.jpg)
To those of you who have ever had the urge to turn a relaxing night out with the family into a political rally (yes, all three or four of you), well, this article’s just for you.
This past weekend, while driving home from a fairly long and hot day of little league baseball, my wife and I got a call from a friend. She was letting us know about a family friendly “soulfest” being sponsored by one of the local radio stations. The only catch was that the event was taking place at Stone Mountain Park.
I say this was a catch, because somewhere in the back of my mind I knew I was not a fan of Stone Mountain. One reason is because I don’t even like regular sized tributes to confederate “heroes”, so I definitely don’t like oversized, stone-carved tributes such as the one on Stone Mountain which pictures Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Furthermore, somewhere in my mental file cabinet, I remembered something about a connection between Stone Mountain and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), but I had never really fully researched that issue.
More importantly, the event was free, and I’m just not one to turn down free family recreation. So I kept my concerns to myself and started driving towards Stone Mountain.
Once at the park, while the kids were playing, I eventually told my wife my reservations about coming to Stone Mountain. Being a political reflection of me, only slightly better, she of course pulled out her phone and did some research. She discovered:
- Both Samuel Venable, the owner of the mountain in the early 1900s when the carving project was started, as well as Gutzon Borglum, the original sculptor, were members of the KKK;
- In November of 1915, a ceremony was held on top of the mountain to commemorate the rebirth of the KKK. It is believed that this rebirth was sparked by the unabashedly racist film, Birth of a Nation; and
- Venable deeded property rights to the KKK so the Klan could hold meetings and activities on the mountain; these rights stayed in place until sometime in the 1960s
So at this point, I’m pretty much ready to leave, especially since it had gotten dark enough for a spotlight to be focused on the huge carving, glorifying the three confederates in all their splendor. As I glanced around at the hundreds, maybe thousands, of Black folk, none of whom seemed the least bit aware of the confederate carving hovering above us, let alone bothered by it, I started to wonder if perhaps I just take history, and the attempts by some to re-write it, a little to seriously.
The scene also caused me to have flashbacks of my days in Selma, Alabama, a city usually known more for its role in the struggle for civil rights and not as much for its role during the civil war. Once a year (perhaps every two years now) the city hosts a re-enactment of the Battle of Selma. Although this historic battle, which was won by the North, is presented accurately in the Saturday version of the re-enactment, the event planners traditionally feature a Sunday version of the battle where the South wins, giving new meaning to their mantra that “the South will rise again”.
Nevertheless, the wishful thinking of the re-enactments was not the most troubling aspect of the Battle of Selma commemoration, nor was it the exact cause of my flashback. The part of the Battle of Selma festival that irritated me the most was the fact that schools all throughout Selma and surrounding counties would bring their students--hundreds of predominantly African-American students—to come and enjoy the confederate way of life. These students would learn about how southerners made clothes and popcorn, but nowhere was there a hint that this charming way of life was based on the enslavement of millions of Africans and their descendants. The fact that some of those descendants were now walking around a confederate festival buying and waving confederate flags, without any clue as to what that flag stood for, was simply mind boggling.
Which brings me back to Stone Mountain. So, there I am, in the midst of all these Black folk, trying to decide what would happen if I went around and started informing people of the mountain’s connection to the KKK. Would the people, armed with this newfound information, begin a protest at the park and maybe even start a boycott? Would we launch a movement that might lead to proceeds from the park being used to tear down systemic racism?
Or would folks just be mad that I was interrupting their summer night’s fun? After all, the fact that we could enjoy a night out in the park was somewhat symbolic of our victory over both the confederates and the Klan.
Not quite ready to test my theory of spontaneous revolt, I settled down in my chair as the laser show started. The first couple of segments, which featured images of southern life accompanied by songs like “Georgia on My Mind” and “Sweet Home Alabama”, were a little much for me, but within reason. But then it got worse. The laser beams started to outline the profiles on the mountain’s carving, and then proceeded to show a series of images designed to generate sympathy for the confederates. All of this to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic (you know--“Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!”) with special emphasis on the line “his truth is marching on”.
