With a Rebel Yell: Jim Webb hearts the Confederate States of America.
An attractive Veep for Obama? No, just another dumb guy.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | confederacy | Obama | Slavery | Webb — Comments (100) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In 1861, the United States of America went to war after being attacked at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, in April 12 of that year. The war drained the nation's blood until the Confederate States of America surrendered to the U.S.A. in Virginia, at the Appomattox Court House, on April 9, 1865. Those were painful years followed by additional painful years of reconstruction and humiliation. When all is said and done, the war ultimately ended the institution of African slavery in the Confederate States of America and drew them back into the United States, for that we should all be thankful.
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) is not. If he had his druthers, the CSA would have won that war and the several States would have retained the right to allow their citizens to hold slaves. Politico.com writer David Mark does not put it that way in his his article on Webb at that web site yesterday, but it is how it reads.
He [Jim Webb] has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels’ “gallantry,” which he said “is still misunderstood by most Americans.”
Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.
“Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery,” he said. “Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war — just as overt patriotism is today — but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered.”
The sovereignty was the power to enslave human beings if the State so chose. Love of the Union was palpably weaker in the South than in the north as the war started, and that is self-evident. The South split. And, Webb argues, the war was in part fought over the right of the Slave States to split from the United States of America if they so opted. But I do not mean this or any subsequent discussion to continue that war. We're here to look at Jim Webb.
Jim Webb has been a rather dunderheaded spokesperson for Barack Obama, and he is considered a short-lister in Barry's veep musings.
Read On….
Jim Webb argues that the Confederacy "simply reflects Southern pride." It's not that simple, Jim. The Confederacy does represent the splitting of the United States of America, the split families, the casualties and the dead, and yes, ultimately it represents the institution of African slavery. If a southerner waves that Stars and Bars thing because he is proud to be from and to live in the southern States in America, that is one thing, inoffensive to me. It does not necessarily carry the baggage. Jim Webb, however, goes much further than that. He has a lengthy paper-trail including his own revisionist musings on this matter.
There's trouble for Jim Webb:
Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery.
His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics, said Sebesta, a widely cited independent historical researcher and author of the Anti-Neo-Confederate blog.
“I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.
Jim Webb is too thick-skulled to consider the implications of much of anything he recites, but he does take himself seriously.
I have heard it asked if this is Webb's "Macaca Moment," trashing his chances to be Obama's veep selection like then-Senator George Allen's comments regarding a Dem hecklers haircut set up his loss to Webb in 2006. This is not the proper question. Allen made a mistake, while Jim Webb has spent a lifetime preaching basically that the Confederate States of America were right to split with the United States when their "right" to hold humans as slaves became imperiled by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln. That is what the Confederacy means to him, not merely a harmless means to show geographic pride.
I neither know nor care if Barack Obama tabs Jim Webb as the bottom of his ticket, although if he does and the media does its job, Webb will eventually have to withdraw his name. Perhaps it would be best for the Dems if Webb were to do that now, not that I care a whit. (But it would be entertaining to here Obama repeat: "This is not the Jim Webb I knew and campaigned with for the past year.")
Beyond this election cycle, I think you'll find that Webb will be one-term-and-out. Allen did not challenge Webb's support for the more unsavory aspects of the Confederacy, as the media created some problems for him, but the next Republican ought to be ready.
Jim Webb has ancestors who were Confederate officers. I carry the blood of a man who was tortured, starved to death at Camp Sumter in Andersonville, Georgia.
(The text of Webb's 1990 speech at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington has been removed from his web site: http://www.jameswebb.com/speeches/confedmemorial.htm.)
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Blue on Blue: And lo, there were rumors of impeachment in the Illinois legislature. — Comments (2) »
With a Rebel Yell: Jim Webb hearts the Confederate States of America. 100 Comments (0 topical, 100 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... I believe that you will find that the issue of sovereignty and the cause of the secession and the resulting war were a great deal more complex than the one-dimensional picture you seem to be trying to paint.
There was little, if any, enthusiasm in the northern political class to deal with the issue of slavery --- the Emancipation Proclamation was issued long after the war began --- especially considered against the far more important (to northern businessmen at any rate) issues of tariffs and trade.
Webb is another Democrat empty suit but tarring him with attempting to justify slavery is not a legitimate claim.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
There was a lot of focus on such things as his idea regarding White Superiority, whether the slaves should have been shipped back to Africa, so on and so forth. I'm sure you've heard of the writings, even if you aren't familiar with them.
Watching the argument between the two people was amazingly surreal. They were using 2008 progressive language (on both sides) in the argument over documents written (and opinions held) in the 19th Century.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
My case was not that Webb per se reports slavery; rather, he supports the notion of the Confederate States of America and all that comes with that notion, which does include human slavery.
And the southern landowners and politicians saw the writing on the wall regarding slavery with the election of Lincoln. It is difficult to surmise how and when slavery would have ended had the Confederacy not become the Confederacy, but in Lincoln, the country had elected a school of thought which held that slavery was inhumane and inhuman.
I'm tarring Webb with supporting the Confederate States of America.
... as as astute politician, had no intention to do anything about slavery if he could avoid it. I note from your original posting that one of your relatives suffered mightily as a POW in the South. With your interest aroused perhaps you would care to research the abominable treatment of POWs in the North as well; neither side has anything to be proud of in their handling of prisoners.
The educational system in America has done a magnificent job of misinforming generations of Americans of the actual causes of the War Between The States and the results of the Reconstruction.
Webb remains an empty suit --- but in that role nicely compliments the top of the Democrat ticket.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Jim Webb is hardly the first person to say something like that. That kind of way of thinking is reflected heavily in many parts of the deep south. There's a lot of pride in the Confederacy down here with Republicans and Democrats. I moved here from California, so I don't fully understand it but I can see gallantry in a group fighting for sovereignty against a numerically superior military force.
As far as democrats though, Jim Webb doesn't particularly bother me. He wanted to pass that GI bill similar to one during World War 2, which seemed like a pretty good idea.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Regan
He didn't applaud slavery. He didn't say he wishes the CSA won. He's absolutely right that kids fought for Virginia, Georgia, etc., and not for slavery. Too few people actually owned slaves for it to be otherwise.
