We read:
"Plans for a Mississippi specialty license plate honoring controversial Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest are reviving tensions over 'unreconstructed' Southerners and their place in the modern South.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans want to honor Forrest on a 2014 specialty license plate. Mississippi has more than 150 specialty plates, the most popular ones being 'Choose Life' and NASCAR-related license plates.
But the state NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and a Facebook group are raising objections."
Source
The myth that the North fought to free the slaves lingers on. Even Lincoln said it did not: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery". Find one mention of slaves in the Gettysburg address. More on Lincoln here.
27 comments:
The General was a great man, check this out:
"Here’s something they didn’t report about the general: “A prewar slave trader, he freed his own slaves on the agreement that they would fight with him. They did. After the war, he at first confessed sympathy for the early Ku Klux Klan, while denying being a member, and then later repudiated the Klan entirely and said it should disband. In Memphis in 1868 Forrest was honored by an organization of blacks who presented him with a bouquet of flowers, which he accepted as a gift from his ‘brothers and sisters.’”
Source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South, page 165."
This link has more information:
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/mississippi-burning-over-license-plate.html
Black Chamber of Commerce: Did Obama Lie to Us? Oh yes he did!
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/black-chamber-of-commerce-accuses-obama.html
I lived in the North for most of my life, and now I live in the South. One thing I have learned after speaking with many locals about Southern history is that the history I was taught in the North about the Civil War was very biased and very incomplete. While Slavery was a factor in the Civil War, it was definitely not THE factor.
Oh, and as I have been corrected several times, it is properly referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression".
Some call it "The War for Southern Independence."
Are wars ever fought over and only about pure moral principles?
While Slavery was a factor in the Civil War, it was definitely not THE factor.
There are always multiple reasons groups go to war. There is seldom ever what can be called "THE" reason. (An exception might be the US entry into WWII.)
However, from the perspective of the South, it is impossible to look at the arguments the South puts forth for war without seeing slavery. "States Rights" was one justification for war but what was the major issue that defined "states rights" to the South?
Slavery.
The South felt that after the passage (in their eyes the ramming down their throats) of the Missouri Compromise, their way of life was being attacked and threatened with extinction. What was the way of life that newspapers and speakers of the day wanted protected?
Slavery.
Tariffs were another issue as well. Higher tariffs were charged on products and entry into ports based on whether the port was in a region that supported slavery.
While slavery might not be THE reason for the Civil War from the perspective of the South, there is no doubt that slavery was the dominant issue that colored and supported every other argument for succession and war.
As to Lincoln, much has been said that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to end slavery. Such an idea is fairly accurate. Lincoln's main goal was to preserve the "more perfect union" known as the United States.
However, it is telling to note that the South succeeded from the United States immediately after Lincoln's election. Lincoln had made it known in his campaign that a goal of his presidency was to restrict if not eliminate slavery.
Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to end slavery, but the South's succession was based, in part, on the real idea that Lincoln was going to work to end slavery during his presidency.
This will realy get JESSIE JACKASSON and AL SHARPTON upset becuase their both a pair of race baiting carpet baggers
Americans make a big deal about fighting for their freedom/independence from a "union" with Britain and calling themselves "patriots" in doing so, but at the same time most think it was justified to fight to suppress a similar desire later on for independence by the southern states which no longer wanted a union with the northern states and called them "rebels".
Notice how the professional race-pimps of the NAACP always complain about anything that would honor the South or anyone from the South? The people of the South should "never" allow anyone to dishonor their heritage, their flag, or the memories of all those who fought and died for what they believed in. They were, and will always be, American patriots, whether you agree with their cause or not.
"They were, and will always be, American patriots"
They were traitors against the American Flag.
Americans make a big deal about fighting for their freedom/independence from a "union"
A colony is not the same thing as a willfully joined union of states.
but at the same time most think it was justified to fight to suppress a similar desire later on for independence by the southern states which no longer wanted a union with the northern states and called them "rebels".
Southern states called themselves "rebels," so it is not a demeaning term. They, unlike you apparently, understood that they were rebelling against a legal contract.
Much was made prior to the Civil War as to whether a state could withdraw from the United States without a violation of Constitution itself. Many in the South thought they could, but just as many thought they could not. After the Civil War, the issue was codified, but before the Civil War, the question was "what gives a state the right to walk away from a union they voluntarily entered without some sort of violation of the agreement between the states?"
This was and is established law that you cannot simply walk away from a contract.
Either way, comparing the South to the Colonies shows a lack of depth to the issue.
I know that it is politically incorrect to say this, but for at least some southern states slavery actually was THE PRIMARY REASON for secession, based on their own statements.
Reading the statement by Georgia, "anti-slavery" and economic factors relating to that seem to be the only reason they left.