It became painfully clear to me that the “truth” this little display was paying tribute to was not “God’s truth” as mentioned in the actual lyrics, but Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis’ truth, a truth dedicated to the preservation of slavery.
At that point, it was time to go home.
As I drove home, I reflected on this tendency to pay honor to the confederacy and the ante-bellum southern way of life, a way of life which, by the way, was based on slavery. I couldn’t help but contrast it with the images and words I had seen and heard earlier that same day—images and words from President Obama’s visit to the beaches of Normandy in honor of the 65th anniversary of D-day. Just the day before he had visited the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald accompanied by German Chancellor Merkel. At both events, when the German Chancellor spoke, it was not with some bitter sweet memories of Nazi Germany. Her message was clear: the Nazi’s lost, and the world is better for it.
You will not go to a soccer game in Germany and see a bunch of Nazi flags flying around; this is in contrast to the number of confederate flags you’re likely to see at a typical Ole Miss football game.
You will not see German legislators designate a “Nazi History and Heritage Month” similar to the Confederate History and Heritage Month recently approved by Georgia’s General Assembly.
And, while you may find some museums dealing with the Nazi period as one which existed and must therefore be discussed, you are not likely to see such museums celebrating the Nazi “way of life”. In fact, after an admittedly brief internet search, I found only one pro-Nazi memorial site , and guess what; it’s not even in Germany. It’s actually in Wisconsin.
Yes, that Wisconsin.
Now, I know of people who genuinely want to honor their relatives who fought for the confederacy, and it may surprise some to learn that, in theory, I actually don’t have a problem with that. But it’s time for some folks to admit that there’s a fine line between honoring loved ones and glorifying the cause for which they fought, and propaganda like what I witnessed at Stone Mountain, like most confederate museums, ceremonies and organizations, cross way over that line.
I’m Cliff, and on that “note”, I’m outta here!
UPDATE: DC shooter wore confederate cap
| Like this column? Just click on the "Share" icon above and Digg it, share it on Facebook, or whatever avenue you prefer. You can also Email me at cliffnotes@bellsouth.net or visit my blog at www.cliffnotesfromthesouth.blogspot.com. |
Comments
Dear Cliff,
WAY overly sensitive and biased I would suggest. Had you ANY inderstanding of the men on the Carving, you would not be like the 'Angry Young Man' with his fist in the air and head in the sand (read Billy Joel)
From Lee's repudiation of slavery, thru Jeff Davis adoption of black boy Jim Limber and leaving his property to his former slaves, to Stonewalls teaching blacks to read and his funding of a black sunday school - they would be the first to denounce the actions of haters like the klan.
Speaking of the Klan - Gutzon Borglum was a klanman, but his work was blasted off of Stone Mountain. He did move on and carve the entire work that still exsists today we commonly call
"Mount Rushmore"
Again, perhaps just a wee bit too much caffeine and that boulder on your shoulder - you must really be a drag at social affairs, especially when mixed with a lack of historical perspective. Life is short and your wife deserves more attention to her - not your biased activism
The Laws of the "UNITED STATES" protected slavery. To lay the blame for slavery on the south's door step is like pilot washing his hands of Jesus. Slavery was the sin of a NATION.
As for comparing the Confederate Battle flag to the Swastika !
The Nazi’s were trying to rule the world . The Confederates were fighting for independence against an invading army.!
If you need to compare The Nazi cause with a movement / Try Abe Lincoln.
He was for the deportation of blacks from American soil !
Mr Lincoln Stated
“ The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”
I shall leave it at that.
The vast majority of white Southerners didn't own slaves--only the rich, landed gentry did. Also, the North took advantage of the profits of slavery (through business) even if they did not have many slaves (and they actually did in states like New Jersey).
In truth, this issue is far more complex than the black-and-white, right-and-wrong issue some want to see.