And the industrial revolution plus time would have ended slavery without a shot being fired.
Last, South Carolina did not start the war. They seceded, which made the presence of union troops there an occupation, thus making the north the aggressors, at least in the minds of South Carolinians of the day. I mean, if you honestly believe you have the right to secede, and then you do so, it makes sense to be a little upset at being occupied by another country.
Slavery's wrong. I do not rise in its support. But of all the things to tar Webb with, this was not one of them. Unless he says "the south's gonna rise again," or endorses the idea of slavery, then I say give him a pass.
"My case was not that Webb per se reports slavery; rather, he supports the notion of the Confederate States of America and all that comes with that notion, which does include human slavery."
How is this much different from Pfleger's demanding that all white people (except himself and rich white liberals) turn over all their wealth to black people - or more likely to rich white liberals who'll take care of things - in order to atone for all they've gained due to slavery.
When you say "all that comes with that notion" you're painting with quite a broad stroke don't you think?
~~
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."
I think you will find that Lincoln, in his own writing, was neither for or against slavery politically -- he was in favor of whatever would preserve the Union. The problem was, for lack of a better term, that one side was unwilling to keep up their end of certain political bargains regarding the "peculiar institution."
As for when slavery would have ended -- slavery, as an economic institution, requires certain conditions to remain profitable. Arguably, it had reached its native boundries within the continental US. As an institution, it would likely have died its final death when mechanization reared its ugly head and proved itself less expensive than keeping hordes of slaves.
A hallmark of a civilized society is that it is safe to be unpopular.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Reconciling the above argument with the Nazi example, maybe slavery would have only ended when industrial robotics became affordable.
Robots are expensive and cost money to fix when they break.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...our first words out of the kid.
Unfortunately, the words are "Ia! Ia! Ia!"
Aw. Daddy's Littlest Cultist.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons even death may die...
-- Abd al-Hazred
A hallmark of a civilized society is that it is safe to be unpopular.
While slavery was an issue for the war, the greater reason was the states rights. The Federal Govt was forcing states to sell their goods (cotton) to northeners at a lower price than what southern farmers could sell their goods to other nations (England, France).
Secondly, while there was forced slavery in the south, farmers often got higher productivity from their slaves when they paid them. Thus they became workers and not owned like cattle. Ultimately all knew slavery would end.
Farmers in the north also had slaves so don't blame the south for the whole slavery issue.
The Honorable Senator Jim Webb is a dunderhead.
Pretty much sums it up, regardless of your viewpoints on the causes of the Civil War.
In a strange way, I hope the Obama picks him for VP - we can then look forward to lots of dunderheading, right in front of the cameras.
I couldn't agree more... I really hope Jwebb gets the call to run as BHO's veep. It seems a natural choice so Obama can appear to have some tiny amount of military knowledge somewhere in his vicinity. And by doing so, Webb will be outed nationally and cause embarassment to the ticket. The result could even be getting his seat back in VA. It would be rich!
Obama is out of step with mainstream US society.
He may think that picking Webb will allow him to establish a link with mainstream America, but it would be a huge mistake. There are some things about Webb atmospherically that are appealing - his record in Vietnam, his support for gun rights, and so on - but in the full analysis he is just as liberal and out of touch as Obama.
He's also a major loose cannon. At any given moment, he's likely to let fly some incredible statement that will help people realize how different from us the Democratic leadership is.
Webb is right. When the south left the union BOTH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA were slave states. I get so tired of the typical liberal talking points about the Civil War.
"The sovereignty was the power to enslave human beings if the State so chose."
They did not have to leave the Union to keep slaves.
The south had their second war for independence. Unfortunately for them they lost the second one.
And since Fort Sumter was the territory of the CSA, the Union troops there were the invaders. They were left there to provoke a war and it worked.
However, my take on that war, its causes, and its results are not "liberal talking points." Certainly, they are from the perspective of the United States of America during that awful war, but they are, if anything, conservative. (Preserve the union.)
I did not criticize the soldiers of the CSA for attacking Fort Sumter, though I could lay a heap of it for Camp Sumter. Again, though, that is not the point.
The point is Webb and his dunderheaded statements, his ignorance of the effect of his words and sentiments.
or on Sherman raping and killing civilians on his march to the sea.
He made Lt Calley (who served in Vietnam) look like a boyscout.
You narrative is particularly one sided, probably the result of public education. Nothing personal, but I've used some of the textbooks.
The Tariff act was the item that caused the kick-off, with slavery being in the mix as a major player about a year into the war.
I have not to date seen any evidence that there was anything illegal about seceding from the Union.
The "Washington is my god" mindset was not present in those days.
If you can lay hands on it, PBS (of all people), did a good series about 15 years ago on the civil war without all the PC.
Also there was the appearance of a party, The Republicans as I recall, (been a while since I taught that period), that were anti slavery, while another group, Democrats I think that were for slavery.
Happened again in 1964, a higher percentage of Republicans supported the Civil rights act than Demoncrats.
Why, those awful conservatives like Charlton Heston, marched on DC
with Dr. King.
Funny, the people who have done the least for minorities keep claiming to have done the most for them.
Very curious...
Regarding Webb's competence, however, I must concur completely
Regards
of guys who died at Point Lookout, MD, and Camp Chase, OH, I don't think comparative atrocities is very useful here.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
That would make the US Naval base at Guantanamo an "invasion". Ditto the US military in Iraq. And Jews in Israel provoked war with the Arabs by moving there from Europe -- in many cases, fleeing for their lives.
Webb had no business defending the Confederacy and for that he deserves criticism. But neither do contemporary Republicans on this blog.
For the record, I have direct ancestors who fought on both sides of what my northern ancestors call the Civil war and my southern ancestors call the War of Northern Aggression. I regret that my southern ancestors were fighting for the wrong cause.
Charlie Hall
fighting for the wrong cause.
I believe we have a lease on the base at Gitmo we pay cash money for to the Cubans, so tenants would be more appropriate, than invaders.
If our forebears were fighting for slavery, then I agree whole heartedly that this was the wrong cause.
If they were fighting for states rights, then things are not so clear cut.
