Memphis Mayor Wants to Dig Up Dead Confederate War General
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Tidewater and others: Thanks so much for the thoughtful and otherwise rare insights you provide.
Very few if any has a clue about the history of the South, slavery or the Civil War and its causes. 99% of comments over the flag are solely due to current social media blog writers who just want to flame the issue.. All those who voiced comments that the flag and monuments need to go only spout facts gleaned off that social media.
To me the Battle flag was never about racism. It was our symbol of defiance against the tyranny imposed on us by the North. Hate groups picked it up more for the rebel defiance than a race issue. Blacks just need something or someone to constantly blame for the plight in life. I grew up with many and all I heard from childhood was how the white man kept holding them down. Very few could see beyond that barrier or search out the real truth. So a deranged punk has a dime store rebel flag and social media says its racist. Flag has to go. Everyone jumps on the wagon to secure their votes thinking that one thing will satisfy the mob. Not likely. Once we caved in the monuments are next followed by roads, schools, then graveyards once we lose that then The American Flag is next. By the way Roof was wearing a Golds Gym shirt so if the flag goes then they need to go as well. I see blacks are taking to defiling the monuments. I guarantee if someone spray painted MLK in Washington on the King Center in Atlanta the second Civil War would be on.
Looks like history does repeat itself. The attitudes today parallel many of those the South was enduring in the late 1850's. If these critics had any knowledge of history they might remember another bunch of rebels called patriots took up arms against the tyrannical actions put upon them by England resulting in the formation of America. By the way slavery was in full bloom in the North prior to the Revolutionary War. That changed once the North became industrialized and cheaper labor was pouring in from Europe. The South was just beginning to blossom their agrarian wealth and needed labor to run their farm. The North had enough of the slaves so they sold them to the South. By the way the largest slave market was in Washington, DC. Lincoln, Grant, PA Quakers and many more Northerners all owned slaves before, during and after the war. But the South was making too much money from foreign imports to Lincoln imposed tariff increases that he pledged to enforce with federal troops thus the reason they were in Ft. Sumter. When Lincoln was elected the South knew it would get worse so as provided by the Constitution and to save their economy albeit on the backs of slaves they seceded. The South never wanted war with the North they just wanted to run their state under their rules and not the political whims of the North.
Until we stand together and say this racism issue stops here we are not destroying our heritage believe me it will only get worse.
To me the Battle flag was never about racism. It was our symbol of defiance against the tyranny imposed on us by the North. Hate groups picked it up more for the rebel defiance than a race issue. Blacks just need something or someone to constantly blame for the plight in life. I grew up with many and all I heard from childhood was how the white man kept holding them down. Very few could see beyond that barrier or search out the real truth. So a deranged punk has a dime store rebel flag and social media says its racist. Flag has to go. Everyone jumps on the wagon to secure their votes thinking that one thing will satisfy the mob. Not likely. Once we caved in the monuments are next followed by roads, schools, then graveyards once we lose that then The American Flag is next. By the way Roof was wearing a Golds Gym shirt so if the flag goes then they need to go as well. I see blacks are taking to defiling the monuments. I guarantee if someone spray painted MLK in Washington on the King Center in Atlanta the second Civil War would be on.
Looks like history does repeat itself. The attitudes today parallel many of those the South was enduring in the late 1850's. If these critics had any knowledge of history they might remember another bunch of rebels called patriots took up arms against the tyrannical actions put upon them by England resulting in the formation of America. By the way slavery was in full bloom in the North prior to the Revolutionary War. That changed once the North became industrialized and cheaper labor was pouring in from Europe. The South was just beginning to blossom their agrarian wealth and needed labor to run their farm. The North had enough of the slaves so they sold them to the South. By the way the largest slave market was in Washington, DC. Lincoln, Grant, PA Quakers and many more Northerners all owned slaves before, during and after the war. But the South was making too much money from foreign imports to Lincoln imposed tariff increases that he pledged to enforce with federal troops thus the reason they were in Ft. Sumter. When Lincoln was elected the South knew it would get worse so as provided by the Constitution and to save their economy albeit on the backs of slaves they seceded. The South never wanted war with the North they just wanted to run their state under their rules and not the political whims of the North.