Slavery, an economic system of exploitation, was replaced with sharecropping...another system of economic exploitation.
Finally, the South offered to end slavery if the North let them have independence.
While slavey may have been the flashpoint, this was also a regional conflict, a battle of identities. Even blacks fought for the Confederacy...something to think about.
Cliff:
Just a couple of quick questions for you.
This is a dead give away but I suspect you'd miss it otherwise.
Was there a Negro Holocaust, if so where was it and who was responsible?
Where did the greatest loss of Life occur during the War for Southern Freedom, for freed slaves and even some Free Negro's?
There was a Negro or Slave Holocaust! It took place during what was called the Middle Passage. It amazes me that more isn't made of this horrific event which actually does somewhat relate to the German Holocaust. African Slaves were packed aboard Northern Owned Slave Ships for the trip back to the Americas. This trip took 4 to 8 months. Slaves were packed to closely that they couldn't sit, much less lay down, at least during the start of the journey. Food was barely enough to sustain life, rain furnished most of the drinking water. Often the sailors would take young women slaves and rape them repeatedly during the trip, then tossing them overboard to hide their sin.
History records the death toll among the Slaves that entered the ship as between 30% and 40%. I am Cherokee and I stay angry about the "Trail of Tears" where more than 20,000 Native Americans lost their lives during the journey from their homeland in GA and TN to Oklahoma. How is it possible that you can ignore people responsible for the wholesale slaughter of your race, your very ancestors, and worry about Confederate Heroes?
You have to be aware that most Slaves were treated like family. Not all and the mistreatment of any slave was and remains deplorable.
So after Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground, there were tens of thousands of freed slaves following the Yankee Army. Right outside of Savannah Sherman crossed a pontoon bridge with his army, when the thousands of freed Slaves attempted to follow, they were bayonetted, and pushed off the bridge. Many tried to swim the river, but couldn't swim. The death toll was over 1,500, Sherman said,"I was just trying to save my Bridge"
I'm so sick and tired of idiots who try to equate the CSA with Nazi Germany. There is no equalization: Nazi Germany wanted to, and eventually did, overthrow the German government (a civil war)and control all of Germany and perhaps the world. The CSA never wanted to overthrow the US government, to rule the northern states or any other states other than those who wished to subsequently secede. That's why it's also wrong to call it the "American Civil War". It was not a civil war, it was a war for Southern independence. We wanted to leave and be left alone by the USA, but the tyrant Lincoln, did not want to lose his economic base in the south. End of story. So there can never be any comparison of Nazism with the actions of the CSA, as I've outlined above. All idiots (like Cliff Albright) please learn and then stop showing your ignorance.
As a Confederate, I certainly resent them playing the evil yankee anthem, "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
Cliff,
Please, invest a little independent study into your/our history. You're a smart guy. You know the victor writes history and it's natural to assign yourself a high moral position and castigate the defeated.
So, don't think it strange to discover what we were taught about Southern history is skewed. Do the research yourself. Fortunately 150 years is recent enough that there's still enough original documentation to find the truth.
Many here have mentioned pieces but there's much more. Please give it some thought. Slavery existed in this country from the start but was on it's way out. Industrialization in the north and labor unions had already rendered it uneconomical and similar pressures were taking place in the south. Virginia already outlawed slave trade and other states were debating.
The south wasn't fighting for slavery but freedom from federal tyranny. Slavery would have ended more peacefully without that war.
We do have a history we can be proud of.
To those who equate the CSA with Nazi Germany, I ask this. Where are/were the ovens for the mass slaughter of the Slaves? Where are/were the graves of the mass slaughtered? Where are/were the concentration camps filled with slaves ringed with barbed wire fences guarded by men with shoot to kill orders? If the comparison is just, then why was there not a mass uprising of slaves when most of the White men had left their homes and plantations, leaving the old men, women and children behind?
The answer to these questions is that the comparison is NOT valid! On the contrary, it is highly offensive, "fightin' words". Even while Germany was at war, they were slaughtering Jews and others by the millions. Such a thing was not going on in the South during the life of the CSA.