Once again most public schools seem to teach slavery as the main point of the war, glossing over the Tariff Act, etc. If one follows that line, I would suggest some serious research is in order.
Regards
since the CSA did not seek to take over the government in Washington, and given the CSA's firing on Fort Sumter, well...that was Southern aggression!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Conservatives like Webb are going to continue to leave the GOP in droves because of the rank corruption and incompetence that infects almost every facet of the party.
Webb is right, Confederate soldiers should be praised for their gallantry.
Further, the Civil War should never have happened. Slavery died a peaceful death in the North, and would have done so in the South as well. Did you know that Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, etc were once slave states? In each case slavery was peacefully abolished.
That's cute. I guess he would be leaving the GOP just behind William Jefferson, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama because that rank incompetence and corruption on the right is just too intolerable to bear.
"In". "His". "Freezer."
You keep preaching it brother!
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
I have lived in the South all my life, both sides of my family have been in the South for generations, and I too think a great many people over simplify the Civil War and overvilify the South.
That having been said, while I can praise my ancestors for their bravery and sincerity in fighting for the cause of the Confederacy, I can still take issue with that cause.
With respect to your points, slavery died a peaceful death in the North, because, unlike the South, the economy of the North was not built on cash crop agriculture.
Slavery was not dying in the South at the time of the Civil War, it fact it was growing and thriving. Between 1810 (shortly after the cessation of the external slave trade) and 1860 slavery in the U.S. grew from roughly 1.1 million slaves to nearly 4 million slaves. Between 1850 and 1860 in every single state that later became part of the Confederacy, there was an increase in the number of slaves. There is simply no evidence that slavery was in decline at the time of the Civil War. In fact the evidence points to slavery be in an expansion mode at the time of the Civil War.
Also, I think apologists for the Confederacy are a little too clever by half in arguing that the Confederate states were really fighting over states rights and not slavery, and that it was the Union's "occupation" of federal property at Fort Sumter that led to the Civil War.
At the time Lincoln was elected, he never argued that the federal government had the power to terminate or destroy the institution of slavery in the Southern states. He simply wanted to halt its expansion into newly created states. Yet the Deep South states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina (as well as the Southwestern state of Texas) feared that Lincoln and the Republicans would try to eliminate slavery everywhere. The assertion of the theory of states rights was an argument designed to ensure that the individual southern states could protect the institution of slavery in their states.
Moreover, many of the chief architects of the Confederacy were not simply pro-States Rights, they were expressly pro-Slavery. William Yancey, who was in many ways the prime mover behind the split of the Democratic Party in 1860 and the leader of Southern fire eaters, was quite explicitly pro-slavery and was a fierce critic of Stephen Douglas' attempts to allow individual territories to bar slavery in their territory. Yancey believed Congress and the newly created territories had no right to restrict slavery at all.
Finally, it was Southern troops under Gen. Beauregard who fired the first shots of the war on Union troops stationed at Fort Sumter, which was federally owned property.
Sorry to threadjack, but I get bothered when I see not altogether accurate apologies for the Confederacy.
NC
Of course Webb is a conservative. Would a liberal get a majority of the vote in Virginia? Is Virginia now a liberal state? Did Reagan appoint as his Secretary of the Navy a liberal?
There is plenty of room in the Democratic Party these days for conservatives, and Webb is far from the only one, unless you want to define "conservative" as "favoring forced democratization of Arabs, massive tax cuts for the rich, and siding with corporate interests over consumers and the environment."
Some do, but this isn't really the spot to debate semantics.
opposes drilling in ANWR, and wants to impose Legislative will on the powers of the Executive Branch -- both by proposing legislation designed to prevent military action against Iran, and by participating in shameful Democrat shenanigans designed to subvert the President's Constitutional right to make recess appointments.
Sounds like a perfect conservative, in the mold of Arlen Specter. And this cheese-head was elected because the Washington Post contributed at least $20-million worth of free press with a 24x365 campaign to smear George Allen. VA is a squish state on a good day anyway.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Is that he cowardly recited Howard Dean's derisive line about "God, guns and "gays"" belittling those issues to millions of Americans, conservative and otherwise. As Mr. Webb should know, now working in DC, states and municipalities are enacting stringent gun laws, homosexuals are running to the Courts to accomplish what they can not do by convincing fellow citizens and legislators, that they have some "right" to marry their latest lover; the ACLU and similar groups are attempting to bankrupt school systems and other organizations with lawsuits to remove any symbol of religion from the public square. So, to Mr. Webb and others of his ilk, the issues of "God, guns and "gays"" is not some theoretical discussion of "what if?", it is reality and the far left is advancing its anti-gun, anti-God and pro-perversity agenda in the Court.
So, is is not enough to sluff off these real issues as unimportant or not real, they are real, so what I would want to hear from Mr. Webb is his positions on these issues.
if you redefine words however you want.
I'm willing to accept the idea that Webb is on some fundamental level right-wing, and certainly populist, but his positions on issues from A to Z are almost entirely standard-issue Democrat. That is no conservative.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"I neither know nor care if Barack Obama tabs Jim Webb as the bottom of his ticket, although if he does and the media does its job, Webb will eventually have to withdraw his name."
~~
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."
So Webb has pride in his Confederate forebears, who apparently fought bravely on the wrong side.
What's wrong with that? Are we adopting the position prevalent in liberal academia that pride in one's ancestry is only allowed to those whose antecedents pass every 21st century political correctness test?
I would expect pinhead antisouthern bias at the dining room of your average east coast college faculty club, but not at Redstate and not from the Republican party.
There is a cultural war going on in the US, and demonizing the culturally and politically conservative south is an important part of the strategy of the liberal side of it. Now, just to jab at a junior Senator, Redstate is piling on.
The article promotes, for goodness sake, a fringe leftist "independent academic" whose claim to fame is that he helped fan the firestorm that got Trent Lott booted from the Republican leadership. The guy cited to is a hero of the Alan Colmes/Air America side of things, a group too liberal and out there even for most Democrats.
What's next? The Redstate collection of great union organizing songs? Or maybe a Redstate sponsored rally opposing free trade and globalization at the next G8 meetup? Or maybe we all start wearing socks with sandals and reminisce about the good old days of breaking the back of outdated social and moral standards in our society.