Until we stand together and say this racism issue stops here we are not destroying our heritage believe me it will only get worse.
And certainly more truthful than what has been (re)written for the history books currently in many schools across the country.
TIDE-HSV not sure if your comment was meant to be sincere or critical or sarcastic. I took as one of the latter two. I did not write history either but the facts are there if you are willing to open minded and research it.
Why current blacks want to be called African American has always been an interesting question. Their African leaders were thrilled to sell them into slavery as they were either criminals or rivals to their leadership. Africa did not want them back. Most likely the Dutch were the first slave vessels taking the first slaves to England and Europe. When the colonies opened blacks first came to America in 1620. They landed in the North. There was no South in 1620 it was still wilderness mostly occupied by American Indians. Every Northern territory or state held slaves. They needed all the labor they could muster to turn the land into farming just to survive. The North held their slaves until shortly after the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. The South really got going after the American Revolution and like the 1620 North needed labor to develop so the North found the avenue to divest most of their slaves into the South. North and South profited from the relationship but the South was developing trade with foreign countries like France and Germany among others and the North started to see their revenues dwindle. The South soon found out what the North already knew slaves are hard to keep on the farm. The North encourages runaways but hoped they would populate the new territories in the West and not the North. Imagine this problems developed. Border wars in what is now Missouri, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska were erupting. Enter compromise. North agreed to allow the border states to choose if they wanted slaves. The South agreed but with a caveat thus the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Any person who aids or harbors a slave and refuses to return them to their owner was charged and fined. In that period the Dred Scot decision supported the slave act. Tensions grew worse. Enter the real cause of the Civil War M O N E Y. The North's treasury was declining. The South's was rising. So new tariffs were imposed on imported goods to the tune of 50%. Foreign countries retorted with their own tariffs. Brother Lincoln finally gets elected after three failed attempts. Forgetting the fact the Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern States. Lincoln told the South pay the tariffs or we will send troops to enforce it. Very few folks welcome a direct threat like that. Patriots told England to shove it when it was imposed on them which begs to wonder why the North was so surprised the South would balk. Those federal troops were stationed at Fort Sumter South Carolina.
The New Constitution written and signed by many who owned slaves allowed any state to secede legally if they felt oppressed. South Carolina took them up on it followed by nine other Southern states. Lincoln was not happy he pushed the issue with the troops. SC fired on Fort Sumter. The South never wanted a war. As Rhett Butler and all others knew you cannot win that conflict. Most of the better military men who defended Old Glory in the Mexican war and many who rounded up John Brown were Southerners. Most joined the cause for their respective states. Even though we were usually out numbered those generals knew how to fight and early on the South was surprisingly winning. Lincoln got nervous. He was losing. His first thought was to remove the slaves entirely from the continent. I know this one is hard for social media to swallow but Lincoln seriously proposed sending all the Black back to Africa or Central America. He had the financial support of the North to achieve this but, imagine this those pesky Northern blacks, 200K in the North and 15K in Washington DC all balked.
Enter Plan B. Lincoln would free the slaves. But he only freed the slaves in the seceded South. He did not free those in the North or western territories. He could not do that, hell his only family owned slaves as did his wife's family as well as his primary general Ulysses S. Grant. His idea punish the seceded South hoping the freed slaves would turn against the South. Oh he did free the slaves but they still could not own property nor could they vote. So you are a southern slave now you are free. Whoopee. I just got kicked off the plantation. I have no home, no work, no money and every southern citizen hates me. A situation that evolved into turmoil. Lincoln was just another politician using any means possible to get re-elected hiding under the moniker of "I am trying to save the Union".
South surrenders. North through carpetbaggers invade the destroyed South. Animosity grows. Hate is brewing more now that prior to secession. Blacks lived to trump it in the face of the defeated South. Nobody much cares for a bully right or wrong. Re-Construction is on. What a horrible word for a graft filled mess. Enter KKK among others. Two wrongs never make a right. So here we are in 2015. Tensions are worse now than even in the post war South. Blacks are still essentially slaves but instead of plantations it is welfare among other free programs. Democrats who supported slavery continue the practice advising those blacks just let the government take care of you. Blacks should have consulted the American Indians on that promise.
