Confederate History Month

[AEON]

From Robert. E. Lee:

Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing...I am unable to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the Army, and save in the defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed) Robert E. Lee letter to his sister 1861

 

[AEON]

Its also a historical fact that Robert E. Lee led Marines to help put down the start of a slave revolt in Hapers Ferry Virginia.

Yes, United States Marines...

Well, the Union would say such a vote was illegal. .

Understood - hence the war that followed....

Its also true that he believed the institution of slavery was evil. He initially prefered a more gradual process to end it without a sudden action that could split the nation and cause a war. This would of course prove to be impossible. .

From what I've read this seems accurate. However, Lincoln and most of his cabinet certainly didn't see blacks as a potential equals to the whites, but that didn't mean they should be treated harshly. These men are on record as thinking it best that blacks found a home elsewhere.

Not necessarily. There was already violence in Kansas and Missouri over the issue which likely would have continued and could have grown. In addition, by 1900, 60% of the country(higher in the southern states) were still engaged in agriculture for a living. Even in 2010, mechanization has not replaced all manual labor jobs which are often filled by millions of illegal and legal imigrants from latin America.

Good point. What I meant to point out that the Civil War - as we know it - would not have occurred. Who can tell what would have happened down the line. It is interesting you mentioned Latin America - Brazil is currently accused of using slavery to supply sugar at competitive prices.

Even in the 21st century, there are still area's of the world where the institution of slavery still exists.

I agree. And what's being done about it? Where is the outrage?

I've not heard of this.

Here is a quote from Lincoln...

If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. Abraham Lincoln, speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854 .

Here is another Lincoln quote...

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation - Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857

And of course, from the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates...

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...
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position - Abraham Lincoln, August 21, 1858 (a few years before the Civil War)

That was only true of the original 13 colonies. States formed since the Revolution were formed on land owned by the United States government.

Are you then conceding the Southern states that were original colonies had a legitimate case for secession?

Not true. Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 alone led to more deaths than the US Civil War.

You are correct about total numbers. The book I was reading was referring to the casualty rate as a percentage of the male population compared to other wars. Even so - it is definitely the bloodiest American war with a casualty number higher than all our other wars combined. It would be the equivalent of losing about 5 million men in a war today.

Historical Fact: Lincoln said the following about slavery in his inaugural address in 1865: "All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war".

see above Lincoln comments form 1858...

 

[AEON]

--they're continuing the same devil's bargain their ancestors made, and they're accountable for the consequences of that--but I did always find it sad.

You are correct -this thread has veered off course a bit. However, I did think it was necessary to point out that the belief in the superiority of the white race was not limited to the ancestors of the present day-Southerners, but also the antebellum Northerners (and as I pointed - Abraham Lincoln).

 

[Strongbow]

From what I've read this seems accurate. However, Lincoln and most of his cabinet certainly didn't see blacks as a potential equals to the whites, but that didn't mean they should be treated harshly. These men are on record as thinking it best that blacks found a home elsewhere.

Well, eventually they did decide they were capable of helping fight the war and began to enlist them. Perhaps these individuals views on the issue were evolving at the time.

Again, shipping 3.5 million people to africa at the time is not something that was really feasible, so any statement to do that probably should not be taken seriously.

Here is a quote from Lincoln...

The quote starts off with: " If all earthly power were given me". This shows that Lincoln understood that such a thing was not really possible.

see above Lincoln comments form 1858...

A qoute in an inaugural address as President of the United States 7 years later should be given more emphasis. The experience and knowledge gained during those 7 years clearly influenced his view on the issue.

 

[AEON]

A qoute in an inaugural address as President of the United States 7 years later should be given more emphasis. The experience and knowledge gained during those 7 years clearly influenced his view on the issue.

I respectfully disagree. I think genuine motives are best understood from the rhetoric before the war, not after victory had been secured.

 

[Strongbow]

Are you then conceding the Southern states that were original colonies had a legitimate case for secession?

I think they have a case worth looking at compared to the other states that had none.