It's a bad sign when you start absorbing as true the assumptions and biases of the opposition.
While I am not an apologist for the Confederacy (see my post above), I think it is crazy to criticize Webb for being proud of his Southern heritage and admiring Southerners like Robert E. Lee. There were good, bad and in-between men who fought on both sides of that horrible war, so I don't think Webb should be smeared for happening to find something admirable in some of the men who wore the grey.
I encourage people on this site to read Webb's speech at the Confederate memorial in June of 1990 ( http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=James+W...).
While I don't agree with everything in the speech, I would not take that speech as a glorification of slavery and the Confederacy. Rather his speech is a speech about understanding the individual men who fought and gave their all in a cause, no matter how misguided it may be. It is a speech about those men as men and not as caricatures of the Evil South.
I disagree with Webb politically, but I think this post is an unfair criticism of the man.
NC
This isn't one of them.
My guess is that if you polled Southern Republicans about Webb's views on the War Between the States, you would find that the vast majority of those individuals (including yours truly) agreed with most (if not all) of them.
And with respect, your post paints with an extremely broad brush. You may not want to refight the war with your post, but you're inviting such comments when you attempt to describe the reasons/causes/motivations behind the war in such simplistic terms. The War Between the States is far more complex than many folks care to admit. And it seems to me this is all Webb is pointing out. I don't think he wishes the CSA had won. I think all he and others desire is for history to be told in an accurate manner, and without demonizing one region of the country for the collective sin of slavery.
"Stare decisis is fo suckas!"
Nice sig line.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Interesting footnote that is often ignored, as it doesn't play into the "The Civil War was for Slavery" idea:
Close to half of the states that left (Generally referred to as 'the south') didn't choose to leave until the President announced that there would be a federal army tasked with forcing them back into the United States.
Prior to that, it was basically accepted that the states could leave if they decided to.
Perhaps, then, the war was over MORE than just slavery?
unfair taxation comes to mind. I seem to remember a previous war where a bunch of people left their government behind to try and form their own nation based on unfair taxation without representation....
Perhaps another one is brewing now, with the leftward slide of both primary political parties.... what with the RNC nominee support of Cap and Trade legislation...
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
until the seven southern actually did in 1861. The New England states threatened to do it several times in the early 1800s. West Virginia did so in 1863 with open arms. The war was at its roots about economics and big government. Lincoln wisely made it about slavery to keep Eurpoe from siding with the South.
Wonder if Webb is preparing for treadmarks from the Obama bus tour.
Jindal in 2012!
Jackson, a Tennessean, threatened to send federal troops into South Carolina to enforce federal laws in connection with the nullification crisis in the 1830s. I have a feeling Jackson would have felt the same about secession.
NC
It was widely accepted that the states could leave if they chose.
One or two states even specifically wrote it into their state constitutions, just to ensure the matter.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
just realistic about the very mixed motives of the Confederacy's founders. Google William Yancey. He was the Confederacy's John Adams and he was a strong believer in defending slavery. So color me a little suspicious about those who say the Confederacy was primarily about defending the South from the evil oppressive North.
NC
Oh, it was still accepted. However the north was unwilling to give up its claim to the taxes, nor would it allow the south to move the port to its territory (As shipments going through NY to Europe provided ALOT of funding)
They fought the war to preserve taxes. Not to free slaves.
Anti-slavery groups were already growing in number and strength in the South (in fact, some have suggested that the Civil War hampered the work they were doing, as the anti-slavery movement now had to contest against anti-north sentiment.)... In fact, most who fought in the war for the south did not own slaves, were not owned as slaves, nor did they work for someone who owned slaves.
There are many reports of wounded southern fighters being asked why they're fighting if they don't own slaves. A regular response was "Y'all are on our land."
The extent that the war was 'all about slavery' is really that the Federal government decided that no new territory could be a slave territory, which many in the South viewed as an overextention of Federal Powers, and took rights to choose away from the states.
It wasn't over slavery specifically and could have been any of a number of issues.... but with a growing sentiment that slavery is wrong, it sure became a good public sticker to stick on the whole thing by the Federal Government.
Ever since then, the Federal Government has never ceased its growth. Nor its involvement in my daily life.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Go ahead Sweetie, keep sending those scorned Hillary supporters our way.
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but while we're on the subject of Jim Webb, I wanted to refer our esteemed McCainocrats to some reference material. Please see:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/jim_webb_on_women
Sorry for the intrusion. Now back to the Civil War.
Although I think that it's absurd to suggest that slavery was anything other than the central cause of the Civil War, this is not the only morally troubling aspect of Webb's and others' celebration of the Confederate cause. As American citizens waging war against the United States, all Confederates were, in the strictest sense, traitors. There is no good time to celebrate treason, of course, but I would think that a time of war like the present is the worst time of all.
This, naturally, is of no concern to the Democratic party. They generally supported that particular act of treason. They also were a comfortable home to the likes of Alger Hiss. And their current nominee remains on friendly terms with the traitor Bill Ayers, whose Weathermen waged a happily far-less-effective war on the United States than their predecessors.
But I respectfully suggest that those non-Democrats who take a view similar to Webb's need to reconsider the implications of their position. First, it makes it difficult to maintain in other contexts that the United States is owed and in fact deserves a certain amount of loyalty even beyond the rather minimal standard of not committing treason. It is not entirely consistent to berate the likes of Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan for their unpatriotic rhetoric in one breath and in the next to defend those who waged war on the United States.
Second, since the proximate cause of the Civil War was the South's refusal to recognize the election of Abraham Lincoln in a free and fair contest (at least in the states that he won), to claim that this was at all justified undermines the claim of modern Republicans that the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, should be what determines our laws, rather than the whims of judges and bureaucrats. How can one complain of the Supreme Court ignoring the will of the American people with respect to, say, the abortion issue, while at the same time claiming that the South was justified in ignoring the will of the whole of the American people in seceding?
I realize that this puts some Southerners in a difficult position, but this difficulty has been centuries in the making. Rather than being proud of what the South was, Southerners should be justly proud of how far it has come.
