Yea so this is getting out of hand with all the he said she said show, some respect to one another and for something that someone believes in, when it is causing you no harm at all. Also when you want to talk like the South were the only "racist" people in the world, then I would kindly ask you to wake the fuck up, there were and still are just as many "racist" people in the North. You act like the North didn't use any slaves, not one, guess what they did now while your argument to this will go something like "yea but at least they fought against it". Then id like to point out that NOT EVERYONE in the North wanted give up there slaves just as in the South, and yet both sides had people who disliked slavery. Another fun fact here is while you bitch about slavery you cant even realize you yourselves are slaves to an oppressive government but you wont fight against that will you. So I agree with Darth Alor on an earlier comment have respect that Johnny is fighting for something he believes in and have respect for the ones who died for what they believe. Lets be honest how many of you fight for what you believe in anymore all you know how to do now is try to beat the people down who do.
I don't care if everyone is not on my side. And Itchy Scratchy please take your hate for me some place else.
History shows that you are right Wrath. http://slavenorth.com/ http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=006 And how many slave ships where chartered out of southern ports? NOT A SINGLE ONE
They clearly were not the only racists. They were however the only political body to go to war for slavery. The emancipation act was primarily a meant to disrupt the Southern economic system in a time of war. The net result was the ending of slavery on US soil though. Even if the reasons were't particularly noble, I think we can all agree it was a good thing the South were not allowed to continue their slave based economy.
IMHO, some people prefer to consider old problems than present ones, e.g.: Part of the Arabs / Muslims still think daily about the Crusades. Part of the Southerners still think about this war. Not very useful.
[/QUOTE]They clearly were not the only racists. They were however the only political body to go to war for slavery.[/QUOTE] People tend to forget that there were just as many in the South that hated slavery as there was in the North. So judging someone from the South as a racist is a racist comment its self, and just because someone from the South wants to stick up for his or her historical rights you call them racist even though that person hated slavery as well is a racist comment. It is shameful to me as to how much hate one can hold inside of them for something that they were never involved in and take it out on others, all Johnny is trying to do is save the South's history. Because apparently now days it is more than ok to destroy history if you don't like it, you all who speak all this hatred about it have never though about the fact that maybe the grave of the dead that get trashed and dug up were one of those Southerners who hates slavery and helped slaves as much as they could. You get in this mind set that South = racist which is not true at all I am a true blood Texan my family has been in Texas for a very long time, some of my for fathers were the ones who fought for the Alamo. At one point my family owned slaves but only to free them, they told the slaves if your on this land you are free and the ones you call "slaves" would offer there hands for work as respect to my family. But my family would work beside them in the fields, so I for one am proud of that. My grandfather on my moms side was an American solider in WW2 he got shot behind enemy lines but a German family save him and hid him till he could get back to his people, he was a true hero in every meaning of the word. My great grandfather on my dads side was a high ranking SS solider for the Nazi's in WW2 I have no idea what he did to people but I can tell you he was a good man due to the fact that he always made it clear to my father that many of the Nazi solider were forced to join them and force to do bad things. While I am sure he did many bad things he had huge regret for all of it. The point of me telling you my history is while yes there are many bad things in history there is also much good, I will also be the first to tell you I am a Texan before I am an American as many Texans feel that way we are a proud people and we come in all different shapes, sizes, and colors. rac·ism noun noun: racism the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
You still seem to fail to grasp the essential point here, the CSA seceded and set off a war in order to keep their slavery system. In the end, a lot of people died from it. Confederate soldiers fought and died with cowardice and with bravery, by bad luck and by dedication, just like any other soldiers. They should be honoured and remembered for their effort, like all soldiers should. The case they fought for is nothing to celebrate though. Where all the modern stuff you mentioned fits into this is a bit of a mystery to me though.