I do not know the answer to the current race issues. To me there are far too many irritants on both sides to have a working compromise. I do believe this if you cave into the demands of an irrational mob then there will be no end to their demands. To me race relations have worsened since Obama was elected. A lot of that is fueled with the internet and social media where everyone has an opinion. To achieve harmony concessions will be needed on both sides and not just from the South.
Why current blacks want to be called African American has always been an interesting question. Their African leaders were thrilled to sell them into slavery as they were either criminals or rivals to their leadership. Africa did not want them back. Most likely the Dutch were the first slave vessels taking the first slaves to England and Europe. When the colonies opened blacks first came to America in 1620. They landed in the North. There was no South in 1620 it was still wilderness mostly occupied by American Indians. Every Northern territory or state held slaves. They needed all the labor they could muster to turn the land into farming just to survive. The North held their slaves until shortly after the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. The South really got going after the American Revolution and like the 1620 North needed labor to develop so the North found the avenue to divest most of their slaves into the South. North and South profited from the relationship but the South was developing trade with foreign countries like France and Germany among others and the North started to see their revenues dwindle. The South soon found out what the North already knew slaves are hard to keep on the farm. The North encourages runaways but hoped they would populate the new territories in the West and not the North. Imagine this problems developed. Border wars in what is now Missouri, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska were erupting. Enter compromise. North agreed to allow the border states to choose if they wanted slaves. The South agreed but with a caveat thus the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Any person who aids or harbors a slave and refuses to return them to their owner was charged and fined. In that period the Dred Scot decision supported the slave act. Tensions grew worse. Enter the real cause of the Civil War M O N E Y. The North's treasury was declining. The South's was rising. So new tariffs were imposed on imported goods to the tune of 50%. Foreign countries retorted with their own tariffs. Brother Lincoln finally gets elected after three failed attempts. Forgetting the fact the Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern States. Lincoln told the South pay the tariffs or we will send troops to enforce it. Very few folks welcome a direct threat like that. Patriots told England to shove it when it was imposed on them which begs to wonder why the North was so surprised the South would balk. Those federal troops were stationed at Fort Sumter South Carolina.
The New Constitution written and signed by many who owned slaves allowed any state to secede legally if they felt oppressed. South Carolina took them up on it followed by nine other Southern states. Lincoln was not happy he pushed the issue with the troops. SC fired on Fort Sumter. The South never wanted a war. As Rhett Butler and all others knew you cannot win that conflict. Most of the better military men who defended Old Glory in the Mexican war and many who rounded up John Brown were Southerners. Most joined the cause for their respective states. Even though we were usually out numbered those generals knew how to fight and early on the South was surprisingly winning. Lincoln got nervous. He was losing. His first thought was to remove the slaves entirely from the continent. I know this one is hard for social media to swallow but Lincoln seriously proposed sending all the Black back to Africa or Central America. He had the financial support of the North to achieve this but, imagine this those pesky Northern blacks, 200K in the North and 15K in Washington DC all balked.
Enter Plan B. Lincoln would free the slaves. But he only freed the slaves in the seceded South. He did not free those in the North or western territories. He could not do that, hell his only family owned slaves as did his wife's family as well as his primary general Ulysses S. Grant. His idea punish the seceded South hoping the freed slaves would turn against the South. Oh he did free the slaves but they still could not own property nor could they vote. So you are a southern slave now you are free. Whoopee. I just got kicked off the plantation. I have no home, no work, no money and every southern citizen hates me. A situation that evolved into turmoil. Lincoln was just another politician using any means possible to get re-elected hiding under the moniker of "I am trying to save the Union".
South surrenders. North through carpetbaggers invade the destroyed South. Animosity grows. Hate is brewing more now that prior to secession. Blacks lived to trump it in the face of the defeated South. Nobody much cares for a bully right or wrong. Re-Construction is on. What a horrible word for a graft filled mess. Enter KKK among others. Two wrongs never make a right. So here we are in 2015. Tensions are worse now than even in the post war South. Blacks are still essentially slaves but instead of plantations it is welfare among other free programs. Democrats who supported slavery continue the practice advising those blacks just let the government take care of you. Blacks should have consulted the American Indians on that promise.
