Are you ashamed of your heritage?

[EvilCat Breath]

You say it like it’s something to brag about….

I like drawing a comparison

 

[TNHarley]

It was an act of war. Accordingly, the U.S. had a right to respond militarily. Then the other secessionist States joined in. It became a civil war. One of the terms of the eventual surrender was conditional re-entry into the union.

Thus, the original secession was recognized as illegitimate.

Why the question? If secession were considered “legal,” then, at some times after the Civil War, many States would have tried it again (without engaging in war against the U.S.).

I believe Unk cites the SCOTUS decision declaring “secession” to be unconstitutional.

Whether that decision had a firm foundation in the law or the Constitution, itself, may be debatable. But it is still precedent.

I agree. They had every right to fire back. Even though SC took that fort back.
I dont agree. There was nothing illegitimate about it.
After the civil war, the SC ruled it was unconstitutional. Despite not having an actual argument. So no states tried after that.

 

[TNHarley]

I like drawing a comparison

Told ya braalian

 

[WelfareQueen]

The North did not secede to protect slavery.
The South seceded specifically to preserve slavery

​

So, why did the North refuse to free their slaves when the Civil War started? It was a half-million enslaved people. There were slaves working in the New Jersey Governor's mansion throughout the Civil War.

And why did Lincoln refuse to free slaves in the North with the Emancipation Proclamation?

Did your family in the North own slaves?

 

[TNHarley]

So, why did the North refuse to free their slaves when the Civil War started? It was a half-million enslaved people North of the Mason-Dixon Line. There were slaves working in the New Jersey Governor's mansion throughout the Civil War.

And why did Lincoln refuse to free slaves in the North with the Emancipation Proclamation?

Did your family in the North own slaves?

The EP was nothing more than political theater. He did that to make Europe think the war was over slavery, so England and France wouldnt send aid to the south. Thats why it only involved the southern states in rebellion.

 

[Lockback]

Then why did they lose?

It wasn't for lack of courage. It had to do with economics.

 

[hjmick]

Right,... Have U got a link/Ref. for that?

https://sites.miamioh.edu/empire/files/2024/07/1861-Stephens-Cornerstone-speech.pdf

 

[hjmick]

Kinda hard to believe you guys are arguing over a period of history well covered and documented. Try to move forward into now and the issues of now.

You Can't Change the Past - Why Talk About it?

This post is the 4th in a series of posts describing strategies for overcoming family avoidance strategies in order to persist in fruitful efforts to stop repetitive dysfunctional interactions. Part IV shows how family members use hopelessness and logical fallacies as reasons to stop talking to...

www.psychologytoday.com

Some people work very hard at convincing themselves and others that being a racist is okay...

 

[AZrailwhale]

Then why did they lose?

Because the Confederacy was badly outnumbered, outgunned, outproduced and blockaded. The Confederacy lost the war the second the first gun fired at Fort Sumpter.

 

[TNHarley]

Because the Confederacy was badly outnumbered, outgunned, outproduced and blockaded. The Confederacy lost the war the second the first gun fired at Fort Sumpter.

At the beginning of the war the confederacy had quadruple the amount of troops. And plenty of money.

 

[AZrailwhale]

At the beginning of the war the confederacy had quadruple the amount of troops. And plenty of money.

Until the Union mobilized. Then despite a large number of troops being stationed behind the lines the pendulum swung rapidly the other way.

 

[rightwinger]

So, why did the North refuse to free their slaves when the Civil War started? It was a half-million enslaved people. There were slaves working in the New Jersey Governor's mansion throughout the Civil War.

And why did Lincoln refuse to free slaves in the North with the Emancipation Proclamation?

Did your family in the North own slaves?

Because Lincoln wanted to win the war and did not want to risk losing the border states.

Doesn’t change that the Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery forever or that it was 40 percent slave.
The Confederacy was nothing worthy of honoring

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

Kinda hard to believe you guys are arguing over a period of history well covered and documented. Try to move forward into now and the issues of now.

You Can't Change the Past - Why Talk About it?

This post is the 4th in a series of posts describing strategies for overcoming family avoidance strategies in order to persist in fruitful efforts to stop repetitive dysfunctional interactions. Part IV shows how family members use hopelessness and logical fallacies as reasons to stop talking to...

www.psychologytoday.com

The Past, has Strong Effects on the Present, & even The Future,..... Problem is, ...... Not All know their Past History.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When my ancestors fought the Yankees during the War Between the States, they proved themselves to be some of the toughest people on Earth. Twenty-five percent of all military-age Southerners died or were crippled in the war. For Americans, that’s an astounding figure. If the Yankees had suffered those kinds of casualties, they would have been burning their cities. Of course, that’s opinion—there’s no way to really know—but I also have no reason to be ashamed of my ancestors. They weren’t traitors, and for the most part, they were good people doing the best they could in the world as they understood it. One reason they may have fought so desperately was because of the outcome they feared if they lost.

At the same time in Kansas, Jayhawkers were killing Southerners just for living in Missouri. There had also been numerous slave revolts in which enslaved people killed men, women, and children. In Haiti in 1804, the Black government exterminated most of the remaining French after the independence war. They spared some of the women who agreed to marry Black men. What can you call a forced marriage other than slavery? So, I have no reason to be ashamed. It seems that the left tries to make whites ashamed of being who they are, especially if they’re Southerners. I’m not ashamed, and I’m not fragile. If they want to talk about race, I’m willing to do it as honestly as I can.