From an article by a Mr. Eric Patterson entitled Lesser Known Historical Excerpts of The War for Southern Independence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The July, 1916 issue of the Hartford Current summarized the operation of the New England slave trade and its contribution to slavery in the South: "Northern rum had much to do with the extension of slavery in the South. Many people in this state [Connecticut] as well as in Boston, made snug fortunes for themselves by sending rum to Africa to be exchanged for slaves and then selling the slaves to the planters of Southern states" (SCV p. 14). According to the Boston News Letter, at least twenty-three thousand blacks were brought from Africa to Massachusetts between 1755 and 1766 (FWS p. 28). The gradual reduction of slavery in the North was due in large part to the growth in the number of white laborers (JRK p. 54). According to author Lorenzo Johnson Green, in his 1966 book The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776, John Adams insisted that the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts was due to the protest of competing white laborers rather than for ethical or moral reasons. Adams stated, "Argument might have some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of labouring white people, who would no longer suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury. The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by slaves. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too perhaps" (JRK p. 84; SCV p. 13). George H. Moore, in his 1866 book Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, documents that in 1788 Massachusetts, having instituted a process of gradual emancipation of its slaves, passed a law stating that blacks, mulattos, and Indians who came into the State and remained two months would be publicly whipped (JRK p. 76). In 1799 New York declared that children born to slaves after July 4, 1799 were to be free. In order to recoup the loss in value of their slave holdings, New York slave owners shipped their slaves South to be sold at auction (CA p. 133). In 1798 and 1799, the legislatures of Virginia, inspired by James Madison, and Kentucky, inspired by Thomas Jefferson, asserting their belief that they had the sovereign right to nullify any illegal or harmful acts of the Federal government, declared that both the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, were unconstitutional and would not be enforced in their States (WEW p. 289; SEM p. 354; JRK p. 164-65; MLD p. 22). The Virginia Resolution declared in part that "the powers of the Federal Government" are the result of a compact "to which the States are parties." As such, the States are "duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress" of "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by said compact" to the Federal Government (JLMC p. 106). The Kentucky Resolution, drawn up by Jefferson, warned that allowing the Federal Government to be the judge of the extent of its own power stops "nothing short of despotism since those who administer the Government and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers; that the several States who formed the instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy" (JLMC p. 106-07). It was widely proposed by New England Federalists that the New England States secede from the Union should Jefferson be elected president in the election of 1800. The Federalist newspaper, the Columbian Centinel, warned, "Tremble then in case of Jefferson's election, all ye holders of public funds, for your ruin is at hand." Federalist John Adams, having lost his reelection bid, was so disgusted at the outcome of the election that he refused to welcome Jefferson or attend his inauguration (WEW p. 290, 292). In 1804, New Jersey adopted a mode of gradual emancipation of slaves that was to take effect in 1827. Slaves born before 1804 were to remain slaves for life. These remaining slaves were referred to as "colored apprentices for life." Children of slaves born after July 4, 1804, were "free," but had to remain as servants of their masters. Females had to labor in this way until age 21, and males until age 25. In 1850 there were 236 slaves for life in New Jersey. The 1860 United States census officially enumerated 18 slaves in New Jersey. The method of gradual emancipation used in the North respected "property" rights of the Northern slave holders, many of whom sold their slaves South and recouped their investment–an investment that wasn't especially profitable in the North, anyway (JRK p. 75; GKW). New England Federalists, already enraged over the Louisiana Purchase, feared that their influence in the affairs of government would be further diminished as western and southern territories applied for admission into the Union. Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, in a speech to the House of Representatives, spoke of Western "Representatives and Senators from the Red River and Missouri pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, managing the concerns of a seaboard fifteen hundred miles at least from their residence" (WEW p. 308, 333). During debate in Congress on Jan. 14, 1811 over the admission of Louisiana as a state, Josiah Quincy declared, "If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation–amicably if they can, violently if they must" (WEW p. 331; GLD p. 28; SDC p. 28). American ship owners and merchants, especially in New England, were very much against United States participation in the War of 1812. New England Federalists organized political and economic opposition to the United States war effort. New England merchants and privateers carried on illicit and profitable commerce with British merchant ships and conducted business with the British army in Canada in defiance of the United States embargo against trade with England (GLD p. 33; WEW p. 329-33; MLD p. 8). A few of the more outspoken members of the Federalist party even advocated a separate peace between New England and Great Britain (GLD p. 32). The governors of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, exercised their sovereign States' rights by refusing President Madison's call for their State militias to aid in the war effort against the British (WEW p. 327; JLMC p. 114-15). New England newspapers boldly advocated secession during the War of 1812, arguing that "the Federal constitution is nothing more than a treaty between independent sovereignties [...] and that any state had a right to withdraw" (WEW p. 333). The January 13, 1813, edition of the Boston Centinel editorialized approvingly on secession as the imminent remedy for New England's perceived inadequate voice in the governing of the United States by stating, "The sentiment is hourly extending, and, in these northern states, will soon be universal, that we are in no better condition with respect to the south, than that of a conquered people [...] We must be no longer deafened by senseless clamours about a separation of the states [...] Should the present administration, with their adherents in the southern states, still persist in the prosecution of this wicked and ruinous war–in unconstitutionally creating new states in the mud of Louisiana (the inhabitants of which country are as ignorant of republicanism as the alligators of the swamps) and in opposition to the commercial rights and privileges of New England, much as we deprecate a separation of the union, we deem it an evil much less to be dreaded that a co-operation with them in these nefarious projects" (GLD p. 30-31). On February, 14 1814, with the United States still at war with England, both houses of the Massachusetts State Legislature passed a resolution that read, "The question of New England's withdrawal from the Union is not a question of power or of right to separate, but only a question of time and expediency." On October 8, 1814, a committee of the Massachusetts legislature called for a December 15th convention of New England States in Hartford, Connecticut for the purpose of considering the secession of the Eastern States from the Union and the creation of a New England confederacy (SEM p. 383; WEW p. 331-33; SDC p. 28). The September 10, 1814, edition of the Boston Centinel opined, "I have, for many years, considered the Union of the Northern and Southern States as not essential to the safety, and very much opposed to the interests, of both sections. The extent of territory is too large to be harmoniously governed by the same representative body [...] The commercial and non-commercial states have views and interests so different, that I conceive it to be impossible that they ever can be satisfied with the same laws [...] each section will be better satisfied to govern itself: and each is large and populous enough for its own protection [...]" (GLD p. 31). The December 15, 1814, edition of the Boston Centinel argued, "By a commercial treaty with England, which shall provide for the admission [into the New England republic] of such states as may wish to come into it, and which shall prohibit England from making a treaty with the South and West, our commerce will be secured to us, our standing in the nation raised to its proper level; and New England's feelings will no longer be sported with or her interests violated" (GLD p. 32; GE p. 112). The Missouri Compromise of 1820, limiting slavery to South of the 36°30' parallel, while couched in terms of slavery, was really a political compromise over a balance of Congressional power between the industrial North and agrarian South. It was not concerned with the plight of slaves. Balance was maintained with the new free State of Maine offsetting the new slave State of Missouri. This debate served to reinforce the sectional consciousness between North and South (WEW p. 352-54). Thomas Jefferson, now in private life, was greatly alarmed by the Missouri Compromise. He considered it ill-conceived and suicidal to the Union. In a letter to Mark Langhorn Hill, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts, on April 5, 1820, he wrote, "I congratulate you on the sleep of the Missouri question–I wish I could say on its death; but of this I dispair! The idea of a geographical line once suggested, will brood in the minds of all those who prefer the gratification of their ungovernable passions to the peace and Union of the country!" (SDC p. 46). On April 22, 1820, Jefferson wrote to John Holmes, U.S. Representative from Maine, that this compromise "like a fire bell in the night, awakened, and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the death knell of the union! It is hushed, indeed, for the moment, but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men will never be obliterated, and every irritation will make it deeper and deeper! I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man in earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [of slavery] in any practical way. The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle, which would not cost me a second thought. A general emancipation and expatriation could be effected, and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go! Justice is in the one scale and self preservation in the other [...]" (SDC p. 46). Thomas Jefferson saw a