I'm not going to waste time unpacking the legal and historical minutia of the "treason" issue, but suffice it to say it's not that easy to say then or now that southerners who chose loyalty to their sovereign state over loyalty to the federal government were engaging in treason.
If we got into the minutia, it is all very interesting, in same way that unpacking the validity of the Stuart pretender's claim to the crown of England is interesting, but that's what not what gives it legs.
We talk about these issues because they tie directly into a major power source of modern politics.
The south was literally an occupied zone after the war, and then the closest thing to an internal colony providing cheap raw materials and cheap labor the US has ever had. The condescension, the disdain, and the disrespect exhibited by the northern conquerors all rankled, and all fueled a deep rooted southern resentment of the northern elites that were reigning over them.
The rise of the modern Republican party corresponds almost exactly with Republican strategists tapping into the energy underlying that resentment. At times, that tapping into southern emotions involved were raw and naked elements of racism, but more often and more generally it was a cultural and tribal thing. There's a reason Bush made a big deal out of NASCAR, and it's not because he really cares about the sport. There's a reason Bush and other winning Republicans take as many potshots as they can at New England and east coast elites. It's not because old stock New Englander Bush really feels that way; it's because the south is the fulcrum of the Republican electorate and tapping into the south's resentment against the oppressor works.
Through the past 50 years, it has been the Democrats, not the Republicans, telling southerners that they were racists and traitors. The Republicans played brilliantly against that. Now, reading this thread, calling southerners racists and traitors seems to be the new Republican position.
There is no Republican majority without the south. And there is no Republican south if the party decides to demean and insult southerners.
If Jim Webb can get the Republican party to start infighting over whether Robert E Lee was a traitor, he may prove more significant than I gave him credit for.
Well, you certainly have the resentment angle down.
I did not call modern Southerners racists. In fact, I have argued extensively against this slander elsewhere. Nor did I call modern Southerners traitors. However, the Southerners who fought against their country in the Civil War (not all of them did, of course) were traitors. This is not an insult, but a simple fact, and one I am no more inclined to argue over than that the sky is blue.
Confederate veterans were pardoned for their crimes by Andrew Johnson. Most of these were perfectly decent people in other respects. The vast majority of them went on to live very productive lives after the war, at least one of my own ancestors included. However, such virtues as they displayed cannot erase the fact of their previous crime, nor the fact that this crime was committed in defense of one of the most despicable institutions devised by man.
If the party of Abraham Lincoln can only be held together by giving credence to such falsehoods, then we are in a far worse situation than I thought.
You are so eager to arrogantly condescend that you miss the point.
Were Confederates traitors? I don't care. Because I actually know something about history, the Constitution and the legal definition of crimes, I think the issue is more nuanced than you recognize, but that's beside the point. It's 2008, and we aren't going to dig up Robert E. Lee's bones and start a treason trial.
What's significant here is that we are reverting to the political fault lines of 1896 or, at best, 1948. Jim Webb says something halfway approving about men who died 150 years ago, and here we are with Republican Yankees -- all of whom seem to need to cite their own august bloodlines -- talking down to southerners. We've been there and done that, and it's one of the reasons Democrats held power for most of the 20th century.
I'm here to tell you, if tomorrow's Republicans cannot connect at a cultural level with today's southerners, there is no national Republican majority.
Abraham Lincoln, along with everything else, was a practical politician. Had he lived, he would have been the last to go preaching that southerners were traitors, because it would have gotten in the way of getting the job at hand done.
It always surprises me when Republicans show a fair amount of the "Stuff White People Like" condescending mindset toward people they are trying to get to vote for them.
Libertarians? Sure. It's all about comparing purity of one's philosophy and so you have to constantly be throwing people outside of the tent.
But I don't understand why the Republicans would be doing this to anybody but the Donny Blacky people.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
read this several times, and still don't know what your talking about.
Let me get it straight, are you saying that standing up against the constant attack of liberals against southerners is somehow an insult to black people?
cuz if so, that is retarded.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
There is a website. It's called "Stuff White People Like".
You may have heard of it. If you haven't, google. It's worth a chuckle, I suppose. It's mostly full of half-baked humor that is half-mockery, half-patting oneself on the back. Upper middle class stuff. "White People Like NPR." "White People Like Not Owning A Television."
That sort of thing.
Amazingly condescending to anyone not in the "Stuff White People Like" tribe who happens to also be a Person of Pallor.
Every now and again, you see a bit of that condescension pop up in a political conversation. I'm a lot more used to seeing it among Democrats (and, yeah, Cosmotarians) than among Republicans, though.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...those White Power guys? Seriously [expletive deleted]ed up in the head.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
100% gonzo crazy and they need to be kicked out of any (privately owned, of course) building they happen to show up in.
I sometimes ask myself why the Phelpses and the Blacks can't get into a feud or something.
But, anyway, I don't see why folks who support the Confederate Troops even as they refuse to support the Civil War should be treated anywhere near as cruelly as the WP folks deserve to be.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
When I saw that line, I snorted.
These are folks you want on your side that you're talking to, dude.
These are folks you want voting for the guy you've nominated.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
But let it be noted that my condescension there was carved especially for olderthangandalf, who was totally asking for it. I am squarely against condescension more generally applied, even as otg is insistent on accusing me of it.
Because you certainly are achieving it, in a pretending to be a hopeless stiff kind of way.
"I am squarely against condescension as generally applied" - that's rich.
I think "arch" is the word you're looking for.
But I'm trying to be serious elsewhere. I'd be glad to hear your arguments on that if you're so inclined.
If we're going to talk about missing points, I might note that you failed to address the arguments I originally gave. I don't believe that the loyalty of Southern Republicans is contingent upon pandering to them in this or any other way, but rather on the Republican party standing up for the things that Republicans believe in, in the South and elsewhere. As I said in my original comment, celebrating the Confederacy complicates greatly this task of standing up for the things that Republicans believe in.
No insult intended, but I wasn't interested enough in the specifics of your arguments to debate them, even if your position were put forth with enough clarity and coherence so that a debate could be framed up.
I was interested - intrigued, really - that you and others thought it was worthwhile and important to settle the south's hash.
