regards to Mississippi’s cause of secession you didn’t know that bit of fact until I posted it. You only know what I have posted for you to know. Now as far as you getting the whole picture, let me just say this I doubt that is an honest statement. I doubt very seriously you have read the entire historical record. Fact of the matter is if you had you would be posting such documents to support your argument. In fact I’ll go so far as to say your are an out and out liar
2. Yes public education in Mississippi ranks near the bottom; we get our school books from Northern publishers. Too if the school system is so bad and you think I am only an ignorant redneck why is that you still cannot beat me with facts. The answer is simple you DON”T KNOW the facts.
3. So you admit that scholars have agenda, good. That would include the scholars you learned from too. Point well made thank you. Actually I feel pretty good about my agenda. You see my agenda is to get people thinking about the war and taking it upon themselves to research and study the actual facts, not something a scholar or “trained historian” (sit boy sit) with an agenda is force feeding them. If you or any scholar cannot prove the war was over slavery or at least in a great part, then it is a lie. A lie that is repeated enough will be believed. This lie is told to justify the rape, plunder and murder of millions of Southern Americans who only wanted to live in peace.
4. I haven’t finished posting the facts. You just let your hummingbird mouth overload your jackass brain.
5. Yes Lincoln had the right to send supplies, but not an armed invasion fleet to a legal country!!! Besides Anderson was drawing supplies from the Charleston. War could have been averted if Lincoln and Anderson had acted like gentlemen and honored the peace agreement. Lincoln could have met with the peace delegation. Gitmo belongs to the US and there are weapons and men there all under an agreement. Let them leave the base and take another position and it is an act of war, let them do like Anderson and move to new positions and it is a clear act of war. Love you statement about re-supply that in fact shows you agree that this was no supply mission and in fact was an invasion force with Lincoln breaking the peace agreement. Anderson made the first aggressive move, Lincoln proved the war. “Nuff” said thank you.
Susie, the Us Constitution did have a provision for banning slaves after 1808, but Yankee slave ships ran until the late 1850s. The Confederate constitution made an outright ban on the importation of slaves. Neither freed the slaves. The slaves were not free until the (2nd) 13th amendment was passed. As far as entering the Confederacy as a slave state, why don’t you look at West Virginias entry into the Union? It was a slave state. And yes slavery was still legal in the North.
6. There are a lot of things you cannot blame on the Confederate flag or Mars for that matter; it can only be blamed on the US flag. Good point. Yes just smoke and mirrors.
7. Again why should I believe you? You post no facts. I believe what Fredrick Douglas said note the date -- Douglas' Monthly, IV [Sept. 1861,] pp 516
"There are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army - as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government...There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probably there still."
The United States military still use men in support positions are they soldiers and sailors or not? Just another straw argument by you that has no factual backing.
8. Susie I note there are more US flags in your photo than Confederate flags in fact I think the US flag and the Nazi flag are running dead even. Is that a California flag I see there???? You should have cropped the photo. Oh shoot you are an expert on the KKK now??? I referenced a site than has made a study of the KKK and even posted a latter from a leader and yet you are gonna give me your expert opinion?? Susie I don’t believe you.
To sum it up Lincoln did offer the South a chance to keep their slaves and return to the union, it was called the Emancipation Proclamation. Didn’t Lincoln offer any state returning to the union a chance to keep their slaves??? "That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." The South rejected this offer. One more reason why the war wasn’t over slavery..
Your weak misguided Yankee history is not based in fact. The only things you have done are preached the Yankee version of the war and in your ignorance have failed to learn anything. Failure to learn is a sure sign of stupidly. As I have said many times in the absence of fact insult. You prove my point ever time you post. You sure are obsessed with Sheree. What is the problem you old lady has sore knees and jaws, can’t service you? Does she look like the south end of a north bound mule? Don’t flatter yourself Sheree is at least 3 social classes above you
I’ll bet you do swing that way--------.
Poor, poor Georgey
1. Slavery lead to secession which lead to the War, Georgey. Putting secession and the War into two separate categories is like arguing your family's interbreeding had nothing to do with the genetic defects that produced you. It may make you feel better, but it's just denying the truth.
Georgey! You think I'm an "out and out liar"?!?! Why Georgey, ...... if that wasn't coming from an ignorant, neo-Confederate redneck like yourself, that just might hurt my feelings.
2. Once again, Georgey, it's not public education in Mississippi that's the problem, it's all education, including private schools. Then again, you can't make a "silk purse out Sherri's ear", as they say, and they're not working with the best and brightest in Mississippi.
3. Yes, Georgey, many scholars have "agendas", but real scholars don't let personal agendas affect their research or conclusions. That's like arguing you don't believe anything written by any reporter writes because they all have personal biases. It doesn't mean that they can't produce factual, objective articles. When 99.9% of scholars in a field all conclude the same thing, Georgey, you can dismiss them all you want, but it just shows your own ignorance.