scheme of defeated Federalists behind the Missouri Compromise, using it as a means back into power. He asserted that they were attempting to fan the flames of passion over slavery and capitalize on the deepening North-South geographical consciousness that the Compromise fueled in order to win back the Presidency. On September 20, 1820, he wrote to William Pinckney, Senator from Maryland: "the Missouri question is a mere party trick. The leaders of Federalism, defeated in the schemes of obtaining power, by rallying partizans [sic] to the principle of monarchism–a principle of personal, not if local division, have changed their tack [...] They are taking advantage of the virtuous people, to affect a division of parties, by a geographical line. They expect that this will insure them on local principles, the majority they could never obtain on principles of federalism; but they are still putting their shoulder to the wrong wheel–they are wasting jeremiads on the evils of slavery, as if we were advocates for it" (SDC p. 46). On December 29, 1820, Jefferson wrote to General Lafayette: "The boisterous sea of liberty, indeed, is never without a wave, and that from Missouri is now rolling toward us, but we shall ride over it as we have all others. It is not a moral question, but one merely of power. It's object is to raise a geographical principle for the choice of a President, and the noise will be kept up till that is effected" (SDC p. 47). On August 17, 1821 Jefferson wrote to General Henry Dearborn: "I rejoice with you that the State of Missouri is at length a member of our Union. Whether the question it excited is dead, or only sleepeth, I do not know. I see only that it has given resurrection to the Hartford Convention men. They have had the address by playing on the honest feelings of our former friends to seduce them from their kindred spirits, and to borrow their weight into the Federal scale. Desperate of regaining power under political distinctions they have adroitly wriggled into its seat again in the ascendency [sic], from which their sins have hurled them" (SDC p. 47). From an article by a Mr. Eric Patterson entitled Lesser Known Historical Excerpts Relevant to The War for Southern Independance Lesser Known Historical Excerpts Relevant to The War for Southern Independence The South produced nothing that benefited from protectionist tariffs, while at the same time Northern industrialists lobbied for tariffs to protect their domestic interests from foreign competition (WEW p. 513). The divisive sectionalizing effect of tariffs became clear after the passage of the Tariff Act of 1816. To the people of the South, inexpensive imported finished goods were welcome, and they resented the idea of paying higher prices in order to benefit New England manufacturing interests. Tariffs were boosted even higher in 1824 (WEW p. 364-65; BBM p. 3). Sources: CA When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Ma., 2000. (A look at the case for Southern secession and the execution of the war by the North.) JLMC The Southern States of the American Union by J.L.M. Curry, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1895. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 1999. (Traces the origins of the spirit of liberty expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and in the South's secession from the Northern States of the American Union.) FWS War for What? by Francis W. Springer, Nippert Publishing, Springfield, TN, Second Printing 1997. (A history of slavery in North America.) GE Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 by George Edmonds, Science Hall Lamb, 1904. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 2000. (A compelling view of the politics of the War for Southern Independence.) GKW New Jersey Slavery and the Law, Gary K. Wolinetz, Rutgers Law Review, 50 (Summer 1998): 2227 ff MLR Truths of History by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, Athens, Georgia, 1920. Reprinted by Southern Lion Books, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., 1998. (One Southerner's blunt perspective of the War in historical and cultural context.) PBK The Founder's Constitution, edited by Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, the University of Chicago Press, 1986. (A collection of documents from the early 1600s to 1830 that shed light on the philosophies behind our American form of government.) PMA By These Words by Paul M. Angle, Rand McNally & Co., 1954. (Text of selected documents of American history.) SCV The Gray Book Published by Gray Book Committee S.C.V., The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 2000. (A defense in response to "attacks upon the history, people and institutions of this Southern section of our united country.") SDC The Logic of History by Stephen D. Carpenter, S. D. Carpenter, Publisher, Madison, Wis., 1864. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 2000. (A collection of news accounts and analysis pertaining to the War.) SEM The Oxford History of the American People by Samual Eliot Morison, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965. (A useful reference, but with a strong central government and "pro-union" bias. Also somewhat colored by the social atmosphere of the 1960s.) SF The Civil War, A Narrative - Fort Sumter to Perryville by Shelby Foote, Vintage Books, New York, 1986 (A standard of the history of the War.) WEW A New American History by W. E. Woodward, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., On Murry Hill, New York, 1936. (Excellent. Balanced, with more attention to detail than many works and quite interesting to read.)