Even if you are right on the merits of what you are saying, and I don't know that you are, it seems like a fool's errand to me.
It seems to me that by arguing for the GOP to "connect at a cultural level" with southerners - and adding emphasis to the romantics of the Civil War era South - you happen to be supporting identity politics. If this isn't your intention, what do you believe is the distinction?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
I'm of the opinion that succession should be considered again. It is interesting to speculate what a government of conservatives could accomplish when tested alongside the government of socialists to the North. My guess would be a massive exodus to the South.
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas Sowell
If you need the wording, I believe the original documents are on display in the state museum in Columbia, SC.
Of course, we would have to secure the borders to prevent the massive influx of persons from the north.
You know, preserve the southern culture, maintain southern as the national language, and so on...
Regards
drawbacks. We used to could count on the humidity to act as a fence.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I'm in Virginia and ride a motorcycle to work. It's a lot like enjoying a sauna during my commute.
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas Sowell
Yankees (some of us) know a thing or two about humidity you can swim through.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
other than the condition of the roads, it would likely be much like my own commute...
"Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day." - Thomas Sowell
I know better than to do this, but every time it starts I hear that high-pitched trilling "eeeeeee" in my head and I want to grab a musket and run up some damned hill.
NOTHING you know about the War Between The States is true if you learned it only from textbooks and best-selling authors. The Yankees won and wrote their history; winners get to do that. The "Lost Cause" mythologists in The South wrote their histories as well. Neither is true and both are self-serving.
The United States would have NEVER gone to war to end slavery. The United States went to war to prevent an independent Confederate States controlling the Port of New Orleans from becoming a free-trade partner to Great Britain and France. The natural resource wealth of the US in 1860 was in The South and in the Old Northwest. All the Northwest trade went down the Missouri-Ohio-Mississippi Y river system to the Port of New Orleans. The railroads and canals were in their infancy and had as their primary purpose directing that trade to the East Coast ports lest they become America's first "rust belt." This was a major bone of contention between the Southern States from which US revenue was largely derived through customs and tariffs and the Northern States whose industries relied on those tariffs to survive. One of the very few differences between the US and CS Constitutions is the CS Constitution's plain language prohibition against CS federal spending for "internal improvements" in the States. This was based on the fact that the US was using US revenue raised on Southern trade to build those roads, railroads, and canals in the Northern States, much to the detriment of trade in The South. With all the p**s and vinegar here about earmarks and porks, one might think that some would have some sympathy for that notion.
No informed person can deny that slavery was the necessary factual predicate of secession in the Lower South. People will do lots of things over $4 Billion 1860 dollars in property that was perceived, rightly I think, to be in danger of being confiscated by a US government that had just proven with Lincoln's election that it did not have to deal with The South.
It is a much more intricate question as to whether slavery was the predicate of war, and I submit that it was not. Even Lincoln's own words say that it was not. Only the seven Lower South States seceded on Lincoln's election. The remainder seceded on Lincoln's call that they turn their militias over to the federal government to "suppress the rebellion" in the Lower South States. This they refused to do and rather than do so, they seceded and joined the Provisional Government of the Confederate States.
Every one of my military age ancestors fought and many died under the St. Andrews Cross in General Lee's Army. I can do the whole Southern litany: Lee's Army, Hill's Corps, Anderson's Division, Wright's Brigade, McLeod's Regiment, Kent's Company. Cap't. Kent was captured at Gettysburg and held in a POW tent camp in front of the Yankee guns off Charleston, a strategic move to suppress Confederat counter-battery fire. Yeah, it was all so damned noble. My family endured a century of Yankee occupation, condescention, and a life of penury as the result. And in the words of an old and very politically incorrect song that only those of us born Southern and of a certain age even know anymore; "I ain't asked no pardon/for anything [they] done."
In Vino Veritas
People are often surprised to learn that the Union retained three slave states, and I'm sure some people in Delaware, Kentucky and Maryland were less than happy with the Emancipation Proclamation.
People are also largely unaware that John Broun's insurrection in Kansas was put down rather forcefully by the US.
Thanks for the perspective. I never heard it explained in terms of the New Orleans port before but it makes perfect sense. The CSA may well have become a strong economic power in a relatively short time, and I'm sure slavery would have ended anyway.
I don't think a unified CSA would have lasted, much less become an economic power. If the CSA states had succeeded in breaking away from the USA, there is no reason to think that would have been the last round of secessions. A weak confederate government founded on the principle that secession was an inherent right would have been in no position to hold the parts together. For example, Virginia was pretty nearly played out as a plantation state, had close geographic and economic ties with the nearby Yankee states, and thought then - and thinks now - that the Old Dominion is inherently superior to the parvenue newer states of the lower south. Sooner or later, there would have been a split. Then there's Texas - whether Mexico got some help from Europe and made a bid at taking Texas back, or whether Texas spun off on its own, it's easy to see Texas getting peeled off. By the time it was done, I think the original CSA would have ended up looking a lot like the former Yugoslavia or central America.
A bunch of small states would have been easy for foreign powers - whether from Europe or the surviving north and western USA - to dominate. In the end, they would have looked more like banana republics than the sovereign states of the Confederate mythology.
It would have been an ugly thing. The south would have been less than the sum of its parts, and the north would not have been able to grow on its own into the great republic that stopped Hitler and exemplified democracy to the world. Even setting aside the end of slavery in North America, the dividing of America would have led to a world less free and less good than what we have today.
exhaustion of the soil by overgrowing cotton without rotating crops would have been a big factor in your scenario.
It would have been a sweet ride for some for awhile, and then exactly what you describe would have transpired. That's a quarrel I have with Harry Turtledove's otherwise excellent alternative history of the Civil War; the South just could not have stayed united. It wasn't even united when it was at war with the US and that is probably the major factor in its defeat.
In Vino Veritas
Industrialists mostly out of very perceptive self interest rather than any moral basis.
Northern industries were perennially in need of new sources of low cost labor. (True in 1865 true in 2008). Their traditional source was waves of new imigrants. The problem was after a generation the immigrants became Americans and those people make a horrible workforce.
If you were a Lowell, Colt, Lodge, Pullman or any other manufacturer you had to be in absolute fear that some southerner would adapt the slave system to industrialization. As it was Plantations were geared to consuming as little as possible and producing whatever was needed on site and with slave labor.