But when Andrew Jackson was President, the whole issue of states rights came up with South Carolina, with South Carolina claiming they had the right to ignore federal laws and succeed if need be. Andrew Jackson was ready to use military force with South Carolina over the issue, especially if it came to succession by South Carolina. South Carolina claimed the constitution gave them the right to ingore federal laws, but James Madison, the chief writer of the constitution, refuted that.

Many people forget that the Civil War almost happened in the 1830s while Andrew Jackson was President.

 

[AEON]

I think they have a case worth looking at compared to the other states that had none.

But when Andrew Jackson was President, the whole issue of states rights came up with South Carolina, with South Carolina claiming they had the right to ignore federal laws and succeed if need be. Andrew Jackson was ready to use military force with South Carolina over the issue, especially if it came to succession by South Carolina. South Carolina claimed the constitution gave them the right to ingore federal laws, but James Madison, the chief writer of the constitution, refuted that.

Many people forget that the Civil War almost happened in the 1830s while Andrew Jackson was President.

That South Carolina has always been a little rascal of a state...

Thanks for this response. It shows you know your history and I appreciate that.

 

[Strongbow]

I respectfully disagree. I think genuine motives are best understood from the rhetoric before the war, not after victory had been secured.

I don't think you can deny that what motivates someone can change over time. Experience and new knowledge can have an impact on ones thinking about certain issues. Abraham Lincoln was one of the least experienced Presidents in terms of holding elected office before he became President. I think the exposure to so much more information and knowledge as President had to have had an impact.

 

[financeguy]

I don't think you can deny that what motivates someone can change over time. Experience and new knowledge can have an impact on ones thinking about certain issues. Abraham Lincoln was one of the least experienced Presidents in terms of holding elected office before he became President. I think the exposure to so much more information and knowledge as President had to have had an impact.

Strongbow, do you think it is morally justifiable to sacrifice oneself for a country?

 

[financeguy]

As a general point, wars are mainly fought over land, resources, and the construct known as 'countries' or 'states', etc. No offense to anyone, but it strikes me as irrational to enlist in armies. Even in this recession-hit time, there are always other options and opportunities. In a globalised world, it is self-evident that a piece of land is no more than a construct.

Generally speaking, the people that are the strongest advocates for war have never actually fought in one - i.e., moral cowards.

 

[Strongbow]

Strongbow, do you think it is morally justifiable to sacrifice oneself for a country?

In a war? Unless one is a pacifist, the answer to this question is yes.

How is this question related to the issue of states rights and slavery?

 

[financeguy]

In a war? Unless one is a pacifist, the answer to this question is yes.

I am probably slow on the uptake.

Why is it morally correct to sacrifice oneself for a country?

 

[AEON]

Why is it morally correct to sacrifice oneself for a country?

I think the general idea is that it is considered honorable to set aside the fears of losing your own life in order to save the lives of others (which in your example, happens to be fellow countrymen)

Also, if another country’s army suddenly landed on your shores and began burning buildings and killing your neighbors – I’m guessing you might want to defend your life and the lives of your family.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I did think it was necessary to point out that the belief in the superiority of the white race was not limited to the ancestors of the present day-Southerners, but also the antebellum Northerners (and as I pointed - Abraham Lincoln).

Yeah-correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the KKK formed in Ohio? I know that group came a bit later, but still...

As a general point, wars are mainly fought over land, resources, and the construct known as 'countries' or 'states', etc. No offense to anyone, but it strikes me as irrational to enlist in armies. Even in this recession-hit time, there are always other options and opportunities. In a globalised world, it is self-evident that a piece of land is no more than a construct.

I fully agree with you on this. But I think most people who enlist don't actually think about things like land or resources. They mainly just do so because they want to protect their country from attackers, be they real or imagined. Then they get into the conflict, and realize they were way in over their heads, that it's not at all what they thought it would be.

Generally speaking, the people that are the strongest advocates for war have never actually fought in one - i.e., moral cowards.

That's certainly true. That's why I find it odd that McCain ran in 2008 on his war service to the point where he was almost bragging about it, all the while pushing for more of our time in the Middle East. Generally, as I understand it. most war veterans, especially ones who've been through the kind of hell McCain went through, rarely, if ever, talk about their service, and when they do, it's never in bragging terms. I remember reading magazines like Time and Newsweek prior to our going into Iraq, and there were LOTS of letters from WW2 veterans who were heavily against the idea. They've been there. They know what it's really like. And they don't want others to go through the same nightmare.

My dad also noted once that he found it rather funny that the Republicans were acting like they were the better choice in terms of how to handle national defense, because if you look back through our recent history, a lot of our wars were actually started by Democrats.

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

I am probably slow on the uptake.

Why is it morally correct to sacrifice oneself for a country?

It is morally correct to the degree that such a sacrifice will protect the lives, well being, and way of life of the citizens of that country.

 

[AEON]

It is morally correct to the degree that such a sacrifice will protect the lives, well being, and way of life of the citizens of that country.

And I think it is this sort of sacrifice that is what is being honored and "celebrated" in Virginia.

 

[financeguy]

I think the general idea is that it is considered honorable to set aside the fears of losing your own life in order to save the lives of others (which in your example, happens to be fellow countrymen)

But, considered honorable by whom? This is a subjective judgement, surely?

Also, if another country’s army suddenly landed on your shores and began burning buildings and killing your neighbors – I’m guessing you might want to defend your life and the lives of your family.

This is approaching a morally justifiable reason, in my view. But we both know, in the case of the US in particular, that there is little chance of this chain of events happening in actuality.

 

[financeguy]

It is morally correct to the degree that such a sacrifice will protect the lives, well being, and way of life of the citizens of that country.

Again, I am probably slow on the uptake.

Explain to me why it is morally correct to sacrifice one's own life and liberty for the sake of some rather vague and general concept of what you describe as the "lives, well being, and way of life of the citizens of that country"?

 

[financeguy]

Also, if another country’s army suddenly landed on your shores and began burning buildings and killing your neighbors – I’m guessing you might want to defend your life and the lives of your family.

Absolutely. And to be consistent, we both support the Iraqi resistance, right?

 

[financeguy]

I fully agree with you on this. But I think most people who enlist don't actually think about things like land or resources. They mainly just do so because they want to protect their country from attackers, be they real or imagined. Then they get into the conflict, and realize they were way in over their heads, that it's not at all what they thought it would be.

That's certainly true. That's why I find it odd that McCain ran in 2008 on his war service to the point where he was almost bragging about it, all the while pushing for more of our time in the Middle East. Generally, as I understand it. most war veterans, especially ones who've been through the kind of hell McCain went through, rarely, if ever, talk about their service, and when they do, it's never in bragging terms. I remember reading magazines like Time and Newsweek prior to our going into Iraq, and there were LOTS of letters from WW2 veterans who were heavily against the idea. They've been there. They know what it's really like. And they don't want others to go through the same nightmare.

My dad also noted once that he found it rather funny that the Republicans were acting like they were the better choice in terms of how to handle national defense, because if you look back through our recent history, a lot of our wars were actually started by Democrats.

Angela

Yep. Agreed on everything you said here. I have close family relatives that fought in WWII and they never bragged about it - they would have found it unseemly or arrogant to do so.

BTW, good to see you back posting.

 

[AEON]

But, considered honorable by whom? This is a subjective judgement, surely?

I agree that it is subjective, but a point of view shared by many and is probably a necessary component for the survival of many civilizations (for good or bad).

This is approaching a morally justifiable reason, in my view. But we both know, in the case of the US in particular, that there is little chance of this chain of events happening in actuality.

In the current day and age - this is true. However, I think this was the point of view of many Confederates (as the quote from Robert E. Lee in 1861 illustrates).

 

[AEON]

Absolutely. And to be consistent, we both support the Iraqi resistance, right?

I can certainly respect and empathize with an Iraqi resistance fighter. The good thing for us (the Americans) is that we pointed the finger at the Al Qaeda invaders from Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia...etc as their real enemy.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yep. Agreed on everything you said here. I have close family relatives that fought in WWII and they never bragged about it - they would have found it unseemly or arrogant to do so.