Or, the Civil War was a repudiation of the United States as then understood. One simple piece of evidence is to look at how people referred to the USA. It used to be considered right to say The United States of America are. Today, we say The United States is The nature of the Union was fundamentally changed, from a group of sovereign states who had formed a Union, to a singular entity, no longer a collection of truly sovereign states. Take a look at this Ngram That looks like the singular took hold in the 1880s, when the progressive movement was coming on strong.
I am much less trolly and funny today. I am sick and have found my way to the net. First: Hey My Dear Johnny, You were sure I would not read your link. I did and I'm bored. I am waiting for your response to the simple questions I asked. I believe you needed to "research" . How is it going? So far I have asked you 2 questions that involve yes and no answers and received an off topic wall of text and a ducking on answering the other. Second: This thread at times borders into a gee I don't like where my country is going area. It seems to set the start of the down fall as the civil war. That logic baffles me. I don't care for the path the USA is currently on either, but I would never associate the start down fall of the nation with ending of slavery. Third: I find this of great interest. It includes the words African slavery. It is very specific to a group. "African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing." ~ Jefferson Davis
I dislike seditionists, much like you'd like your precious symbol brought back under the auspices of "oh it's just a flag and it has so much history" Any one with half a brain knows what it stands for no matter how much you try to dress it up. Sadly for you, the seditionists lost the war, the union was reconstituted and reconciled and should your ilk wish to try again, the only fitting punishment for traitors is to hang them by their neck until dead. Or you could go on hiding behind your tldr; bullshit and not admit your motivations. That people humor this idiocy is one of things wrong with this country. There aint two sides to every issue. There is right and there is wrong. This instance doesn't even have a grey area for any one calling themselves a citizen of there great United States of America.
Well, that's exactly what would have happened to Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Adams and many others if the King had caught them. Seditionists all.
Raven I have answered your first question, it can be found in post number twenty. https://whyweprotest.net/threads/operation-marse-robert.126119/#post-2531746 As to your second I have not gotten around to digging through my papers for I have a life outside of the vast expanses of the internet. As I have said before I'll get back to you on that.
And if you were a loyalist that would have been exactly what you sought. Now lets look at what those seditionists(american revolution) wanted / fought for versus the party of Jefferson Davis. I personally believe that Lincoln was right and Davis was wrong, on a variety of levels beyond slavery. Bring that forward to the modern age and the symbols of those who lost this argument costing the lives of countless patriots should understand what their "innocent" request is about. It sullies those sacrifices, it's dishonest at best and should be met with the strong opposition every time it's raised. Had they won, I would expect that the same treatment of those with abolitionist/federalist rhetoric that wanted to fly the stars and stripes instead of the stars and bars.
I'm saying symbols have meanings and you should know what you ask for before asking for it. But if you wanted to an hero, I wouldn't shed a tear.
You do know it was the founding fathers that enshrined slavery in the constitution, right? The South could not have existed as it did without the FF enshrining slavery in the US. Your argument falls flat. It's interesting to note that from my research, there was a view in the North that the South should be let go, all they were doing was exactly what the US had done 4 score years earlier, trying to secede. Odd how that view is suppressed in modern times.
We all have lives your not special. You challenged me repeatedly that I would not spend time on your info. I did you have no afforded me the same respect. I have read your wall of text which does not answer a yes or no question. You choose to redirect into it is not as bad as you think it is well lame or even better others were worse than us so what we did is ok. TBH I have had brainwashed cult members argue with me better than you are. Maybe you should take a minute and go look up the profiles of everyone arguing with you on this matter. I know I looked you up and I can see exactly where your interests are centered. I do not hang my allegiance onto a political party from the past or from the current, but I am loyal to principals. Slavery of African Americans was defeated and so was the south I am pleased with this. Just for the record that is one of my principals. I do not tolerate slavery in any form from any time period. I work tirelessly to hunt down those in the sex trade which btw is horrific form of slavery and I have seen things that give me nightmares years later. I do not care where the people live, I do not care who they voted for and I do not care whatever lame excuse they offer to justify this behavior. IT ENDS!