If someone successfully adapted the slave system to industrial production, they would have lost any competitive advantage they enjoyed and their biggest markets in one fell swoop.
Now before someone objects that it can't be done because industrialization is blah blah blah and you can't have slave labor making it work, It was done. All that was needed was the worst in humanity to manifest.
And before someone objects that the Abolitionists were driven by conviction. Well John Brown certainly, but he was a loon. Those industrialists were canny illegitimate children and if you think they were driven by moral concerns look at how they ran their enterprises.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Even if your only source is "Schindler's List," you would know that the Nazis did indeed employ industrial slave labor.
Don't realize this.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That law, now a union and leftie Holy Grail, was promulgated specifically to keep Southern contractors using Black, and White, peon labor out of the competition for the Northern building boom and the federally financed projects.
In Vino Veritas
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
There is nothing wrong with what Webb said about the Confederacy, and especially Confederate soldiers. When conservatives start accepting the leftwing premise that the slightest bit of admiration for Southerners and their leaders equals sympathy with white supremacy and slavery, and that such admiration is not acceptable, then conservatism is near death.
The reason why Webb would not take any where near the flak for this that a Republican woul is simply because he is a Democrat. Its the same reason why Robert Byrd gets a pass. I'm sorry, but it comes across as comical and somewhat pathethic when Republicans bring up Byrd when trying to deflect leftist charges of racism directed at the GOP. This is never going to win votes for the GOP because the mainstream media will always prefer a template that paints the GOP as hostile towards non-whites.
Ah, Mark you stepped in this one. What next, walk into a biker bar and ask which pansy parked his trike in your spot?
For the guy upthread who thinks the number of slaves in the southern states indicates slavery was going to go on forever I have one thought for you to ponder - the number of horses in the US probably peaked around 1910. What happened next? (Hint: a guy named Henry Ford was very busy). Starting a horse trading business in, say, 1905 would have looked like a great idea though it would have actually been a bad idea.
Bonus point - the main mode of transportation for Germany army material in WWII was by horse. That's WWII - the mechanized war.
Yes, numbers can be deceiving if you don't understand what they might really mean.
If you actually study the era instead of getting your knowledge from our politically sanitized schoolbooks or PBS you do get a seriously different view of the whole conflict. It becomes significantly less black and white (groan).
Slavery was an economic system first and foremost - not a social system (though it did have social ramifications). When the Southern states were underpopulated and labor was dear slavery made a lot of sense (and was easy to rationalize).
As the Southern states grew slavery became niched. By the the 1850s it was used primarily for high-value crops - notably cotton and tobacco. A farmer on marginal land growing foodstuffs (or a rancher) could not afford to keep slaves (though in some places it might be possible to rent them during certain seasons).
By the time of the War Between the States the South was undergoing severe economic changes. The great slave owning plantations were increasingly breaking down financially and through familial division. At a certain size an estate can't make enough money to support slavery (which is actually quite an expensive endeavor - hence it became concentrated in cotton and tobacco growing counties).
As has been noted often but usually ignored, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves and never had.
Would slavery have survived in the CSA? Most definitely yes, at least for several decades. But the mechanization of agriculture than began in the 1850s was already numbering slavery's days.
The problem the CSA would have faced would have been what to do with an enormous though somewhat concentrated population that was uneducated and completely destitute once slavery collapsed through its future unprofitability?
That also concerned the nascent Southern leaders in 1860-61.
Lincoln had promised not to free the slaves and, I think, did sincerely want to preserve the union. However, Southerners worried that the more radical Republicans would push Lincoln around. Southerners worried that these Republicans would free the slaves, without any compensation, and not do anything to actually take care of them. (A worry that proved true after the war).
The Southerners also did not trust Lincoln. There are many reasons for this but the hagiography of Lincoln will permanently suppress the historical record.
If you actually read Southern writings from the time you'll find the political opinion in the region to be far more heterogenous than generally acknowledged. People such as Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee debated slavery, its moral consequences and future. There is a great deal of confusion amongst them. Sadly, only the firebreathers such as Yancey and Stephens are ever quoted.
People are often surprised to learn that other than New York city most of the largest concentrations of freed blacks were in the South. And some freed blacks actually owned slaves.
I've run into many northerners who think the war was only about slavery (although they talk about preservation of the union in the next breath). Most are completely unaware of the tariff debate. That whole issue has been expunged from history.
It does amuse me that some people who so roundly condemn the South - as untouchable and evil through and through - are much more understanding and accommodating of the slave-holding founding fathers.
And for you Ft. Sumter fans - the reason Sumter was fired upon was that a Yankee relief force had made its way by sea to Charleston and was preparing to attack the city. The Southerners put up with Lincoln's delaying tactics until the fleet arrived. They gave "Honest Abe" his chance and he proved not worthy of the name.
It should also be noted that Davis et al stressed constantly that they had no intention of overthrowing the whole government - by their definition rebellion. They merely wanted to express their rights as free citizens to leave a union that they felt no longer served them.
And don't even think about pointing out the slavery conundrum because slavery was still legal in the United States at that time.
Remember, had Lincoln not called for suppression after the first wave of states left (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas) the CSA would have been much smaller and might have come back in a few years had they not felt threatened.
But that is conjecture upon my part.
What is not conjecture is that leaving was very hard for most of them. It was not a decision taken lightly. It's a shame that our historical treatment of it has become so light.
One final note (that I think we can all agree on) - Jim Webb's still a jerk!
????
Hmmm, Do we have an illegal alien problem ?? Or did the mechanization of agriculture solve that ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
slaves were expensive, you had to buy them, feed them, house them, take some care of them, and watch out that they didn't escape or try to kill you.
Illegal aliens, on the other hand, are cheap. you pay them way below minimum wage and let the public pick up all the other costs.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
in the North at the time, driven by out-migration from the farm and by immigration. Skill craft labor was expensive in all of America, North and South, a situation that had existed since colonial days and which d'Tocqueville comments on. Interestingly, in The South many slaves were engaged in skill trades labor and often were contracted out. In fact, the owner's business was renting out his skilled tradesman. Frederick Douglass was a shipwright who worked under such arrangements. Interestingly, even so notable an anti-slavery advocate as Douglass comments on how much better he was treated in his craft as a slave in Baltimore than he was as a free man in Boston.