Mississippi: "...it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course...Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
Read the statement by South Carolina, and you'll find the primary reason for them was the fact that northern states were not sending back escaped slaves.
Texas: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
Go to http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp for the full statements by the above states.
We were not traitors, it was Abraham Lincoln who was the traitor, what about the fact that he IMPRISONED congressmen from Maryland so they wouldn't vote for secession?
The federal government had no jurisdiction over our way of life, what they did was a violation, the equivalent of New York imposing its gun control laws on Mississippi.
We didn't leave Union, the Union left us. Our cause was noble then and it remains noble now.
Obama's Trillion Dollar Budget and other freedom stories.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/
We were not traitors, it was Abraham Lincoln who was the traitor, what about the fact that he IMPRISONED congressmen from Maryland so they wouldn't vote for secession?
So you believe that person who sought to arrest people for what was the traitorous act of succession is the traitor? What an interesting concept and totally devoid of any reality or understanding of law and history.
The federal government had no jurisdiction over our way of life,
Except for that pesky Constitution you might be right.
Our cause was noble then and it remains noble now.
Once again, Bobby shows his bigotry and ignorance.
the equivalent of New York imposing its gun control laws on Mississippi.
Notice the moral equivalency here.
A gun is the same as a person to Bobby.
That is the "way of life" he believes is noble - the way of life where a man, woman, teen, child and baby are just pieces of property because of the color of their skin.
Anonymous, read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South" and you'll find great arguments for secession. It was not about slavery, it was about freedom from the federal government telling us how to live our lives.
Just because you're a Lincoln-lover doesn't mean you're right or that we should be ashamed of our history.
The fact is that there were blacks who fought for the CSA, willingly.
The fact is that Lincoln didn't give a crap about slavery and just wanted to preserve the union.
"The fact is that the emancipation proclamation did not freed slaves
"The Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in those states or areas that were "currently in rebellion" against the United States. In other words, it theoretically only freed slaves in states that were fighting for the Confederacy. Of course, Lincoln and the United States had no power to enforce laws in areas that it did not control. Therefore, almost no slaves were actually freed by the Proclamation.
Many are surprised to learn that it did not free slaves in those slave holding states that remained part of the Union, such as Maryland and Kentucky. Also, it did not free slaves in parts of Southern states that had already surrendered to the Union, such as sections of Louisiana around New Orleans."
See? So DIShonest Abe wasn't the patriot people thinks he was. In fact, his sedition laws, his violations of habeas corpus, imprisoning people without trials, his censorship, and his other actions shows that he was a fascist.
Yet did President Davis censored those who did not agree with him? No. See? The CSA was far superior to the USA, and if we had won the war we would have remained a free country instead of having The New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid, the Progressive Income Tax, the BATF and all the crap that came later from big government types.
Anon 11:31 said;
"So you believe that person who sought to arrest people for what was the traitorous act of succession is the traitor?"
Traitorous act? I wonder what you'll be saying the next time states start leaving the "union". We're a lot closer than you realize thanks to the Marxist-in-Chief.
It was not about slavery, it was about freedom from the federal government telling us how to live our lives.
Can you give a few examples of this "lifestyle" the south wanted to protect that did not have the taint of slavery upon them? Why is it that a reading of the actual newspapers and writings of the day continually mention slavery and protecting that "peculiar institution" as one of the major reasons for going to war?
Just because you're a Lincoln-lover doesn't mean you're right or that we should be ashamed of our history.
No one said that you should be ashamed of "your history." (Of course, being that you are in Miami and the Miami area didn't send troops to the Civil War should tell you something, but that is another inconvenient truth for you.) Yet it is clear that you are ashamed of your history because you fail to acknowledge it and try to whitewash it with deceptions.
The fact is that there were blacks who fought for the CSA, willingly.
And since there were blacks that owned slaves, I am sure that you feel that slavery was acceptable. After all, as you have illustrated, people are just property in your mind.
But let's examine your "willing" statement here. Blacks that fought for the south were promised freedom from slavery and a home after the war. That seems more like a understandable self serving reason rather than defense of a noble way of life. After all, why defend a way of life if in defending that lifestyle, you were granted freedom away from it?
And let us not forget the South's treatment of captured black Union soldiers. While treatment of POW's on both sides of the conflict was often harsh, captured black union soldiers were treated much worse than their white counterparts. In fact former slaves that became POW's were subject to summary execution and many were.
The fact is that Lincoln didn't give a crap about slavery and just wanted to preserve the union.
This is one of those arguments that just doesn't ring true. As I said, Lincoln's main objective was the preservation of the Union, but the South seceded after Lincoln's election, knowing that he would seek to abolish slavery. Once again, read the documents of the day and you will see that the election of Lincoln upon the anti-slavery Whig (later Republican) platform enraged the Southern states.
Yet did President Davis censored those who did not agree with him? No. See?
Actually, he did. Anyone caught advocating the end of slavery in the south was arrested. Davis' approval of the execution of black POW's shows that he was against others who were acting out against the beliefs of the south.
No one said that Lincoln was a saint. You accused him of being a traitor. Your belief is based upon his arrest (actually detainment) of several members of the Maryland Legislature who were wishing to rise up and overthrow the government. That is one of the definition of treason and sedition. Lincoln's arrest of the legislatures was never questioned as. His suspension of habaes corpus was questioned and after his death, the Supreme Court ruled his actions illegal.
if we had won the war we would have remained a free country
A "free country" by keeping (at the time) 4 - 6 million people in slavery? Denying them basic human rights? Treating them as property?
Tell me Bobby, how does denying people their rights fit with the so called "libertarian" philosophy of "anything is legal, as long as it does no one else harm or deprive them of their rights" fit with slavery which by its very nature, denied people's rights and often forced them into horrible and sometimes brutal living conditions?
Oh that's right... in your mind blacks are people. They are property.
Traitorous act? I wonder what you'll be saying the next time states start leaving the "union". We're a lot closer than you realize thanks to the Marxist-in-Chief.
Yes Bobby... traitorous acts in the form of treason. I know that you hate to actually read the Constitution, but take a look at Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. That is exactly what the legislators were doing.
I wonder what you'll be saying the next time states start leaving the "union".
I'll say that they are breaking the law. (See Texas v White which settled the issue of secession forever.)
We're a lot closer than you realize thanks to the Marxist-in-Chief.
There ya go. Try to deflect you racial bigotry, your lack of education, your hatred of others, your ignorance of history and your ignorance of what your own supposed "libertarian beliefs" to something else.
8:12 AM - The 13 american colonies had no legal right to secede from "union" with Britain either, and the ones that took arms to bring it about were not only "rebels" too but legally classified as "traitors" as they took up arms against their King. Many colonists were not rebels but "loyalists" but "might is right" and with the help of the French (who were at war with Britain as usual) the King's soldiers lost against the American REBELS, who therefore had the power to set up their own independent state. The same might have happened in the US Civil War, but events went the other way. As is often said - "history is written by the victors"!
8:12 AM - The 13 american colonies had no legal right to secede from "union" with Britain either,.....
Actually, in English law they did. The colonies had not joined the empire willingly. They had not entered into a contract with Britain other than the establishment of the colonies. Colonials were British subjects, not citizens. They were not equal in any sense of the word with England or her citizens.
That differs greatly from the southern states joining a union as equals with the same rights as states as the rest of those in the union.
English law recognizes that a contract may be dissolved when the contract is forced on someone (not entered willingly) or the contract does not deal with parties "equally."
The colonies were not equal to Britain. The states that made up the south were equal to their fellow northern states.
The Constitution is a contract between states as well as between the governed people.
Some have argued that because the southern states joined the union, they should have the right to leave the union. That would mean voiding the contract without restitution or the ability of redress by other states, something that English law requires.
Comparing states and colonies is akin to comparing apples to bananas.
Yeah I kind of have a problem with putting the man behind the Ft. Pillow(lol nice name) massacre. It would be like if we celebrated Osama (who as we know planned 9/11) after he renounced his ways and started to support Christianity, maybe donating his heirs fortune to a Christian organization.
How can colonies of an empire freely join it, as they did not even exist before the empire or mother-country created them and placed them there under conditions.
How can colonies of an empire freely join it, as they did not even exist before the empire or mother-country created them and placed them there under conditions.
Exactly. That is the point.
That is why the free joining of a union has always been considered on a different plane than establishing a colony.
In both cases a peaceful separation could have been negotiated if there hadn't been such pig-headed, stubborn and arrogant people on all sides. Canada managed to effect independence from Britain quite peacefully, as there seemed to be no rush or bad feeling about it. The southern states would no doubt have had some other kind of union with the northern states after they negotiated their desired independence. Sadly one can't re-write history and save a lot of wasted blood and treasure.
Canada managed to effect independence from Britain quite peacefully, as there seemed to be no rush or bad feeling about it.
Ummm.... do the words "Rebellions of 1837" mean anything to you?
Canadians rebelled against England but were defeated.
Canada's road to independence was paved with many of the same battles - physical and political - that the US went through.
Hardly on the same scale or with the same internal backing as in the pre-USA!
And if some rebellions were defeated Canada still got independence in the end by peaceful means, and now has a voluntary membership of the Commonwealth with many other countries that were in the British Empire.
Well of course the French element in Canada would never like the dominance of Britain, or even the English language, and many of them want independence from Canada itself (like a parallel of the southern US states).
Post a Comment