Celebrating Confederate History

Submitted by kebernet on Tue, 04/13/2010 - 23:48

Tagged:

Politics

At one time, over a century ago, Republicans were all about kicking the ass of seditious bigots.

Comments

I agree with the sentiment,

Submitted by charlie.collins on Wed, 04/14/2010 - 10:37.

I agree with the sentiment, but this could have been handled in a tweet ;).

What is the meaning of your

Submitted by Vic (not verified) on Thu, 04/15/2010 - 00:21.

What is the meaning of your post? Is it to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of history? While slavery was a part of it, the primary reason for the Civil War was over states rights. Certainly, Lincoln did a lot to harm the Constitution, and the Federal government has been working hard to erode it ever since. Or is it to suggest that Republicans are bigots? Don't forget that it was Democrats behind the dogs, fire hoses, poll taxes, and Ku Klux Klan: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html

It wasn't my post, but I'll

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 04/15/2010 - 10:56.

It wasn't my post, but I'll respond Vic, I'll bite ;). The Civil War was about "states rights," true, but you also have to admit that the major issue, the main "right" being asserted that led to the conflict, was slavery. That is, the states that wanted slaves, or wanted to expand the practice, versus those that that either did want it at all, or at least did not want it expanded. It's a bit of a red herring to say slavery was just a "part of it." True it was a part, I don't mean to split hairs, but come on, it was THE MAJOR part. As for which party brings out the bigots, it's not one or the other, it's both. Some more than others at different times, but both. Lincoln himself, as Kebernet was noting I think, was a Republican fighting against slavery. The dems who fought against civil rights were generally the good ole boys from the South who were on that same side during the war. Unfortunately we still have a lot of ignorant around, coming from both parties. That said, with current events, I think you do see the jab that Kebernet was making. As you correctly note the dems have done their fair share of being bigots too, but in the current era, in many ways, the tables have turned. The repubs are now the good ole boys in the south, they dominate the same areas where the fire hoses, poll taxes, and KKK were, and these are still the trouble spots (mixed race marriage should be BANNED!! - that was only a few years ago, now they are on to gay marriage, but it's just another form of bigotry and ignorance). Again, while a generalization isn't fair, it *is* fair to say that there seems to be a racist undercurrent in many of the rallies and "jokes" and comments on the right today. There are many examples (this is just one, a pretty glaring one, but just one): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/republican-racism-example_b_33....

Alexander Stephens: But not

Submitted by kebernet on Wed, 04/21/2010 - 00:30.

CAS VP Alexander Stephens:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us.... This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.... The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but... that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.... Those at the North... we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was... he and his associates... would ultimately fail. The truth... that it was... impossible to war successfully against a principle... I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal...

The "Rights" the South was fighting for were clearly delineated by Davis:

African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.

That is not a statement on Federalism. The big lie that Southerners tell themselves is that they were somehow defending some noble idea about governing. They weren't. They were defending "states rights" to protect the same "state rights" that were argued for by Wallace in the 50s: to keep black people subservient to the white. The United States government never nationalized the executive functions of the states. Indeed, the only thing that sparked the war was the Federal government deeming that a qualification for admission to the many states for California was that slavery be verboten, as was the opinion of the duly elected representatives of the REST of the many states. At least the Germans have the God-damned common courtesy to be ashamed of their past. And the fact of the matter is that the Treaty of Versailles was much more of an injustice committed against them that banning slavery in California ever was against South Carolina.