Even the two forms of government are opposed to each other. Nazi=strong central govt. Confederacy=weak central govt. So the comparison falls flat all around. It is dishonest, full of lies and deceit, just plain wrong.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, Cliff.
The confederate memorial at Stone Mountain makes me uncomfortable, too, just as Confederate Memorial Day celebrated by our state government makes me queasy. Civil war reenactors disturb me because it's so easy to tell they wish times had never changed.
I don't believe it's true that slavery would have ended peacefully without the Civil War. Slavery didn't end in the South until the 1960's, as forced labor camps for Black citizens were still operating here then. Many Black Americans personally remember lynchings. No one in the South has to look far to find a place where Blacks have been killed without compunction. Many thoughtful people believe slavery still exists today in the form of a prison industrial system that incarcerates a disproportionate number of Black men. The after-effects of slavery are still being felt today by all of us in the form of racist policies and attitudes.
I always appreciate your perspective, Cliff!
Ok Albright - up until the Nazi thing, I understood what you were trying to say. You don't like "Confederate". So what? Who cares? Obviously not many black folks do 'cause they were out there having a good time. Then on the way home you had a mind fart and suddenly the Confederacy was "just like" Nazi Germany. I see no connection or analogy whatsoever between Nazi Germany and the Confederacy. Many prominent Confederates repeated the same phrase - "All we ask is to be left alone." Hmmm - doesn't sound anything like Nazi Germany to me?! And who was it that sent its armies crashing over its neighbor's borders just like Nazi Germany did? The South? Err, no, it was the North. Glory Hallelujah pal, glory glory! So then Albright, please elaborate a bit more on your analogy. And be aware that it is still a free country, and that many of us will honor, both the ancestors, AND THEIR CAUSE whether you like it or not. And if you don't like it, well, too bad! Now, about that analogy?
Cliff,
Your blog is outrageous. It is sad that you hold so much bitterness and hate that you could not even enjoy Soul Fest. I’ve been to the park many times and have seen blacks having a good time. If the park’s history is the “boogey man” to you, then the best way to take a jab at the KKK is to relax and enjoy yourself. Surely the KKK wouldn’t want that, would they?
While doing research into the mountain’s history, perhaps you can do research into the three men on the mountain. Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson were all friends to the black man.
I urge you to research Jim Limber Davis, an orphaned black that Jefferson Davis brought into the Confederate White House to raise. Follow that history and see what the Union troops did to Jim Limber at the fall of the Confederacy.
Lee never personally owned a slave. The slaves that were at Arlington House were inherited by his wife from her father and they were set free at the start of the war
Ms Debbie,
With all respect and honor due a lady, please allow me to recommend some study on your part too. Please do some research into race relations before and after the war. Please compare pre-war race relations in the north as opposed to the south.
You'll find a lot of mutual respect before northern hatred was forced upon the south. I know this opposes everything you've been taught but please read it yourself. You'll find we've all been lied to.
The ugly truth is the racial tensions we all grew up with down here were a direct result of the terrible "reconstruction" where black and white were turned against each other and taught hatred. It simply wasn't that way before the war. In the 1930s the federal government commissioned the collection of statements by former slaves before they were all gone. Read their testimonies.
I'm not saying there were no instances of mistreatment. There are always a few bad people. And slavery is wrong. But we didn't always hate.
My comments continued...
Comparing Confederate troops to Nazis is a sign that someone either cannot think for themselves, refuses to do any research other than what they were taught in public schools, or they have bought into the things that they have learned on the street or in the movies. A more accurate description would be to compare the Confederates to the patriots of the Revolution. Both fought against overwhelming odds, both were fighting against a strong centralized government, and both were protecting their homes from an invading army after declaring their independence.
So relax, take a chill pill, learn some history and “stick it to the man”
Continued...