Liberals also emphasize the reaction of whites after the war, but all the occupation did was reaffirm their beliefs. What would have happened if they didn’t resist? Union soldiers, even though it was not government policy, robbed, raped, and murdered Southerners, and their commanders did virtually nothing about it. On top of that, the army had a strict censorship program that prevented this information from being disseminated. If it had been published, it might have come to light that these were not large-scale abuses but rather infrequent actions by a minority of Black Union soldiers. Without reliable information, Southerners saw it as a large-scale attempt to humiliate and crush them. In my opinion, that is what led to resistance movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow later on. I still remember the old people talking about the need to keep the Blacks down or they’d murder us all.

They were traitors. The definition of traitor is to fight against your own country.

Had they won, they wouldn't have gone down in history as traitors, like in the revolution, Washington was a traitor, as were all the others that fought against the British. But they won. So... they don't get called traitors, because they're Americans now, not British.

But the Confederates are still Americans, still traitors.

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

Cornerstone Speech

In his March 21, 1861, Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens presents what he believes are the reasons for what he termed was...

www.battlefields.org

Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.

This is, at the very least,..... "Interesting". I want to verify this Speech, & I'm also going to pull out some Old History Books, that spoke of "Slavery not being Universally accepted throughout the South, even by several Leaders"..

And Pay Attention to what's been presented here,..... The Vice President speaks of the "Tariffs" placed on the south, by the North, before he addresses Slavery.

Matter of fact,..... Anyone that holds the Belief that the War was over "Freeing he Slaves",...... Show me the Federal Document issued by the Government, that Orders the Southern States to "Free the Slaves", before Ft. Sumter.

.......

"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution."
"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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
"As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph."

Cornerstone Speech

In his March 21, 1861, Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens presents what he believes are the reasons for what he termed was...

www.battlefields.org

 

[DGS49]

I doubt that a significant percentage of the Confederate soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery. Most were poor, owned no slaves, and were fighting for political reasons - states' rights, as the saying goes.

And on the other side, very few Union soldiers were fighting to end slavery. In fact, the draft riots in New York were largely because the workers there knew that New York would be inundated with southern Negros who were willing to work for a pittance, thus throwing them out of work. They were fighting to "preserve the union," and because they had been drafted and couldn't get out of it.

The reason why Lincoln ultimately went with U.S. Grant as the top commander because he was the first one who was willing to fight a "war of attrition," knowing that his soldiers would be wounded and killed, but that he could always bring out more to replace those who fell in battle. The rebels did not have that ability.

As a final note, it is no longer acceptable to refer to formerly enslaved people as "slaves." Sorry I did it above. Using "slave" subtly implies that such people are somehow less than human; use "enslaved person." You'll be glad you did.

 

[longly]

They were traitors. The definition of traitor is to fight against your own country.

Had they won, they wouldn't have gone down in history as traitors, like in the revolution, Washington was a traitor, as were all the others that fought against the British. But they won. So... they don't get called traitors, because they're Americans now, not British.

But the Confederates are still Americans, still traitors.

The Constitution does say that treason consists of levying war against the United States, or of giving aid and comfort to its enemies. But treason applies to individuals, not to sovereign entities.

I’m curious: do you consider Jane Fonda a traitor?

As for the Southerners, you can’t be a traitor if you’re fighting for your sovereign, because that is the only authority to which you owe allegiance. Since the states were sovereign entities, the rebels were fighting for their sovereign.

Was Jane Fonda a traitor? Her actions were authorized by no sovereign but herself; she could evidently consider herself a king — possessing the power to do whatever she wished. She made propaganda for the enemy in a time of war, when Americans were being killed. Does that not make her a traitor?

 

[longly]

Since we’re talking about whether people should be ashamed of their ancestors, let me ask this question: should American Blacks be ashamed of their African ancestors? Almost certainly, the Africans who were captured and brought to America had participated in the slave trade themselves, because virtually everyone did. So before they were slaves, they were slave catchers.

Should Black Americans be ashamed of that? My answer is no — because you have to understand the world in which they lived before you start to judge people.

 

[MarathonMike]

I am neither ashamed nor proud of my genealogical heritage. However, I am grateful to be a citizen of the USA.

Well said.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution does say that treason consists of levying war against the United States, or of giving aid and comfort to its enemies. But treason applies to individuals, not to sovereign entities.

I’m curious: do you consider Jane Fonda a traitor?

As for the Southerners, you can’t be a traitor if you’re fighting for your sovereign, because that is the only authority to which you owe allegiance. Since the states were sovereign entities, the rebels were fighting for their sovereign.

Was Jane Fonda a traitor? Her actions were authorized by no sovereign but herself; she could evidently consider herself a king — possessing the power to do whatever she wished. She made propaganda for the enemy in a time of war, when Americans were being killed. Does that not make her a traitor?

So, all those Confederate soldiers were traitors. Anyone who supports the Confederacy now, or in the past is a traitor.

Jane Fonda is a little more difficult. She was a political activist who was opposed to the Vietnam War. A person opposed to a war is perfectly valid, as this is just an opinion.

As far as I know Fonda didn't fight for Vietnam, and she didn't give "aid or comfort". She went for political reasons to do with the US and to try and stop a ridiculous war. You could say she gave Vietnam propaganda, but then that wasn't what she was doing, that would have been what others were doing with the facts of her visit. Nobody died because of her actions.

What is "sovereign"?

Sovereignty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Sovereignty can generally be defined as supreme, independent control and lawmaking authority over a territory."

Sovereignty was not with the state, it was with the nation. Yes, people in those days often saw their state as more important that the nation, but that still doesn't change the definition. They were still carrying out treason.