"But the earth is flat, the earth is flat! Those Yankee scientists all have agendas I tell you!!"
Yeah, Georgey .... we should believe an uneducated, redneck, Confederate-apologist over historians because they're the one with agendas.
ROFLMAO ....... you're funny, Georgey.
"This lie is told to justify the rape, plunder and murder of millions of Southern Americans who only wanted to live in peace." 100% correct, Georgey, but I'm surprised you admit it. The Lost Causer attempt to deny that slavery was a cause of the Civil War is told to justify the "rape, plunder and murder of millions of Southern Americans who only wanted to live in peace (and freedom)."
Except, ..... I'm referencing the millions of American Southerners who happened to be black and slaves, Georgey.
4. Kind of ignored all those facts, huh, Georgey? What a surprise ....
BTW - Why do you keep talking about my mouth so much, Georgey?
Are the dreams still keeping you "up" at night?
5. Uhhhm, no, Georgey. Read it again. I did not say that the fleet was anything but a supply fleet. Anderson's decision to move his men was not an "Act of War", and Gitmo does not belong to the US. The stuff on top of the ground at Gitmo belongs to the US, but the land belongs to Cuba. Yes, there's an agreement, but the agreement was made with the Cuban government in 1903, long before the current government came to power. Much like the Confederates, the current Cuban government objects to the US military base on their land, arguing that it's illegal for them to remain there. The difference is, the Cubans (unlike the Confederates) aren't stupid enough to attack Gitmo to try to prove their point.
6. Not "smoke and mirrors", Georgey, just basic logic.
You rednecks always get confused so easily.
7. Douglass was a leading advocate for the use of black troops (by the Union) since the start of the War. He was arguing the North should let free blacks enlist and fight the Confederacy, and pointd to the fact that there were black, Confederate troops. The reality, however, was that the Confederacy had not approved the use of black troops until about a month before the war ended. There were some black soldiers used (without approval) by individual militias, but almost all of the black "soldiers" who served with Confederate units were serving as laborers, cooks, musicians, and other support roles. Of course, if you were a slave, you were in an "integrated unit", since you were acting as a slave for your master. Of course, if you were a "rented slave", your "pay" went back to your master. Here's a little article about it, Georgey, from a real historian, no less. Here's a little article noting when the Confederate Congress finally approved the use of black troops, in March, 1865, less than a month before the War ended. It's also in the records of the Confederate Congress, Georgey, so if you want "original documents", be my guest....
Strange, that they would only be authorizing the use of black soldiers in desperation at the end of the War, when you think there were so many black soldiers already in "integrated units", huh?
8. Yes, there are other flags in the picture, Georgey, just as I said there were (you're quite the master of the obvious). The bigots, rednecks and racists love to dress up their bigotry with more noble causes these days ... like "patriotism" and "state's rights". Sounds much better than "I'm an inbred bigot with a 7th grade education who tries to make myself feel better by living through the (imaginary) glories of my ancestors". It doesn't change the fact that there is no single, KKK, and therefore no "official" flag of the KKK. They each choose their own flags.
They do sell a lot of Confederate flag paraphenalia in their stores, though, Georgey (much more so than US flags). I wonder why that is?
"Failure to learn is a sure sign of stupidly" - The one thing you got right, Georgey .... just not the way you intended. "Don’t flatter yourself Sheree is at least 3 social classes above you" - Now that's funny, Georgey! But the reality is that, if I had moronic girlfriend, and she had a brain-injured dog, which dog dropped a steaming turd on the street .... said turd would still be "3 social classes above" anything related to you, Georgey Purvis, including trailer park Sherri.
Come to think of it ......
The turd would probably be more attractive, as well.
No answer ...
That's what I thought.
Get Real!
Southern anger over "injustice" had to do with limiting their expansion of slavery. Anywhere they wanted to expand that foul vice, the effort was met with powerful opposition. Just like today's Republicans, the South decided that since they couldn't have their way, it would just have to be the secession highway.
Had the South succeeded in seceding, there would have been repeated war between the two nations, as the South would still have been encountering opposition to the expansion of slavery. In fact, if Southern attention had shifted to the south instead of to the west, there would likely have been war with Mexico.
So stop trying to justify Southern excesses as defending against invasion. Honest historians don't. The South attacked first. The North finished the fight by forcing surrender. Live with that historical fact.
Are you sure????
Are you sure slavery was the only reason? Prove it. Was slavery any fouler than the northern black codes which would not even allow free blacks to live in the state? If all of the blacks were free where they supposed to go? Lincoln and Illinois didn't want them. Could that be the reason the South had a larger free black population?
Prove there would have been repeated wars. Where is it written? Did you know that the South had tried several times before 1860 to emancipate slaves? Do you know Northern Interest stop them?