Lee never personally owned a slave. The slaves that were at Arlington House were inherited by his wife from her father and they were set free at the start of the war. Several stayed behind to care for Lee’s wife and even the house when Lee’s wife had to leave. They trusted her with the key to the home and she did her best to keep the Yankees out of the rose garden.
Jackson secretly taught blacks to read and taught them the gospel even though it was illegal to do so. It was illegal by the way because abolitionists were smuggling books into the slave states to that called for an uprising to kill white southerners in the night. Some of the churches that were established by blacks that received the gospel from Jackson are still around.
There were many blacks that fought for the Confederacy. Some are depicted on the Confederate monument at Arlington. One is buried in the Confederate cemetery in Griffin, and there is a black Confederate monument in Dawson, Georgia
Cliff (and Ms. Debbie), :)
Here are a few websites to get you started.
www.dixiecom.com/blackneo.htm
www.thesouthernamerican.org/colour.html
www.blackconfederates.com/
mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/289/black-confederate-pensioners-after-the-civil-war
www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html
www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm
www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Black-CSA.html
www.petersburgexpress.com/Pocahontas.html
My goal here is to help you see that we can unite (black and white) around a rich and proud history that has been hidden by those that defeated us. We who are truly proud of the Confederacy are not race haters. We love the fact that our ancestors (and yours) stood up for freedom and were willing to fight for it. The cause was lost but not the honor due our ancestors.
Let's all be southerners together and put aside the stupid race-hate that got in the way. We're better than that.
Look past what you physically see and dig deeper. Abraham Lincoln, was a racist man. He fought to free the slaves because he knew it was best for the country. Just because confederate leaders are carved in the side of a mountain, doesn't mean a thing. You shouldn't let things like that get to you. THeres more to life than caring what others think. You should enjoy what you have with your family no matter what people think of you.
Actually, Andrew. Lincoln didn't care a bit for the slaves. He stated many times that he wanted to deport all blacks to the Carribean or back to Africa. His home state of Illinois even passed a law making it illegal for freed blacks to enter the state.
I'm sorry my friend but the image you've been sold about Honest Abe is nothing more than a fabrication.
Don't believe me? Read the Emancipation Proclamation yourself. You'll find it's carefully worded to apply only to states not in Northern control at the time and leaves enslaved those in states where he did have control.
The Emacipation Proclamation did not free one singe person. But it wasn't designed to. Abe himself admitted in private correspondance (now available) that it was simply a "war measure". It was calculated to cause insurrection in the South requiring the Confederates to abandon the battle and return home.
But he was wrong about race relations in the South: No uprisings occured. We stood together.
You made reference to southern culture related to the waving of flags. Have you ever taken a close look at the flags of Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
Your Corporate Media Education seems to have lead you along the wrong garden path. Your mind is clouded with views from the evening news. The Swastika has a long history of being a symbol of good. Where are your comments about Native Americans who place this symbol on their homes for good luck?
Mr. Albright,
Perhaps some sensitivity training is in order for you.
There are hundreds of thousands of folks that have not yet been fully indoctrinated with the northern 'version' of history.
My ancestors were slaves as were many of our white European ancestors ( enslaved, and taken into bondage to Africa, by the way ).
Perhaps that is why all those folks at the park did not give a rats rear end about such venerable southerners being displayed.
In 1925 the United States minted a half dollar with Gens. Lee and Jackson on it as a memorial to the valor of the soldier of the south.
Nazi flags are not permitted in Germany because the United States overthrew the government there and dictated to Germany how they were to behave.
De-Nazification was one of the programs instituted in Germany by the U.S. Govt.
So far the U.S. Govt. has been to some degree respectful of southerners as evidenced by President Obama having a wreath laid at the Confederate memorial at Arlington 3 weeks ago.
Dear Cliff:
Search for BLACK SLAVE OWNERS and you will find that before 1860 a larger percentage of blacks owned slaves than whites. I can see you was educated in government schools and you have a closed mind to the truth!