Fundamentally, the employer's relationship with wage labor other than skilled crafts labor was at most a contract for and hour, day, or week and he had no obligation for the welfare of that labor. A slave owner's obligation was cradle to grave, 24/7 and most slaves lived fairly well materially, often much better than White small-holders or non-landowners. Complaints about this fact are legion and this is one of the reasons that it cannot be credibly argued that the Southern common soldier, only about 15% of whom owned slaves, was fighting for slavery; he didn't much like slaves, slavery, or the "big men" who owned slaves. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" as an anti-war slogan didn't originate during the nineteen sixties, but rather the eighteen sixties. It was said with some truth that the "big men" would insist that their sons "volunteer" and "bare their breasts to the storm," to use words from a song popular in The South at the time, but would rebel should the CS government attempt to impress their slaves to build the fortifications that son might fight behind.
After Gettysburg, Vickburg, and the horrendous losses of 1863, the stresses of race and class with which The South was riven began to seriously damage troop morale. Only draconian efforts by the provosts and the sense of impending doom that pervaded The South made it possible for a reasonably effective force to be fielded in '64, but by '65, nothing would get the men back in the ranks; as he faced Grant's onslaught in the Spring of '65, less than 30% of Lee's nominal strength was actually in the ranks and the figures were not even as good in the Western armies. The PACS seriously considered censoring mail to soldiers and went so far as to publish entreaties to the civilian population that they bear the burden and stop encouraging the troops to come home. Soldiers from areas that were under Yankee occupation or which had been scoured by Yankee troops, e.g., Central Georgia, in particular just went home to their family. By the Fall of '64, three of the ten men on my Mother's side of the family who "volunteered" on 4 Mar '62 were still alive; my g/grandfather, his brother, and a cousin. My g/grandfather was last on the muster roll in Dec. '64 and clearly just went home to his family that had been in Sherman's path, his brother was a guest of the Yankees at Pt. Lookout, Maryland, and the cousin, who from what I can tell was a World Class skulker, you can find him near battles but not in them, stayed in the ranks until 6 April 65. After the CS debacle at Saylor's Creek, it appears that he decided to "study war no more" and took the oath. So, of those ten, only one was still alive and serving at the end, albeit as a POW, one deserted three days before the capitulation, and my g/grandfather also clearly deserted, but as was generally the case for men in his circumstance, the officers did not record a man as deserting unless he actually went over to the Yankees and took the oath. My g/grandfather's absence in the Spring of '65 did however cause him difficulties with the Georgia pension authorities and it took him many years to qualify for a pension for his ANV service. Ironically, his first check arrived about a week after he died in 1914. For the sticklers, the pension story is family oral history, I've never researched his pension records, but the rest is true and documentable. The actual Muster Roll for Company F, 48th Georgia Volunteer Infantry Regiment still exists in the Georgia Archives and I've held it in my hands.
In Vino Veritas
You're one of the best, but you need to rethink this. I'm a Texan, and went to Robert E. Lee High School (there's more than one of those in my state), and I take a lot of pride in my ancestors who fought in the war. (They were in Mississippi.)
I also take a lot of pride in my country and its founders. I can't be saddled with the slavery of the CSA simply because of my admiration for the bravery of my southern ancestors. Just like I can't be saddled with the slavery of Jefferson for admiring him.
It's a schoolboy's argument you make, as sturdy as a two legged stool.
Several people above have made the point in far more eloquent terms than I---you'd do well to read them.
By the way, I also take pride in the Republic of Texas, which I believe was slave-holding. But my pride in the Republic of Texas (that's the 1830s version, not the kooky people of present) doesn't make a lover of slavery or a hater of Mexico.
on his mother's side who owned a 15 year old girl and a 23 year old man live in the "north" or the "south"?
Shouldn't he be blamed for his forebears transgressions ?
Southerners hear it all the time...
Blue, you are so right.
Why do southerners get blamed for everything from aphids to slavery, when I'm pretty sure no southerner currently living owns any persons of any color. If they do, shame on them.
The reason the libs do it (the blame game),is because too often we allow them to get away with the misinformation and propagation of historical myths. The public schools certainly don't give any accurate accounts, at least in the texts that I have used.
The libs will say anything and do anything they think they can get away with to achieve their ends.
I would suggest some folks research Lincoln's papers and see what opinion he held of people of color, and what he said he would be willing to have happen to them to save the union.
It is not very complimentary. Kind of sad really.
Regards
In addition to redstate sports/Right shelf/Confirm them
we need a Blue vs Gray state. That way we can peel off the civil war stuff.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The early days of the History Channel. (When it was the WWII channel)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
in the post above, I know better, but when somebody just p***es me off, I hear that high-pitched cry somewhere in my head and want to grab an Enfield. It's in the genes or something.
In Vino Veritas
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
issue. Why? The "d" after Webb's name.
FTR, Webb's book BORN FIGHTING is GREAT!!!! seriously
A must read to understand Amrican history. Read in concert with Cash's MIND OF THE SOUTH and Sowell's BLACK REDNECKS AND WHITE LIBERALS.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
We're arguing over things like whether history textbooks are biased and so on. This should be easy to resolve to everyone's satisfaction. We can find out how things really were back in those days by asking Robert Byrd - after all he lived through that era right?
~~
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."
He is the perfect candidate for the Democrat Party, they are the party of racists heck Robert Byrd - D former grand gleagle of the KKK is the most "respected" elder Senator for the Democrats..... I love to use his own words...
""I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
What can you really say about a party that has the likes of Byrd in it....Webb should be beat up on what he said about a inanimate object(flag)? BUT Byrd should be lauded....they are the hypocrites they are always looking for....
you know people from the south can show pride in their confederate flag all they want and I for one am not going PC on their pride....but if the Democrats want to continue to pick up racist Democrats for their rank and file I encourage them to continue on....because it is apparent that this election is about RACE!!!
How does it feel Mr Webb to be castigated by your own party?
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion