can you find the ISBN numbers for the 'slave narratives' or where I can get a copy?
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Confederate History (long)
- Thread starter Rebel_Horseman
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
Thanks!!
LOOKING SOUTH
by Greg Hanson
RAISE THE REBEL FLAG
They are afraid. They tremble in fear at the very sight of the Confederate flag. They want more than ever to eradicate it from the face of the earth. Yes, the enemies of the flag are afraid. If you doubt the fear, read some of the almost hysterical columns during and subsequent to the election in Georgia. Some of these editorial comments are more like the hysterical braying of a frightened jackass than of reasoned argument. The same goes for some of the more hysterical diatribes directed against Trent Lott, hardly a menacing figure, but they equate Lott with THAT FLAG, simply because he is Southern. Liberals as well as so called “conservatives” alike are united in their opposition to the flag because it flies in the face of everything they are for - total control. Don’t think that mainstream conservatives are on our side, the only thing they are interested in conserving is their bloated salaries, their bloated egos, and what they see is their share of the control over those of us living in fly over country.
Yes, the tyrants of political correctness - the Axis of media/political elite, corporate cash and a constantly shifting third partner which alternates depending on what institution is being assaulted - are afraid. That Axis has inflicted far more damage on this country than George Bush’s Axis of Evil, and they are far more dangerous simply because they are here, and they are now.
Make no mistake about it, the very sight of a Confederate flag, in any context sends chills up their spines. Why the fear? The forces arrayed against us are dedicated to the proposition that all men and created equally cowardly, and equally easily misled. The Confederate flag challenges their proposition. They know the power of that flag. Unfortunately, many of us do not. There are those among us that see the Confederate flag as a historic symbol suitable only for display in a historic context. Others see it as a symbol of Southern heritage and pride. Both camps are at least partially right. However, the Confederate flag can no longer be viewed in the context of the 19th Century, it must be viewed in terms of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries. We must view it as our enemy really views it, not the propaganda version used to win over the ignorant. Once we realize that, we can easily see why those people fear the flag.
The very fact that it is commonly referred to as “the rebel flag” and that is how the enemy sees it. Those that prefer to take a historic view refer to it as the Confederate battle flag or as the Confederate Naval Jack, depending on whether or not it is square or rectangular. No matter what the proper historic term is, the common perception of the flag is one of rebellion. At this stage in the country’s history it has been determined by our homegrown Axis of Evil, that rebellion, and any symbols signifying rebellion and defiance must be suppressed if not eradicated. That is the reason why the rebels that founded this country have been subjected to such vilification over the last several years. Anything that smacks of challenging big, centralized, far-reaching, and intrusive government, and anyone displaying that flag are looked upon as openly challenging the fundamental concepts of the tyranny of political correctness that has been imposed by either force of law, the threat of mob action, or psychological terrorism.
To those that think that they can preserve the flag and the historic context under which it was born without rocking the boat must become aware that the tyranny of political correctness isn’t interested in whether or not it is viewed in a historic nature or not. All they want is to eradicate not just the flag but also the meaning of the flag. They do not intend to allow it to exist much longer. So those that do not wish to rock the boat must realize that the boat they are in is not only rocking, but is also sinking. To those that say, “put away the flag, we are all Americans now,” I say wake up and smell the coffee, the attacks on the flag have increased since September 11th, because they took your reaction to those terrorist attacks as a sign of weakness, not one of conciliation. Your olive branch was flung to the ground and trampled upon.
At this time it is the duty of all those who oppose tyranny in our land to Raise That Rebel Flag. It doesn’t matter if you live in the North, the South, the East or the West. The spirit of rebellion inherent in all Americans must be reborn. It was Southern, as well as Northern rebels that won our independence. And it was that alliance that brought greatness of this country. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, Southerners all, joined with Franklin, Adams, and Hamilton, Northerners all, to shape and mold this land.
In the waning days of Soviet tyranny over Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, those demanding their freedom often marched carrying that flag. That flag flew over the Berlin Wall the night that odious symbol of oppression fell, passing into the ashbin of history. Don’t think that this went unnoticed by the cultural Marxists.