Honest historians -- name one. Do you know anything factual about the start of the war? Have you thought about why South Carolina did not want a hostile fort at the back door? Do you know the makeup of Lincoln's "supply" fleet?
Research and learn then YOU live with the historical fact.
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss.
You Asked For It!
Everything the South did was in defense of "the Southern Way of Life", which could not even have been possible without slave labor.
* Was slavery any fouler than the northern black codes which would not even allow free blacks to live in the state?
What does this have to do with slavery? Is this a sorry attempt on your part to suggest that slavery was more beneficent? I doubt if modern blacks would accept that kind of Southern "hospitality". While blacks may not have been welcome in the North, no one ripped them from their homes and forced them to stay there and work without pay for greedy screwball fanatics under threat of maiming or death.
* If all of the blacks were free where they supposed to go?
The very places they went as the war ended: on the lands abandoned by their slothful former owners. The owners wouldn't have been able to do anything with all that acreage by themselves, and your own taxes would have eventually cost them title.
* Lincoln and Illinois didn't want them. Could that be the reason the South had a larger free black population?
Would they still have been free if Southern laws didn't allow for re-enslavement if they didn't move out of that state and go somewhere else?
* Prove there would have been repeated wars.
The arrogant and selfish belligerence of Southerners (like you) throughout history is my proof. Even today, the terror wars against terrorism are far more popular in the Old Confederacy than they are anywhere else in the nation. Add in the current intransigence of elected Southerners to anything they don't want to allow and the battleground has been chosen.
* Did you know that the South had tried several times before 1860 to emancipate slaves?
DO TELL! I have NEVER heard that one! When did you come up with that fable - last week?
* Have you thought about why South Carolina did not want a hostile fort at the back door?
Because they didn't want the Federal cops busting their illegal secessionist treachery.
* Do you know the makeup of Lincoln's "supply" fleet?
It would have been configured the same way as if today the Mississippi State Police came to your house to confiscate your personal arsenal, your moonshine still, and your Christoporn literature - armed to the teeth!
Research and learn, then YOU live with this historical fact: YOU LOST!
I am still waiting!!!
Still at best you are posting only your opinions. The majority of Southerners much less Confederate soldiers never owned a slave. Please provide some stats to back up your claim.
It proves the idea that the war wasn’t about freeing the slaves. The racist North didn't give a rip one way or the other if the slaves were freed or not, they just wanted blacks free and slave kept out of their states.
True a good many of them did stay on the land they had once worked, however you missed the point. If all of the slaves had been freed before Fort Sumter where were they to go? You have to assume the taxes were paid for the year, or at least funds could be had to pay the taxes. Do you think these freed slaves were going to get the land out right free? Now with the Northern Black codes in place free blacks not being welcome in these states where were they to go? As Mississippi said "no provision has been made---"
I have never read where there was a wholesale return to slavery for anyone, but I believe you a referring to a United States law. You are going in the wrong direction. Forget the ifs, ands, and buts, tell me where would the freed slaves have gone if they were suddenly freed?
Well it sure didn't take you long to get to the point of insulting me did it? Feel better now. Are you comfortable in your throne of superiority? "the terror wars against terrorism" what on earth is this supposed to mean? Are you referring to Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq? Well heck yeah we support our troops. It is called PATROITISM!!!!
Georgia had an outright ban on slavery before it became a state. Virginia had several emancipation movements. How do you think there were free blacks and black salve owners in the South? I will try and get more detailed dates and places for you, but here is good general summary of the events. From: http://www.slavenorth.com/chance.htm
"By dealing conservatively with emancipation in their own states, but putting forth no proposals to accomplish it on a national level, and ignoring the petitions from the Upper South (by Thomas Jefferson, St. George Tucker, Ferdinando Fairfax, and others), the Northern leadership effectively made slavery a state-level problem. They accepted the flaw of slavery into the new nation, even though it was widely recognized as incompatible with true democracy.
In effect, northern gradual-abolition laws have gotten the North off the hook, persuading historians who were educated and who taught in the North for more than a century that slavery was a southern problem rather than a national problem. The regional animosity associated with the Civil War also suffused the consciousness of northern historians, heightening their tendency to ignore the fact that slavery was not simply a southern problem in the post-[Revolutionary]-war era.[4]"
"Because they didn't want the Federal cops busting their illegal secessionist treachery"
I am surprised that you came up with such an intelligent answer. It must have been brewing for days. Now prove to me that secession was treason and illegal. Show me in the constitution where it is written that secession is illegal. Let me save you some time, it is not. It was only made illegal in 1865 by Salmon P. Chase. You do know something of him right? You are probably too young and ignorant to remember the Cuban missile crisis, anyway do some research on that incident and if you cannot relate that to the incident in Charleston harbor you are brain-dead.