If you want to learn the truth by a black man contact Mr. H. K. Edgerton. If I was a betting man I would bet you do not want to know the truth. I assume you think war was over slavery, well, it was not. The War was over high tariffs.
This man is black and I am proud to call him fiend. You could never in your or my life time get me to call you friend.
Also do a Google search on youtube for "HK RE-March Across Dixie" this is a video that we did free for HK.
R W Moore
Dear Cliff:
Search for the for Black Slave owners and you will find that before 1860 a larger percentage of blacks owned slaves than whites. I can see you was educated in government schools and you have a closed mind to the truth!
If you want to learn the truth by a black man contact Mr. H. K. Edgerton. If I was a betting man I would bet you do not want to know the truth. I assume you think war was over slavery, well, it was not. The War was over high tariffs.
This man is black and I am proud to call him fiend. You could never in your or my life time get me to call you friend.
Also do a google search on youtube for "HK RE-March Across Dixie" this is a video that we did free for HK.
R W Moore
Thomas Jonathan Jackson, Robert Edward Lee, Jefferson Finis Davis - The protectors of American liberty. REAL American heroes, unlike these imposters of today, like Mike Jordan, Eldrick Woods, Emmitt Smith, not to mention all the C-Rappers who have infected the world with their filth and disrespect of women, all praised by Blacks for only one reason-they are Black.
Would Cliff write an article roundly condemning the horrible affects of the criminal hip-hop culture??? NOOOO!!!!!!! Because then he might would be accused of Tomming out. Even though nothing would be further from the truth. But, like I said earlier, TRUTH has already been killed by them.
Great article Cliff.
Sad but predictable to see all the Neo-Confederate nonsense posted based on the twisted history taught in Southern schools during the 100 disgraceful years of Jim Crow following the Civil War.
The war was of course about slavery. It's all to be found in the newspapers of the day.
So are Lincoln's words critical of slavery - which is why the South bolted when he was elected.
Rudy says the war was about slavery. Was WWII about the Jews? What about WWI? What about the 1st American Revolution? Was that only about independence? Nothing is ever so simple. A war to free the Jews? No. Free the slaves? No, again. Was the preservation of involuntary African servitude A motivation to secede? Of course. The only reason? Of course not.
Secession does not equal war. Witness the old USSR. War did not happen there. Czeckoslavakia? Again no war. Yugoslavia? Yep, war. So, you see? Secession need not equal war. Each case is different. But for the US invading the CS, there would have been no war. The US did not care about the slaves, did not get wounded and die for them. Their motivation was money, the loss of income the South brought. The South's reason for secession was money. To keep Southern money at home, not up north. How can this be so hard to see? It is the same in the war against England. Keep American money home, not send it to Great Britain.
Hi Rudy,
I can't answer for others but I've made a point of being respectful, informative and reconciliatory. My goal, Rudy, is to reunite the South. I am so tired of the racial mistrust.
I've done a lot of study and found what we learned in school was "spun" to support someone else's agenda. I am not trying to "twist" history--in fact, I'm trying to untwist it. That is why I encouraged Cliff and others to go see for themselves. I've been convinced by reading the contemporary accounts of that day and I believe you will too--if you will give it a chance.
I believe we Southerners have a mutual history that we can all be proud of. We HAVE made mistakes but the racial hatred that we are currently dealing with was imported. It is not a natural Southern attitude and I think we can get rid of it.
This old rebel (there's nothing "neo" about me) is reaching out to those who feel wronged by the symbols of our heritage. I'd like to seek mutual understanding and unity.
What a great big bowl of ignorance.
Anyone who can imagine that the secession of eleven Slave States was over something other than slavery is in deep denial.
To call those leaders who attempted to form a Slave-Holding Confederacy “heroes” in the history of freedom is downright crazy.
ttp://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/battle-of-fredericksburg.htm
If it had not been for slavery Cliff would would be living in Africa. Maybe he should move there where he would not be haunted by a
"oversized" carving on the side of Stone Mountian of Lee, Jackson and Davis.
Rebeltom,
You got that partly right - had it not been for slavery, there never would have been cotton plantations, Davis, Lee, the rest of that Southern oligarchy, the Confederacy, the Civil War, the KKK, Jim Crow, and white men flying rebel flags from a Ford pick-up a hundred years later thinking this is all something to be really proud of.
Rudy,
Come on. Relax and take a deep breath.
All I'm saying is to give our view of history a chance. I'm raising the allegation that the history we were taught in school and which is accepted conventionally today was "spun" and is not historically accurate. Therefore, rather than ask you to accept our view, all I've asked is for you to check it out yourself and see if we're right.
You see, I'm confident that I don't have to try and convince you. I know what the facts say and I know if you'll go read the DIRECT history for yourself, you'll find out too.
So, I dare you to take the challenge. Find DIRECT sources to study. By "direct" sources I mean what was written by both sides during the struggle, not what has been written since by either side. Obviously those sources will be biased unless they back up their views with direct evidence.
Don't be a "kool aid" drinker. Don't accept anyone's view (including my own) without question. Think for yourself.
Rudy,
It is even MORE outlandish for you to propose that nearly the entire population of the South went to war to protect an institution that only 6% benefited from. That's right. Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves. And only half of those (3%) were large plantations.
So, why did the other 94% go to war? To protect the backsides of some rich dudes they didn't even know? Think Rudy! Does that make sense?
You've been lied to Rudy. The war was about what ALL wars are usually about--MONEY! At first Abe said let them go. Most Northern newspapers said the same thing. Until he got in office and learned that over 70% of the federal revenue was coming from the South. He couldn't AFFORD to let the South go!
THAT, was the REAL reason for the war. The slavery spin was a convenient cover to mask the true motivations with something that looked morally upright.
Homework assignment: Find out why South Carolina was the first to succeed. Look up the "Morrill Tariff." Read!
Reb, you're talking as if South Carolina was some kind of vibrant democracy, and people were informed, had lively political discussions, and then went to the polls.
The planters ran everything.
A poor white guy in Carolina couldn't even run for Congress unless he owned slaves and acreage.
Secessionists terrorized abolitionists and unionists, and the planters sending their goon squads into the north to kidnap slaves who'd escaped to freedom inspired violence from men like John Brown.
Southern slavery was not dying as you claim, Reb - in fact, Southern legislators were doing their best to extend it to every new state that entered the Union.
And they had their eyes on Central America next.
Whether they knew it or not, those poor white boys were duped to die for a way of life which, as you say, really benefited only some ten percent of the population.
One way to explain it - 40 percent of South Carolina's Southern Baptist preachers had slaves.
Rudy,
The poor white guy TODAY can't run for congress. :) That didn't mean any more then than it does today. The average person was actually MORE interested and involved in government than we are today. Without big media to think for them,they talked! They shared information and views with people who lived near them and they cared.
Slavery was on the decline. Again, Virginia had already outlawed the trade. And get this: The Confederate Constitution OUTLAWED slave trade--several years before the US Constitution was ammended.
Rudy, the point I've been trying to make is that it was much more than simply slavery. It was also tariffs and cultural differences. We miss the point when we boil the Confederacy down to just slavery.
What they fought for was the freedom of each state to decide things for themselves: State's rights. Local government rather than distant because it's more accountable to the people locally. And I think they'd have done the right thing if allowed to.
Reb,
It’s ridiculous to even half-jokingly compare 18th century South Carolina to the United States today where a black man can actually grow up to be president of the United States, shows you really don’t care about history or truth.
Explaining secession as being about side issues like tariffs and states’ rights rather than slavery is nothing new. That’s the old mythology taught in Southern schools for nearly a century that most historians today often refer to as Lost Cause Religion.
The words of actual Confederate leaders and history tell a different story:
“Our new government …rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition.”
- Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861
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 do also do that. Abram Lincoln. This is on the Lincoln memorial in Washington DC. 2NR
Actually, Rudy, I really do care about history and the truth. They are very important to me.
I'm sorry we couldn't come to any common ground in this discussion. I believe you have your mind made up and are not willing to look objectively at the larger issues or the historical facts. Obviously you feel similarly about me. That's too bad.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss. Hopefully someday we'll be able to come together on this or some other important issue.
An Ole Reb
Todd,
To the best of my knowledge, the text inscribed on the Lincoln Memorial is
“IN THIS TEMPLE AS IN THE HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM HE SAVED THE UNION THE MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS ENSHRINED FOREVER “
You are quoting from a letter written by Lincoln in 1862 to newspaperman Horace Greeley in response to an editorial that criticized the President for not being tougher on the Confederacy by freeing the slaves. In that letter, Lincoln explains that his role as President is first and foremost to save the nation.
Lincoln however was not pro-slavery – a false impression you create by omitting the last sentence of that very same letter:
“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.”
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. 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.” Abraham Lincoln, Charleston IL Speech
"I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union." Lincoln letter to James Conkling
"I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate which they could have to themselves." Lincoln
Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring in Alton, Ill., in 1858 that he was "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over." - Ebony magazine's Lerone Bennett Jr.
Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois Constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state." - Ebony magazine's Lerone Bennett Jr.
Repeatedly during the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere. In 1854, he declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia -- to their own native land." In 1860, he called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves. In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves." - Ebony magazine's Lerone Bennett Jr.
Such facts may not be well-known, but they are "not hidden in the records," says Bennett. "You can't read the Lincoln record without realizing all that" Lincoln became "a secular saint," he argues, partly because of the circumstances of his 1865 assassination, immediately after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox. "Without question, I think the manner of his death, the time of his death ... all these were major factors in turning Lincoln into the American icon."
As a result, historians have hidden much of the truth about that era. "People in the North don't know how deeply involved the North was in slavery," says Bennett, adding that Illinois "had one of the worst black codes in America.... Black people were hunted like beasts of the field on the streets of Chicago, with Lincoln's support."
Indeed, the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free any slaves. "The most famous act in American history never happened," argues Bennett, noting that Lincoln issued the proclamation only under pressure from radical Republicans in Congress -- men such as Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Along with abolitionists such as Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass, the radicals were "the real emancipators," claims Bennett. "There were several major white leaders [during the Civil War] who are virtually unknown today, who were far in advance of anything Lincoln believed."
Rudy,
The facts just don't add up to the myth you've been sold. Please understand those of us who love the South are not necessarily racists. And the one you think was "The Great Emacipator" is a hoax created after the war to hide its true cause.
This is why I was trying to encourage you to do independent research and learn the truth. It's been said The "Civil War" was as much about slavery as the Boston Tea Party was about tea. Certainly slavery was a factor but it was not the central focus. The main issue was 'do the states have the right to work out difficult issues (like slavery) for themselves (i.e, are they soveriegn) or are they agents of the central government?'
For my part, I believe the wrong side won. Not because I want slavery or believe in racism. But because I believe the States ARE soveriegn and local government being superior to distant/central government is the ideal America was founded upon.
And, notice that question still isn't solved today?
Gawd, are you EVER going to stop whining?
I have been hesitant to jump into this debate, because I usually prefer to let my readers discuss the issues, but Ole Reb continues to engage in historical revisionism. Clearly Lincoln's motivation was to maintain the union, but what about the confederates? Well, let the words of the confederates speak for themselves. The following is an excerpt from South Carolina's declaration of seccession:
"The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution..."
see next comment...
The States of Maine, New Hampshire, [etc], have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of [NJ], at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of [NY] even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of [VA]. Thus the compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and... [SC] is released from her obligation.
comment 3 of 3 (see below). You can read the full document at: ttp://avalon.law.yale.edu:80/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
You can also read the statements from other confederate states, all of which state the same issues. Yes, it was about state rights, but what were the rights they were fighting for? The right to own their slaves and to have that ownership protected in the other states.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!