Same here. I had a grandfather who served in the second World War, and an uncle who served in Vietnam (that's another thing, too, McCain made a big thing about service in a war that pretty much nobody thinks of in favorable terms to begin with, so...go figure).

It is unseemly. I can't fathom thinking fondly upon such a horrific situation. And anyone who exploits those situations for political gain is a sick jerk (see Giuliani and his constant 9/11 stuff), and anyone who votes for someone like that needs a reality check.

BTW, good to see you back posting.

Thanks . Good to be back.

Angela

 

[AEON]

Here are some more quotes on the topic of the colonization of freed blacks...

...to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine...

that the President is hereby authorized to make provision for the transportation, colonization and settlement in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States, of such persons of African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate ... Confiscation Act of July 1862

I am gratified that the two principles of compensation, and colonization, are both recognized, and practically applied in the act - Abraham Lincoln upon signing the bill into law

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. Reverend James Mitchell 1862

Shortly after writing this, Mitchell was appointed Commissioner of Emigration by Lincoln.

There is also a good deal of literature about the "Chiriqui Plan"

 

[AEON]

It is my opinion that the resettlement effort failed because the Republicans needed the black votes to control the post-war South, and not out of some noble desire to see blacks live in equality.

 

[Vincent Vega]

And Mr. Vega,

The Holocaust was a failure of Christendom. At worst, church leaders and laity enthusiastically endorsed and were actively complicit in the rise of Nazism; at best, they silently acquiesced to its murderous agenda.

Oh well, that's not entirely true. The Red Chapel or the brothers Bonhoeffer and other religious people took an active role and sometimes used their powers to resist the powers, and gave their lives for it. So, at best they were actively or passively resisting.
After all, the church was just as split on the issue as was the rest of society. And no country is perfectly innocent either. Just think at how England and the US closed their borders to emigrating Jews, except they had money or knowledge, even when they knew what was dawning.
But the role of anti-semitism and hatred for Sinti and Roma within the Christian churches, hundreds of years old, certainly played a major part. And I would argue it was not very Christian-like when they embraced programs to kill all the disabled and underprivileged.

 

[AEON]

After all, the church was just as split on the issue as was the rest of society...

This is also the case of slavery in antebellum America - as well as the equality of the African-American.

 

[Strongbow]

Again, I am probably slow on the uptake.

Explain to me why it is morally correct to sacrifice one's own life and liberty for the sake of some rather vague and general concept of what you describe as the "lives, well being, and way of life of the citizens of that country"?

Again, your off topic and are obviously not going to agree with any more detailed of an explanation. My answer has not been any more general or vague than your question. I don't know if you agree with or understand the necessity of the work that police and fireman do in your community which might involve sacrifice. Thats on a local scale. On a national scale they may be needed as well as the military. On the international scale, action has proven necessary in the past by the military's of various countries to preserve the same stability, law, order that your local police and fire department attempt to do every day in your community. There are large differences in scale and the technical types of problems, but the idea is the same.

Now back to the topic of the thread!

 

[AEON]

...I don't know if you agree with or understand the necessity of the work that police and fireman do in your community which might involve sacrifice. Thats on a local scale. On a national scale they may be needed as well as the military. On the international scale, action has proven necessary in the past by the military's of various countries to preserve the same stability, law, order that your local police and fire department attempt to do every day in your community. There are large differences in scale and the technical types of problems, but the idea is the same.

Nicely put

 

[financeguy]

Absolutely. And to be consistent, we both support the Iraqi resistance, right?

I can certainly respect and empathize with an Iraqi resistance fighter. The good thing for us (the Americans) is that we pointed the finger at the Al Qaeda invaders from Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia...etc as their real enemy.

Of course, I was making a rhetorical point, as neither one of us supports the Iraqi resistance, though to be fair to you the majority of Iraq war supporters don't even seem able to make the distinction you just made, i.e., they see it thusly:

Iraq citizens who are against the invasion = bad eggs, terrorists
Iraqi citizens who are in favour of the invasion = good eggs, freedom lovers