Is it any wonder that big media, the primary purveyor of politically correct tyranny has taken a stand full square against that flag? No!! Do the purveyors of politically correct tyranny have a right to fear that flag? Yes!! For as long as that flag exists it may, might, and does raise the specter of open defiance of, and the ultimate defeat of politically correct tyranny. So, our duty as members of the resistance to that tyranny is to Raise the Rebel Flag. Raise it whenever, and wherever you can. Raise it high so that others may see it. Raise it and people respond. The fight is not just about preserving the past; it is about regaining control of the present, and creating a future free of tyranny, the tyranny that rules through fear and intimidation in the guise of sensitivity and tolerance. Those that have a vested interest in the preservation of politically correct tyranny tremble every time they see this flag. We want to make them have sleepless nights and darker days. The spirit of that flag must be seared upon our very souls. We can only be conquered if we remain afraid, remain too timid to stand up, look them squarely in the eye and say, “We are not afraid any longer. ”
The great victory in Mississippi where two thirds of the voters over came bullying, threats and intimidation and voted to keep their flag flying should be an inspiration to us all. The undefeatable Roy Barnes in Georgia turned out to be as undefeatable as the Titanic was unsinkable. The Titanic hit an iceberg and Barnes hit what can best be described as the Confederate iceberg.
It can, and must be done. Together, freedom loving people cannot be defeated, but we all must do something; doing nothing is not an option. Whatever you can do, do it, whatever you can afford, give it, write, speak, act, the time is now.
All of us call upon the leaders of the Southern Movement to put aside personal disputes and
formulate a program of action that will focus the movement and move it forward to victory.
by Greg Hanson
RAISE THE REBEL FLAG
They are afraid. They tremble in fear at the very sight of the Confederate flag. They want more than ever to eradicate it from the face of the earth. Yes, the enemies of the flag are afraid. If you doubt the fear, read some of the almost hysterical columns during and subsequent to the election in Georgia. Some of these editorial comments are more like the hysterical braying of a frightened jackass than of reasoned argument. The same goes for some of the more hysterical diatribes directed against Trent Lott, hardly a menacing figure, but they equate Lott with THAT FLAG, simply because he is Southern. Liberals as well as so called “conservatives” alike are united in their opposition to the flag because it flies in the face of everything they are for - total control. Don’t think that mainstream conservatives are on our side, the only thing they are interested in conserving is their bloated salaries, their bloated egos, and what they see is their share of the control over those of us living in fly over country.
Yes, the tyrants of political correctness - the Axis of media/political elite, corporate cash and a constantly shifting third partner which alternates depending on what institution is being assaulted - are afraid. That Axis has inflicted far more damage on this country than George Bush’s Axis of Evil, and they are far more dangerous simply because they are here, and they are now.
Make no mistake about it, the very sight of a Confederate flag, in any context sends chills up their spines. Why the fear? The forces arrayed against us are dedicated to the proposition that all men and created equally cowardly, and equally easily misled. The Confederate flag challenges their proposition. They know the power of that flag. Unfortunately, many of us do not. There are those among us that see the Confederate flag as a historic symbol suitable only for display in a historic context. Others see it as a symbol of Southern heritage and pride. Both camps are at least partially right. However, the Confederate flag can no longer be viewed in the context of the 19th Century, it must be viewed in terms of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries. We must view it as our enemy really views it, not the propaganda version used to win over the ignorant. Once we realize that, we can easily see why those people fear the flag.
The very fact that it is commonly referred to as “the rebel flag” and that is how the enemy sees it. Those that prefer to take a historic view refer to it as the Confederate battle flag or as the Confederate Naval Jack, depending on whether or not it is square or rectangular. No matter what the proper historic term is, the common perception of the flag is one of rebellion. At this stage in the country’s history it has been determined by our homegrown Axis of Evil, that rebellion, and any symbols signifying rebellion and defiance must be suppressed if not eradicated. That is the reason why the rebels that founded this country have been subjected to such vilification over the last several years. Anything that smacks of challenging big, centralized, far-reaching, and intrusive government, and anyone displaying that flag are looked upon as openly challenging the fundamental concepts of the tyranny of political correctness that has been imposed by either force of law, the threat of mob action, or psychological terrorism.
To those that think that they can preserve the flag and the historic context under which it was born without rocking the boat must become aware that the tyranny of political correctness isn’t interested in whether or not it is viewed in a historic nature or not. All they want is to eradicate not just the flag but also the meaning of the flag. They do not intend to allow it to exist much longer. So those that do not wish to rock the boat must realize that the boat they are in is not only rocking, but is also sinking. To those that say, “put away the flag, we are all Americans now,” I say wake up and smell the coffee, the attacks on the flag have increased since September 11th, because they took your reaction to those terrorist attacks as a sign of weakness, not one of conciliation. Your olive branch was flung to the ground and trampled upon.
At this time it is the duty of all those who oppose tyranny in our land to Raise That Rebel Flag. It doesn’t matter if you live in the North, the South, the East or the West. The spirit of rebellion inherent in all Americans must be reborn. It was Southern, as well as Northern rebels that won our independence. And it was that alliance that brought greatness of this country. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, Southerners all, joined with Franklin, Adams, and Hamilton, Northerners all, to shape and mold this land.
