Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[JQPublic1]

Resentment at being held back, maybe?

What the U.S. would be like without the South

http://www.washingtonpost.com

"Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand — more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy," writes Michael Lind. "And it would not be as centralized as France or as social democratic as Sweden."​

What would HELL be like without the South?

 

[cnm]

I'm not sure about hell but I think it can be argued that average US temperatures would be a lot cooler...

 

[Bobby1250]

There were four UNION STATES, KY MD MO DE, that had legal slavery during the civil war. Those 4 states had a combined total of 400,000 slaves.!! Yes, the south had 3.6 million slaves but the point remains that both sides had slave states .

For the 8 millionth time, the CW was not about slavery. The idea is absurd. The media is telling another of it's whopper lies.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, DC , keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution.

AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

Columns The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised Not Lowered

 

[Boss]

The entire premise for secession was slavery. The fact that four slave states chose to stay with the United States doesn't change that. It certainly doesn't mean that the union in any way supported slavery. The entirety of the confederacy ( as well as the banners that flew for their cause) was centered around that issue.There is no getting around that. There absolutely was a rise in abolition policies or there would have been no urgency to secede. Slavery was and remains the primary reason for the confederacy.

The idea that slaves only worked cotton is also ridiculous. They were used for anything and everything. Lumbering, ranching ( the word cow-boy comes from African cattle herders), textile mills, production of gunpowder, etc.

Slavery was legal in the United States all through the Civil War. How can you claim the Union didn't support slavery? There were slave states who were members of the Union, they weren't required to abolish slavery or give up their slaves to join. The SCOTUS ruling that slaves were property was still in full effect, it had not been overturned. The Fugitive Slave Act passed by the US Congress was still in full effect and law of the land.

What there is no getting around is, many people in America have been brainwashed to believe the Civil War was about slavery. Some are even so delusional they actually believe that slavery had been outlawed and the South rebelled. The ONLY reason slavery was any kind of "issue" at all was because slaves were property according to US LAW!

Yes, some slaves were used for other things besides cotton, tobacco and sugar cane... but agriculture accounted for about 90-95% of all slaves in America. The West was not agricultural... there was no real need for slaves.

And again... "Confederacy" has a specific meaning. Intellectually honest people can understand that a Constitutional Confederacy empowers the members of the confederation instead of a central federal government or "Union." The issue of slavery, pursuant to the CSA Constitution, was up to the states of the confederation to decide.

The Civil War was really about the type of government more than anything else. Yep, the issue of slavery was part of it because slaves were legal property according to the US and certainly according to the CSA.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain

All very true which makes me wonder why the north went along with the war. I think the answer is that the north did NOT approve of lincoln's war against the south. But they were not allowed to say so. L was a tyrant and shut down 300 northern newspapers for criticizing the war. He threw 15,000 northern citizens in prison for doing the same. He even had a US congressman, clement valandigham, DEPORTED for opposing the war.!!!

 

[cnm]

AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

Columns The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised Not Lowered

What a load of old tosh. Nearly every document of secession shows slavery was the major point; and where states' rights were involved it was the right to assert the inferiority and bondage of the black man.

Tariffs and other economic matters were noticeably secondary in secession documents compared to the major economic matter of slavery.

 

[Bobby1250]

AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

Columns The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised Not Lowered

What a load of old tosh. Every document of secession shows slavery was the major point; and where states' rights were involved it was the right to assert the inferiority and bondage of the black man.

Tariffs and other economic matters were noticeably secondary in secession documents compared to the major economic matter of slavery.

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “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 suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Columns The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised Not Lowered

 

[ShootSpeeders]

AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

Columns The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised Not Lowered

What a load of old tosh. Nearly every document of secession shows slavery was the major point; and where states' rights were involved it was the right to assert the inferiority and bondage of the black man.
.

OMG - you are really dumb. Actions are what matters not black marks on a piece of paper. The Union allowed 4 SLAVE STATES to remain in the Union!!!!!. How can the war be about slavery when both sides practiced slavery?? THINK, you pathetic miserable white-hating wretch.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Not much question lincoln was a racist and considered blacks inferior to whites. Everyone though that way back then and still do today. Blacks are mentally inferior and the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[cnm]

That the Confederacy attacked the United States is not in doubt. That the United States may have fought a war to protect the union does not prevent the Confederacy having gone to war to assert, expand and maintain the inferiority and bondage of the black man.

How come none of the revisionists are quoting secession documents or speeches? Because such evidence blows their manufactured history out of the water.

 

[cnm]

[...] Blacks are mentally inferior and the evidence is overwhelming. [...]

Ah. So not only are you a white supremacist you think everyone else is as well. We need a rebel yell and a white flag to go with that.

 

[Bobby1250]

Lincoln’s statement is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. 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; 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 from living together on social or 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.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence--policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy--and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.



I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully--just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

Columns The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised Not Lowered

 

[Bobby1250]

That the Confederacy attacked the United States is not in doubt. That the United States may have fought a war to protect the union does not prevent the Confederacy having gone to war to assert, expand and maintain the inferiority and bondage of the black man.

How come none of the revisionists are quoting secession documents or speeches? Because such evidence blows their manufactured history out of the water.

ORLY?

There is no doubt the North started the ... wait for it..... "War of Northern Aggression" !!!

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

 

[cnm]

There is no doubt the North started the ... wait for it..... "War of Northern Aggression" !!!

When they fired on themselves. Right.

 

[Boss]

Nearly every document of secession shows slavery was the major point; and where states' rights were involved it was the right to assert the inferiority and bondage of the black man.

No, this is just incorrect. The secession documents show slavery was a primary issue but this was because slaves were property. It was already the right of white man to enslave the black man, it had been going on many years before the CSA. The United States, the Supreme Court, the Congress and all Presidential administrations up to Lincoln had supported and upheld the institution of slavery. Lincoln even made pre-war proposals to Democrats in Congress which would have allowed slavery to exist in America until 1911.

So to sit here and try to claim that this nation had become enlightened as to the evils of slavery and the recalcitrant rebels down south were fighting to keep it, is just intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. Nothing had been passed by Congress to outlaw slavery. According to every SCOTUS ruling, slaves were legally-owned property and their "value" was only AS a property asset. The CSA had nothing to do with that... this was US Law.

It took three Constitutional amendments to overturn what the UNITED STATES had established as an institution in THIS COUNTRY... NOT THE CSA!

 

[Bobby1250]

There is no doubt the North started the ... wait for it..... "War of Northern Aggression" !!!

When they fired on themselves. Right.

Where was Fort Sumter again? South Carolina, wasn't it?

Was S.C. a part of the North at the time?

Yes or No?

 

[cnm]

So to sit here and try to claim that this nation had become enlightened as to the evils of slavery and the recalcitrant rebels down south were fighting to keep it, is just intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

The secessionary documents demonstrate exactly that, which is why you don't reference them.

 

[cnm]

Where was Fort Sumter again? South Carolina, wasn't it?

Was S.C. a part of the North at the time?

Yes or No?

Was Fort Sumter Federal Property, yes or no?

 

[Bobby1250]

Where was Fort Sumter again? South Carolina, wasn't it?

Was S.C. a part of the North at the time?

Yes or No?

Was Fort Sumter Federal Property, yes or no?

No, it wasn't.

Why?

Because South Carolina had seceded and was no longer a part of the "Federal" Union. South Carolina was part of ANOTHER country that HAD NO "Federal" ties at the time. The so called "Federal' troops were illegally occupying Confederate property that did not belong to them. i.e. S_Q_U_A_T_T_I_N_G.

 

[Vigilante]