Noble, noble... I too do not hang an allegiance to a political party past or present and I do not tolerate slavery in any of it's inhuman forms either. You hunt down folks in the sex trade...that's good I believe in some of the same things that you do. And by the way I am not arguing with you I am simply presenting facts and I hope that you will take In what I have presented you with nothing more. I did challenge you to debunk what I posted and you have yet to do so. For example: "...I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination..." President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 14, Page 378, 1864 Papers of Jefferson Davis: October 1863-August 1864 https://books.google.com/books... From the Richmond Examiner editorial by John M. Daniel ... "August 4, 1864. MR. DAVIS, in conversation with a Yankee spy, named Edward Kirk, is reported by said spy to have said, “We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence.” This is true ; and is a truth that has not sufficiently been dwelt upon. It would have been very much to be desired that this functionary had developed the idea in some message, or some other State paper, which would have carried it round the world, and repeated it in all languages of civilized nations, instead of leaving it to be promulgated through the doubtful report of an impudent blockade-runner, who ought to have been put in Castle Thunder. The sentiment is true, an should be publicly uttered and kept conspicuously in view ; because our enemies have diligently labored to make all mankind believe that the people of these States have set up a pretended State sovereignty, and based themselves upon that ostensibly, while their real object has been only to preserve to themselves the property in so many negroes, worth so many millions of dollars. The direct reverse is the truth. The question of slavery is only one of the minor issues; and the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part, is the maintenance of the sovereign independence of these States. At the beginning of the struggle, and even now, to a great extent, our enemies had, and have, the ear of the world; and they have very dexterously labored to represent us as rushing into a dreadful war on a paltry question of dollars. In the crusade they were about to make upon us, they have shown the utmost solicitude to gain for themselves, in advance, the sympathies of foreign nations, especially of England and France; and, of course, their chief means of gaining this point, consisted in representing that we had no higher or nobler cause to fight for than the possession of a certain quantity of serviceable negro flesh. Thus they knew that not only all the prevailing cants would be canted on their side, but also that a war waged to break up a free and beneficent government upon such a mean issue, would revolt all statesmen, publicists, and thinkers of high mark in every country, who have the true sentiment of national dignity, and can appreciate the loftier and purer springs of human actions on the grand scale. The Yankee knew he might boldly claim the good wishes of civilized communities, so long as he could make it be believed that the only thought and care of the South was that she might keep still on her plantations so many slave bands, raising each year bales per hand. The whole cause of our resistance was and is, the pretension and full determination of the Northern States to use their preponderance in the Federal representation, in order to govern the Southern States for their profit, just as Austria governs Venetia, Russia governs Poland, or England governs Ireland. Slavery was the immediate occasion—carefully made so by them—it was not the cause. The tariff, which almost brought about the disruption some years ago, would have much more accurately represented, though it did not cover, or exhaust, the real cause of the quarrel. Yet neither tariff's nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing lower, meaner, smaller, than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; at it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character. A community which once submits to be schooled, dictated to, legislated for, by any other, soon grows poor in spirit; it becomes at last incapable of producing a high style of men: its very soul withers within in it: in it no genius, no art, can have its home. If they arise within its borders, they migrate to the dominant country, and seek there their career and their reward: its citizens, become a kind of halfmen, feel that they have hardly a right to walk in the sun; take the lowest seats at the world’s tables, and there is no man to say, Friend, go up higher. And the people of Virginia do not choose to accept that position for themselves and for their children. They choose rather to die. They own a noble country, which their fathers created, exalted, and transmitted to them with all its treasures of high names and great deeds; with all its native wealth of untamable manhood. That inheritance we intend to own while we live, and leave intact to those who are to come after us. It is ours from the centre of the earth up to the heavens, with all the minerals beneath it, and all the sky above it. It is right to let foreign nations, and “ those whom it may concern,” understand this theory of our independence. Let them understand that, though we are “not fighting for slavery,” we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to in regard to slavery or any other of our internal affairs, not because that would diminish our interest in any property, but because it touches our independence...." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ James R. Gilmore—otherwise known as "Edmund Kirke"—who had recently visited Richmond with Col. Jacques, writes an explanatory note respecting his visit to the Boston Transcript of July 22, 1864, in which he says of their "mission": "It will result In nothing. Jefferson Davis said to me last Sunday, (and with all his faults I believe him to bo a man of truth): "This war must go on till the last of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence, and that or extermination we will have...." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Richmond Daily Dispatch: Thursday morning...July 28. 1864 Miscellaneous. Edmund Kirke, who was recently in Richmond with Col Jacques, has published a card, in which he says that Jefferson Davis stated to him: "This war must go on till the test of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, and that or extermination we will have." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." Abraham Lincoln in the Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) "..I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject..." Abraham Lincoln in the Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm "..My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.." Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley August 22nd 1862- http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm “See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated...” — Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371.
That is a good point and one worth remembering. I don't think the secession itself is the sticky point. Out in the Big World, changing unions and secessions are the natural order of things. All the countries in Scandinavia where I come from have at some time been part of a union, some more than once. I'll be the last person to condemn secession as such. The reason the South seceded was however one of the worst possible. I am extremely happy that the CSA was stopped dead in it's track though. I shudder to think of the consequences had they been allowed to continue a white supremacist slave based society in the heart of the Western World.
It is my strong opinion that the only good thing that came out of that war was that slavery in America died out and I'm glad it did but I do not think that 600,000 lives was needed to end the institution. Other nations had in the past like England and France for example paid off the slave owners what their slaves where worth and ended slavery in those places without firing a shot. Hugh Bris said it before and I will have to ask the same question he did. Why was the US different? Lets consider for a moment the fact that the Southern states made up 85% of all federal revenue in 1860 what would've happened if the South was allowed to go in peace?
Well, the one poster did have some nasty things to say about sedition. The thing is, we won't ever know what might have happened. Slavery was dying out anyway. It ended peacefully in all Western nations, except this one. Odd, that. SO what was different? The reason the South wanted to secede was the same reason the Colonists wanted to secede, they wanted to govern themselves. I think the Civil War destroyed the concept of America while boosting the rise of the United States, in that it went from being a collection of sovereign States, to One State, indivisible. It meant the rise of the Federal government to where they are today, namely in everything, leaving private citizens less and less room to operate. It allowed the gov to say "See, this is how great we are. We got rid of slavery" while ignoring that it was the entity that created teh situation in the first place. So while it's great that slavery is a thing of the past, I don't think the way we went about it was very smart.
While I do not know as much as Johnny about the Civil War, I am however a huge fan of history both good and bad. I believe in holding history to the highest standard of care and not censoring it based on the peoples hurt over it. As reminded the Jews had it worse than any of us, yet they do not censor there history because of what happened to them, and they do not hold it over the Germans heads and call them racist. In fact they are a very close people now, while all is said and done I don't see how fighting for history is a bad thing. We should all remember it and fight for it no matter how good or BAD because it is what has gotten us here today and it teaches us not to make the same mistakes in the future.
The problem is that alot of people ethier don't know or just don't care and then they wonder why our nation is so divided. It's 1860 all over agian, HISTORY REPEATS IT'S SELF FOLKS!
I'll ask agian Itchy Scratchy do you mean this flag? View attachment stars_and_bars_4mar1861-21may1861_lg-jpg.247898.jp Or this one when you say "Stars and Bars?"
So adding up the symbol of slavery and division to your nation being divided is supposed to reunite it?
Ah yes... I have read that story Bris and it is my opinion that he is right, but to burn the flag on Memorial Day? I think that's very disrespectful on a day for remembrance.
I know all of you faggots hate ICP. However, their latest song is apt for this retard. For those too retarded to read or too fanny hurt because it is ICP and willfully miss the point because of that: Fuck you and your flag you rasist cunt. It reps evil and biggotry no matter how many bullshit arguments you make for having that evil flag. Fuck off and die.
Why does johnny have a dislike on every post even the ones not directly about the topic... come now people be polite.
Not to mention hes actually doing a damn good job at getting stuff to prove his point, he deserves waffles.
I can tell you why Darth. Because they have nothing better to do then hate me and call me names like "racist" and believe me who ever posted that ICP song I have not called you any names or have been disrespectful towards you so you are going to have to work very hard to get a rise out of me. You are angry and offended by the wrong flag. http://slavenorth.com/