In the waning days of Soviet tyranny over Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, those demanding their freedom often marched carrying that flag. That flag flew over the Berlin Wall the night that odious symbol of oppression fell, passing into the ashbin of history. Don’t think that this went unnoticed by the cultural Marxists.
Is it any wonder that big media, the primary purveyor of politically correct tyranny has taken a stand full square against that flag? No!! Do the purveyors of politically correct tyranny have a right to fear that flag? Yes!! For as long as that flag exists it may, might, and does raise the specter of open defiance of, and the ultimate defeat of politically correct tyranny. So, our duty as members of the resistance to that tyranny is to Raise the Rebel Flag. Raise it whenever, and wherever you can. Raise it high so that others may see it. Raise it and people respond. The fight is not just about preserving the past; it is about regaining control of the present, and creating a future free of tyranny, the tyranny that rules through fear and intimidation in the guise of sensitivity and tolerance. Those that have a vested interest in the preservation of politically correct tyranny tremble every time they see this flag. We want to make them have sleepless nights and darker days. The spirit of that flag must be seared upon our very souls. We can only be conquered if we remain afraid, remain too timid to stand up, look them squarely in the eye and say, “We are not afraid any longer. ”
The great victory in Mississippi where two thirds of the voters over came bullying, threats and intimidation and voted to keep their flag flying should be an inspiration to us all. The undefeatable Roy Barnes in Georgia turned out to be as undefeatable as the Titanic was unsinkable. The Titanic hit an iceberg and Barnes hit what can best be described as the Confederate iceberg.
It can, and must be done. Together, freedom loving people cannot be defeated, but we all must do something; doing nothing is not an option. Whatever you can do, do it, whatever you can afford, give it, write, speak, act, the time is now.
All of us call upon the leaders of the Southern Movement to put aside personal disputes and
formulate a program of action that will focus the movement and move it forward to victory.
Here is a list of actions that the wonderful Lincoln has done to benefit this great nation... actions deserving of such high admiration and respect:
* jailed 43,000 without specification of charges or a trial
* ordered illegal invasion for conquest
* openly violated the Constitution 11 times
* rewarded burning, pillage and rape with promotions
* refused medical supplies to his own troops
* would not receive Union prisoners even with no
exchange asked
* ordered war measures against defenseless women and
children
* approved women and children loaded on box cars and
sent to concentration camps
* ordered the massacre of Native Americans
* withheld food to starving prisoners
* illegally confiscated private property
WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE LINCOLN IS A HERO?
It is because their entire lives they have been told he "freed the slaves" and "saved" the Union. When these statements are examined in the light of actual fact it is easy to see that neither are true.
I. SAVING THE UNION?:
In order to determine if Lincoln saved the Union - the Union must first be defined. The Union, as created by the Founding Fathers, was a group of free and independent States that delegated certain defined and specific powers to their common agent - the federal government - and retained the remaining powers for themselves. The States did this on a voluntary basis and entered the agreement to form the Union by their own free consent. The Declaration of Independence states " That to secure these Rights ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ) Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government... "This was the principal on which the Confederacy was based. It is easy to see consent is central to the idea of American Liberty. Did Lincoln honor this principal? NO. He used military force to impose government a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Did Lincoln understand his actions were a violation of this principal? YES. In his first Inaugural Address he stated "We denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes" This armed invasion is exactly what Lincoln caused to happen. By his own words he is a criminal. Lincoln made war against the idea of "Government of the People, by the People and for the People. " In a moral and legal sense there is no difference between the invasion of France by Hitler and the invasion the Southern States by Lincoln.
II. FREEING THE SLAVES?:
It is said that the. slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. While it is true Lincoln did make such a proclamation, as a matter of law the proclamation freed no slaves held in either the North or the South. Why - because slavery was recognized in the United States Constitution and-only an Amendment to the Constitution can change the Constitution. Lincoln admitted this in his first. Inaugural Address when he stated " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,. to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. " When he said he had no lawful right he was correct and understood the Constitution recognized slavery and he could not himself change it. Slavery had been protected by acts of the Federal Congress and the United States Supreme Court and Lincoln lacked the lawful authority to change those acts. So, why did he make a proclamation he knew to be unlawful? It was purely for propaganda purposes He wished to complicate the relations the Confederacy was developing with England and France and to add, what he hoped, would be a cause that would inspire the sinking morale of the North. This was much like Hitler claiming his invasion of the countries neighboring Germany was to "save the world from communism". It was the official policy of the United States Government that the war was not about slavery. If it had been the war would have been prosecuted in direct violation of the Constitution and Supreme Court and been illegal. Thus the claim Lincoln freed the slaves is purely propaganda designed to give a false moral justification for the war crimes committed by the military and government led by Lincoln.