"It would have been configured the same way as if today the Mississippi State Police came to your house to confiscate your personal arsenal, your moonshine still, and your Christoporn literature - armed to the teeth!"
Thank you, you made my point exactly. BTW gun ownership is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. This is an excellent example of why the South seceded and did not trust Lincoln and his administration.
Yes the South lost. No one denies we lost, but at least we don't have to tell lies about the War For Southern Independence to try and justify the rape, murder and horrible treatment of fellow Americans. We all have lost due to Lincoln's strong central government agenda. We are still losing with Obama in office. We can only hope they it will stop before the idea this country was formed on disappears under the heel of socialism.
Confederate Memorial Wreath Laying
To Hell With The Confederates
To Hell with the anti-Confederates
To hell with
Oh, then a correction is in order ...
Better now? BTW - "Didn't know there were any confederates around"?
Try looking a couple of posts below this one.
how about yours
What did your ancestor fight for, or did they fight, where they even over here then?
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss.
They fought for the right ...
Why do you ask?
So
--- or to protect their slave trading interest and in the process they ended up breeding an ignorant bigot themselves. Gee they must be awful proud of you.
Why do you insult? Does it make you feel superior to me?
You see I can do the insult game also, but it proves nothing. Bring some facts to the table and not your street corner history. You do have a few facts don't you?
George Purvis
What's the matter, George?
Since you're curious, however, I must admit you're correct. I don't have any ancestors who fought in the Civil War, since they hadn't emigrated here by that time. I do, however, have many relatives who fought in WWII (and other wars), the main difference being that my relatives fought against the side that was forcing people into slave/death camps and killing them for being the "wrong" religion or ethnicity. So, as it turns out, I don't have to make up a fairy tale apologizing for the Nazis in order to feel pride in what my ancestors did.
Come to think of it, I guess that is a pretty big difference, Georgey.
BTW - I know you're just an uneducated, ignorant apologist for the red-neck Confederacy who's spent his whole tiny, parochial, little life in Mississippi trying to live through the imaginary glory of his Confederate ancestors, but you're right. I don't need to insult you to be superior to you.
I can do that just by breathing.
BBTW - Could you tell Sarah that a beach scene is not the best idea for her Facebook page? Anyone checking her profile is going to have the urge to go rent a copy of "Free Willy". ;)
Not insults
First I had no tantrum, I posted only facts which you just cannot prove wrong.That being the case your next best option is to insult. You see insults don't bother me I can give as well as take, it is a given they can be fun at times, but then at other times they are just a waste of time for those people who actually want to try to learn something. For me to keep you on the line so to be and for you to keep insulting that just gives my facts more credibility and makes this whole exchange fun.
Your ancestors have just got to be so proud that you can't whip one backward, uneducated redneck with facts. I mean given your Yankee education in the public school system I should be a pushover. That is about right took five of your Yankee kin to whip one of mine. BTW ain't it just a kick in the butt that mines also out shot yours too???
Wasn't even here, that is about right. Now speaking of WWII, and the Confederate Army let's see here. The Confederate army didn't do wholesale torture to any UNION POWs the Union army had no problem with torture of their POWs did. The Confederate Army never laid the countryside to waste, murdering and raping as they went, the Union army did. The Confederate Army did not make war on old men, women and children, the Union army did. The Confederate army never used the Union POWs as a shield, the Union army did. The Confederate Army did not kill their officers so they could shoot unarmed POWs the Union army did. The Confederate Army never tried to erase any race from the United States the Union army did. Oh and by the way Jeff Davis was never a hero of Marx, Stalin, Lenin or Hitler, guess who was? Jeff Davis was never the racist Lincoln was. I think you get the picture, seems that the Yankees have more in common with the Nazi than the Confederates do.
Yes my family has fought in every war this country has been in, even before it was a country. So now one who is scared to use his name, what does that have to do with being proud or not being proud? I am just as proud of My Confederate ancestors as you are of your WWIII ancestors.
I will say it again if I am uneducated you can't prove me wrong. What does that say for you? You had rather wallow in your ignorance and just be an insulting, ignorant, biased, prejudiced a**. What an impression you must make on other readers.
Have no idea what you are talking about Sarah and a beach scene, must be some ignorant joke only the ignorant understand.
Have a Dixie day
George Purvis
Gulfport, Miss.
Check...
Missed opportunity
Missed Opportunity
Oh REALLY?
Men Like
Audie Murphy, Patton , Chesty Puller,Simon Bolivar Buckner,
Brig. General, Nathan B. Forrest III.
George Purvis
What Kissing Confederates Gets You
Liberty University Revokes Recognition Of Democratic Club
"The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the 'LGBT' agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc)..."
President Obama-Lincoln II, this is YOUR war!
When Do We Finally Say "Enough!"?
Your Three Humble Suggestions...
Neo-Confederate