The result of Lincoln's treason was the destruction of the Constitutional Republic created by the Founding Fathers and its replacement with a government based on force and intimidation. Exactly the type of government the Founding Fathers fought against in the American Revolution. The ideal of Liberty and government based on consent died with the military defeat of the Confederacy. One day it will rise again!
COURTESY OF THE ST. ALBANS RAIDERS
* jailed 43,000 without specification of charges or a trial
* ordered illegal invasion for conquest
* openly violated the Constitution 11 times
* rewarded burning, pillage and rape with promotions
* refused medical supplies to his own troops
* would not receive Union prisoners even with no
exchange asked
* ordered war measures against defenseless women and
children
* approved women and children loaded on box cars and
sent to concentration camps
* ordered the massacre of Native Americans
* withheld food to starving prisoners
* illegally confiscated private property
WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE LINCOLN IS A HERO?
It is because their entire lives they have been told he "freed the slaves" and "saved" the Union. When these statements are examined in the light of actual fact it is easy to see that neither are true.
I. SAVING THE UNION?:
In order to determine if Lincoln saved the Union - the Union must first be defined. The Union, as created by the Founding Fathers, was a group of free and independent States that delegated certain defined and specific powers to their common agent - the federal government - and retained the remaining powers for themselves. The States did this on a voluntary basis and entered the agreement to form the Union by their own free consent. The Declaration of Independence states " That to secure these Rights ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ) Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government... "This was the principal on which the Confederacy was based. It is easy to see consent is central to the idea of American Liberty. Did Lincoln honor this principal? NO. He used military force to impose government a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Did Lincoln understand his actions were a violation of this principal? YES. In his first Inaugural Address he stated "We denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes" This armed invasion is exactly what Lincoln caused to happen. By his own words he is a criminal. Lincoln made war against the idea of "Government of the People, by the People and for the People. " In a moral and legal sense there is no difference between the invasion of France by Hitler and the invasion the Southern States by Lincoln.
II. FREEING THE SLAVES?:
It is said that the. slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. While it is true Lincoln did make such a proclamation, as a matter of law the proclamation freed no slaves held in either the North or the South. Why - because slavery was recognized in the United States Constitution and-only an Amendment to the Constitution can change the Constitution. Lincoln admitted this in his first. Inaugural Address when he stated " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,. to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. " When he said he had no lawful right he was correct and understood the Constitution recognized slavery and he could not himself change it. Slavery had been protected by acts of the Federal Congress and the United States Supreme Court and Lincoln lacked the lawful authority to change those acts. So, why did he make a proclamation he knew to be unlawful? It was purely for propaganda purposes He wished to complicate the relations the Confederacy was developing with England and France and to add, what he hoped, would be a cause that would inspire the sinking morale of the North. This was much like Hitler claiming his invasion of the countries neighboring Germany was to "save the world from communism". It was the official policy of the United States Government that the war was not about slavery. If it had been the war would have been prosecuted in direct violation of the Constitution and Supreme Court and been illegal. Thus the claim Lincoln freed the slaves is purely propaganda designed to give a false moral justification for the war crimes committed by the military and government led by Lincoln.
The result of Lincoln's treason was the destruction of the Constitutional Republic created by the Founding Fathers and its replacement with a government based on force and intimidation. Exactly the type of government the Founding Fathers fought against in the American Revolution. The ideal of Liberty and government based on consent died with the military defeat of the Confederacy. One day it will rise again!
COURTESY OF THE ST. ALBANS RAIDERS
Greg Hanson=D________.
Thats the same type of guy that got the South burned to the ground the first time.
I may agree with some of his views, but his approach, well, hes off his rocker.
Thats the same type of guy that got the South burned to the ground the first time.
I may agree with some of his views, but his approach, well, hes off his rocker.
I have alittle trouble with agreeing that slavery was a dying issue. To me it seems that before the invention of the cotton gin it was dying out but once it was invented plantation owners saw they could work more ground so they increased the demand for slaves. To me it just seems slavery played a bigger part then people believe or want to believe it did. I believe why many of the Southern officers wanted to free the slaves and enlist them was because they knew they needed soliders. And many of the Southern officers were brilliant military officers. I don't know if that really means they were against slavery or were just being shrewd to hide it (much like Linclon was shrewd enough to hide somethings).
Would you include groups and leaders like Quantrill in your southern history? Quantrill killed 150 civilians and burned over 200 buildings in his raid on Lawerence in 1863. Or the Marais des Cygnes Massacre in 1858. Where 30 or so pro-slavery men killed 11 free-state men. Granted there were similiar acts by free-staters and others against Missouri and pro-slavery men. I can think of atleast one insistance where like 10 or so pro-slavery men were killed by free-staters. Just dont remember all the details.
Just curious as to your thoughts or opinions on these type of people that were on the side of the CSA, since you have pointed out a few of the crimes committed by Linclon and other Union leaders.
I just found another interesting thing or two. In 1857 at the Lecompton Constitutional Convention, pro-slavery leaders tried to pass a consitution to get Kansas accepted as a state. Even tho it was never passed at the national level, it had protected slavery in Kansas no matter how the people of Kansas voted. Free-state leaders refused to take part in the convention as they believed it was an illegal gov't.
I wasn't making a comparison to anything really, as far as causlty counts or reasons why they did it. Just wondered if you would include it or sweep it under the rug like you claim the gov't has done with Linclon and other Union leaders. At the Lecompton Constitutional Convention it seems the pro-slavery leaders did a fair job at trampling on the constitution by protecting slavery in Kansas no matter how the people voted. But thats just my opinion.
And let's not forget Andersonville either. There was a nice little show of southern hospitality.
LET ME RESTATE IT AGAIN: I don't need all the extra stuff about how Linclon encouraged this or caused this. Or quotes about this and that. I know about the total war Linclon, Sherman, and other Union leaders use. I'm not compairing any of it to anything else any one Union leader did. I'm not defending what any one Union leader did. Just answer would you or would you not include that in your southern history. Since you guys are so good at pointing out the flaws in the Union. If you want the truth to be told, the good and the bad points need to be out there too.
I can play the repeat game too. But I'll just save myself the trouble of changing the words or who says it.
Would you include groups and leaders like Quantrill in your southern history? Quantrill killed 150 civilians and burned over 200 buildings in his raid on Lawerence in 1863. Or the Marais des Cygnes Massacre in 1858. Where 30 or so pro-slavery men killed 11 free-state men. Granted there were similiar acts by free-staters and others against Missouri and pro-slavery men. I can think of atleast one insistance where like 10 or so pro-slavery men were killed by free-staters. Just dont remember all the details.
Just curious as to your thoughts or opinions on these type of people that were on the side of the CSA, since you have pointed out a few of the crimes committed by Linclon and other Union leaders.
I just found another interesting thing or two. In 1857 at the Lecompton Constitutional Convention, pro-slavery leaders tried to pass a consitution to get Kansas accepted as a state. Even tho it was never passed at the national level, it had protected slavery in Kansas no matter how the people of Kansas voted. Free-state leaders refused to take part in the convention as they believed it was an illegal gov't.
I wasn't making a comparison to anything really, as far as causlty counts or reasons why they did it. Just wondered if you would include it or sweep it under the rug like you claim the gov't has done with Linclon and other Union leaders. At the Lecompton Constitutional Convention it seems the pro-slavery leaders did a fair job at trampling on the constitution by protecting slavery in Kansas no matter how the people voted. But thats just my opinion.
And let's not forget Andersonville either. There was a nice little show of southern hospitality.
LET ME RESTATE IT AGAIN: I don't need all the extra stuff about how Linclon encouraged this or caused this. Or quotes about this and that. I know about the total war Linclon, Sherman, and other Union leaders use. I'm not compairing any of it to anything else any one Union leader did. I'm not defending what any one Union leader did. Just answer would you or would you not include that in your southern history. Since you guys are so good at pointing out the flaws in the Union. If you want the truth to be told, the good and the bad points need to be out there too.
I can play the repeat game too. But I'll just save myself the trouble of changing the words or who says it.
rebel_horseman,
Your arguments, whether they ARE yours or not, are well taken, and on several points I believe that you are correct. In fact I think that Abraham Lincoln would agree as well on several points. However, I think that you have forgotten something.
You bring us "The Declaration of Independence states " That to secure these Rights ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ) Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government... "This was the principal on which the Confederacy was based. It is easy to see consent is central to the idea of American Liberty".
The phrasing "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" implies that ALL who are governed, not all who vote, not all who are chosen to lead, not all those who are this or that sympathetic, to or fro, must have the ability to grant governmental power by consent. This lofty goal must extend to to the slaves of the south as well and nowhere in any southern declaration of independence or secession are those slaves given the right of choice to consent, are they? None of the verbage about this or that great southerner who did not own slaves or who would free his own slaves or any of that stuff above means anything if it ain't written down as the intention of the proposed new government(S).
That Lincoln did not save the union is arguable, so is whether or not he freed the slaves. (you don't have to be granted the right to vote to be free) It seems that he agreed that a state had the right to chose to secede from the union but he could not allow such a state to take along hostages.
Your arguments, whether they ARE yours or not, are well taken, and on several points I believe that you are correct. In fact I think that Abraham Lincoln would agree as well on several points. However, I think that you have forgotten something.
You bring us "The Declaration of Independence states " That to secure these Rights ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ) Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government... "This was the principal on which the Confederacy was based. It is easy to see consent is central to the idea of American Liberty".
The phrasing "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" implies that ALL who are governed, not all who vote, not all who are chosen to lead, not all those who are this or that sympathetic, to or fro, must have the ability to grant governmental power by consent. This lofty goal must extend to to the slaves of the south as well and nowhere in any southern declaration of independence or secession are those slaves given the right of choice to consent, are they? None of the verbage about this or that great southerner who did not own slaves or who would free his own slaves or any of that stuff above means anything if it ain't written down as the intention of the proposed new government(S).
That Lincoln did not save the union is arguable, so is whether or not he freed the slaves. (you don't have to be granted the right to vote to be free) It seems that he agreed that a state had the right to chose to secede from the union but he could not allow such a state to take along hostages.
Last edited:
ndurbin... yes Quantrill would most definately be included in Southern history. As was stated before, he led a retaliatory raid in response to Union moves... . mcoleman stated this. He also led many other campaigns against Union forces.
You love to point to Andersonville. At least the Union soldiers were not deliberately tortured and killed. Yes, it was a bad deal, but so was all the Union concentration camps. But it's ALL still part of the history of this conflict.
KRS... my arguments are mine in the sense that I take quotes and research from multiple other sources and form my own opinion. I tend to quote "The South Was Right!" alot because it's an excellent compilation of facts in one spot. However, my opinion on The War of Northern Aggression long before I knew there was an SCV and before the Kennedy brothers wrote that book.
I agree with your point, but one must place himself in the mentality of the framers of the Declaration of Independence, and not that of modern day society where everyone should be equal... the mentality of the late 1700's until the mid 1800's. I believe that they viewed slaves as property rather than a people to be governed. It's a gray area nonetheless, but from what I've read and studied, the consent of the governed meant the people's of the states that voted and contributed to society and not the property they owned. But like I said that's my opinion.
You love to point to Andersonville. At least the Union soldiers were not deliberately tortured and killed. Yes, it was a bad deal, but so was all the Union concentration camps. But it's ALL still part of the history of this conflict.
KRS... my arguments are mine in the sense that I take quotes and research from multiple other sources and form my own opinion. I tend to quote "The South Was Right!" alot because it's an excellent compilation of facts in one spot. However, my opinion on The War of Northern Aggression long before I knew there was an SCV and before the Kennedy brothers wrote that book.
I agree with your point, but one must place himself in the mentality of the framers of the Declaration of Independence, and not that of modern day society where everyone should be equal... the mentality of the late 1700's until the mid 1800's. I believe that they viewed slaves as property rather than a people to be governed. It's a gray area nonetheless, but from what I've read and studied, the consent of the governed meant the people's of the states that voted and contributed to society and not the property they owned. But like I said that's my opinion.
We probably love to point to Andersonville and people like Quantrill as much as you guys love to point to Linclon.
I've done alittle research on when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Which was on May 10th, 1861. What caused Lincoln to issue the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was when the 6th Maryland Reg. was traveling to Washington from Maryland. They were met by an angry (pro-South) mob at a train station in Baltimore that stood in their way of their march to another train station across the city. The troops were forced to fight their way across the city and in the process 4 of them were killed. When the troops got on the train and left, the local Baltimore authorities had the brdiges leading to Washington bruned and the telegraph lines cut incase they come back.
Does this meet the constitutional requirement to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Lets look at what the constitution says about the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Article 1
Section 9
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Was this clearly a case of rebellion or Invasion? I believe it is.
Now the issue of did Lincoln have the authority to suspend it. No I don't believe he did. If you examine the constitution the section about the suspension of Habeas Corpus is in Article 1 of the constitution. Article 1 deals with the powers granted to the Congress of the United States. So to me that means only Congress has the right to issue the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Do I believe Lincoln had much choice on suspending it? No I really don't think he did. At the time Congress was out of session until July 4th and Washington was indanger of being completely cut-off and isolated. Since Virginia had troops massing at Harper's Ferry and Maryland was indanger of joing the CSA. Does this make it legal? No, I can just see his justification for issueing it.
Later on in 1863 he was granted the right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus by Congress. There was a study published fairly recently called the "The Fate of Liberty" by Mark Neely. The study looked into how Lincoln enforced the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus after it was granted to him in 1863 by congress. Heres the link to the website where it is quoted by Justice O'Connor in his remarks on the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/841738/posts.
In summary No I don't think Lincoln had the legal or constitutional right to suspend it but, I can see the justicifaction behind him issueing it.
I've done alittle research on when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Which was on May 10th, 1861. What caused Lincoln to issue the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was when the 6th Maryland Reg. was traveling to Washington from Maryland. They were met by an angry (pro-South) mob at a train station in Baltimore that stood in their way of their march to another train station across the city. The troops were forced to fight their way across the city and in the process 4 of them were killed. When the troops got on the train and left, the local Baltimore authorities had the brdiges leading to Washington bruned and the telegraph lines cut incase they come back.
Does this meet the constitutional requirement to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Lets look at what the constitution says about the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Article 1
Section 9
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Was this clearly a case of rebellion or Invasion? I believe it is.
Now the issue of did Lincoln have the authority to suspend it. No I don't believe he did. If you examine the constitution the section about the suspension of Habeas Corpus is in Article 1 of the constitution. Article 1 deals with the powers granted to the Congress of the United States. So to me that means only Congress has the right to issue the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Do I believe Lincoln had much choice on suspending it? No I really don't think he did. At the time Congress was out of session until July 4th and Washington was indanger of being completely cut-off and isolated. Since Virginia had troops massing at Harper's Ferry and Maryland was indanger of joing the CSA. Does this make it legal? No, I can just see his justification for issueing it.
Later on in 1863 he was granted the right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus by Congress. There was a study published fairly recently called the "The Fate of Liberty" by Mark Neely. The study looked into how Lincoln enforced the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus after it was granted to him in 1863 by congress. Heres the link to the website where it is quoted by Justice O'Connor in his remarks on the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/841738/posts.
In summary No I don't think Lincoln had the legal or constitutional right to suspend it but, I can see the justicifaction behind him issueing it.
rebel_horseman,
Thank you for your measured response.
When you say "but one must place himself in the mentality of the framers of the Declaration of Independence, and not that of modern day society where everyone should be equal... the mentality of the late 1700's until the mid 1800's. I believe that they viewed slaves as property rather than a people to be governed I have to disagree. The wording of the Declaration is that "All men are created equal" and could not be clearer than that. The framers did not define a difference between slaves and men, and when you go on to say "the consent of the governed meant the people's of the states that voted and contributed to society and not the property they owned" I will ask do you mean that you believe that the framers intent was to exclude not only slaves from their consideration but also women, children, and any other catagory not granted the right to vote? We know that they could not have meant that, and so we have to also acknowledge that by "all men" they meant all of those who would populate this then new organization.
But doesn't this aspect of discussion lead us astray? To hear us talk a reader might form the conclusion that the civil war was about slavery, God forbid.
Thank you for your measured response.
When you say "but one must place himself in the mentality of the framers of the Declaration of Independence, and not that of modern day society where everyone should be equal... the mentality of the late 1700's until the mid 1800's. I believe that they viewed slaves as property rather than a people to be governed I have to disagree. The wording of the Declaration is that "All men are created equal" and could not be clearer than that. The framers did not define a difference between slaves and men, and when you go on to say "the consent of the governed meant the people's of the states that voted and contributed to society and not the property they owned" I will ask do you mean that you believe that the framers intent was to exclude not only slaves from their consideration but also women, children, and any other catagory not granted the right to vote? We know that they could not have meant that, and so we have to also acknowledge that by "all men" they meant all of those who would populate this then new organization.
But doesn't this aspect of discussion lead us astray? To hear us talk a reader might form the conclusion that the civil war was about slavery, God forbid.
Originally posted by KRS
To hear us talk a reader might form the conclusion that the civil war was about slavery, God forbid.
Shhhhhhh, we dont want that rumor to get started :-laf
I have pondered that myself, and my opinion is that they did not consider Africans men, but animals, beasts of burden, at that point in time.
I would imagine, that that point of view, started to crumble about the time the South made laws against teaching slaves to read and write.
How could animals be taught to read and write? Prolly skeered em half to death when they realized the slaves were smarter than the owners.
More ignorance on the slave owners part, once again.
Heres a question:How many slave owners fought in the war?
"There were nearly 3000 black troops in 1 Confederate unit alone"
This is a claim that is much in dispute. While it is clear that blacks served as cooks, teamsters, and other laborers there is less evidence of their incorporporation into combat units. There are individual cases, and there may have been larger numbers of freed slaves volunteering in independent militia units but blacks were prevented by law from enlisting in the confederate regular army.
At least that's the short version of the story in this source:
http://www.africana.com/archive/dailyarticles/index_20010410.asp
From another:
African Americans In The confederacy
Some blacks aided the south. House servants, as opposed to the field hands, tended to be treated as an extension of the plantation owner's family, so when the master went to war he frequently took along a faithful servant to cook and care for him. Planters leased gangs of their field workers to the army to construct fortifications, like Fort Pulaski, defending Southern cities. Atlanta's defenses were principally built by slave labor. Black men were often employed by the Confederate army as laborers, cooks, body servants and teamster ( or wagon masters/drivers).
Contrary to belief many blacks remained in the South. They were reluctant to leave the only family, the only life they's known.
As the war dragged on, exhausting the south's white manpower, one general, Patrick R. Cleburne, made the highly controversial suggestion that slaves be conscripted as Confederate soldiers to be rewarded with freedom after the South won. But this idea was ordered suppressed by the Confederate government.
Finally, in 1865, with the Confederacy on the verge of destruction, General Robert E. Lee urged his government to enlist black men.
The Confederate Congress authorized that slaves be armed, and a few units were organized, but the war ended before they fought.
This is a claim that is much in dispute. While it is clear that blacks served as cooks, teamsters, and other laborers there is less evidence of their incorporporation into combat units. There are individual cases, and there may have been larger numbers of freed slaves volunteering in independent militia units but blacks were prevented by law from enlisting in the confederate regular army.
At least that's the short version of the story in this source:
http://www.africana.com/archive/dailyarticles/index_20010410.asp
From another:
African Americans In The confederacy
Some blacks aided the south. House servants, as opposed to the field hands, tended to be treated as an extension of the plantation owner's family, so when the master went to war he frequently took along a faithful servant to cook and care for him. Planters leased gangs of their field workers to the army to construct fortifications, like Fort Pulaski, defending Southern cities. Atlanta's defenses were principally built by slave labor. Black men were often employed by the Confederate army as laborers, cooks, body servants and teamster ( or wagon masters/drivers).
Contrary to belief many blacks remained in the South. They were reluctant to leave the only family, the only life they's known.
As the war dragged on, exhausting the south's white manpower, one general, Patrick R. Cleburne, made the highly controversial suggestion that slaves be conscripted as Confederate soldiers to be rewarded with freedom after the South won. But this idea was ordered suppressed by the Confederate government.
Finally, in 1865, with the Confederacy on the verge of destruction, General Robert E. Lee urged his government to enlist black men.
The Confederate Congress authorized that slaves be armed, and a few units were organized, but the war ended before they fought.
Last edited by a moderator:
“Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.”
Quote: William Tecumseh Sherman
At one time, sherman had what we call today a nervous breakdown. A newspaper reporter said that he must be crazy. He wasnt crazy.
Sled Dog, again you've brought up information that is at the very least tainted, usually highly inaccurate. This proves once again that if you want to find something on the internet that seems to back up anything you want it to, you can find it. No matter how inaccurate and loony it may be.
Sled Dog, you spend way to much time on the internet. You need to get a life buddy.
Ah, Excuse Me.
Also, http://blackconfederatestruth.blogspot.com/
Official records say
The Official Records constitute the most extensive collection of primary sources of the history of the war. They include selected first-hand accounts, orders, reports, maps, diagrams, and correspon...dence drawn from War and Navy Department records of both Confederate and Union governments.
Official Records, Vol. XIII, Chapter XXV, pg. 688 - "...We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the rebellion." - September, 1862
Official Records, Correspondence, Etc., Vol. II, pg. 218 - "...they [the Confederacy] have, by means of sweeping conscription, gathered in countless hordes, and threaten to overwhelm the armies of the Union, with blood and treason in their hearts. They flaunt the black flag of rebellion in the face of the Government, and threaten to butcher our brave and loyal armies with foreign bayonets. They arm negroes and merciless savages in their behalf." - July 11, 1862 - Rich D. Yates, Governor of Illinois
Official Records, Series I, Vol. XVII, Chapter XXIX, Pg. 635-637 - December 28, 1863 - "...It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy's sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men...The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. - Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding"
So Much B.S. remember the movie, "Glory"
Last edited by a moderator:
You in your own words defend and support a man who is Responsible for the MURDER of Innocent Women and Children.
People that he is trying Force to be his own countrymen.
I suggest you don't attempt to lecture Anyone on what is Crazy, Inaccurate or Loony.
Similar threads
- Locked
Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002)
2001.5 Drivetrain Build (Long)
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