I do not know the answer to the current race issues. To me there are far too many irritants on both sides to have a working compromise. I do believe this if you cave into the demands of an irrational mob then there will be no end to their demands. To me race relations have worsened since Obama was elected. A lot of that is fueled with the internet and social media where everyone has an opinion. To achieve harmony concessions will be needed on both sides and not just from the South.
Probably just badly worded, on my part. There's no doubt that there is a lot of controversy about the causes of the war. Economic causes were part of the root, which is the reason that south and north Alabama differed sharply on secession initially, with the north voting "no," except for Calhoun County (which had a railroad to south Alabama) and the south half voting in favor. The north's economy was tied to the Tennessee River/Ohio system, so secession was, to a degree, cutting off their noses to spite their own faces. The north's heart was never in the war and that part of the state contributed large numbers of troops to the Union Army, including my male ancestors. You have worked out an extensive rationale which satisfies you and I don't really want to get into a point by point debate. No offense was intended - just not complete agreement...
I can't find anything about Lincoln owning slaves.
http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/learn/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm
Grant owned one slave that he freed in 1859. His wife's Father did own slaves.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...170035abretnuh3.838748e-02.html#axzz3eHpC1lbI
Pennsylvania Quakers did own slaves but by 1790 they were petitioning the US government to abolish slavery. Quakers were very active in the Underground Railroad helping escaped slaves.
Washington DC did indeed have a thriving slave market. The largest in the US was New Orleans. According to Wiki and many others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
Without a doubt slavery existed in the North and many seafarers made handsome profits transporting slaves.
However the Northern states had abolished slavery by 1804. Massachusetts by 1783. But there were some loopholes.
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slavery-gw-oney.htm
The Massachusetts Supreme Court abolished slavery in 1783, freeing everyone immediately. But most other Northern states steered a course between the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts models, setting a date, decades in the future, upon which all their enslaved would be free. The one exception to this was New Jersey, which copied the Pennsylvania model and freed only future children of the enslaved. Legal slavery ended in Pennsylvania in 1847, freeing the fewer than 100 enslaved who remained. Legal slavery ended in New Jersey in 1865, the same year that it ended in the Confederacy, freeing the fewer than 20 enslaved who remained.
Anything different? Post away..
http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/learn/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm
Grant owned one slave that he freed in 1859. His wife's Father did own slaves.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...170035abretnuh3.838748e-02.html#axzz3eHpC1lbI
Pennsylvania Quakers did own slaves but by 1790 they were petitioning the US government to abolish slavery. Quakers were very active in the Underground Railroad helping escaped slaves.
Washington DC did indeed have a thriving slave market. The largest in the US was New Orleans. According to Wiki and many others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
Without a doubt slavery existed in the North and many seafarers made handsome profits transporting slaves.
However the Northern states had abolished slavery by 1804. Massachusetts by 1783. But there were some loopholes.
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slavery-gw-oney.htm
The Massachusetts Supreme Court abolished slavery in 1783, freeing everyone immediately. But most other Northern states steered a course between the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts models, setting a date, decades in the future, upon which all their enslaved would be free. The one exception to this was New Jersey, which copied the Pennsylvania model and freed only future children of the enslaved. Legal slavery ended in Pennsylvania in 1847, freeing the fewer than 100 enslaved who remained. Legal slavery ended in New Jersey in 1865, the same year that it ended in the Confederacy, freeing the fewer than 20 enslaved who remained.
Anything different? Post away..
I would have guess that the largest US slave market in the 1850s was New Orleans. DC just would not make sense. Why take them so far out of the way? DC is not en route to anyplace where slavery was permitted. In 1860, one of Virginia's most valuable exports (to the other states of the Union) was slaves. Mostly headed south and west. Slaves lived in terror of their families being broken up by this process.
Northeastern states adopted gradual emancipation laws. All slaves born after a certain date (which varied from state to state) were freed when they reached a certain age (18 years in some, 21 in others, 25 in others). Many slaveowners in those states responded by selling their slaves south to avoid emancipation. So many did this, that Connecticut had to adopt a "no selling south" law. See Disowning Slavery by Joanne Pope Melish. She's very good.
The thing about emancipation that startles modern readers is that it was bad form to emancipate a very old slave. Once a slaveowner had used up a slave's economically useful life, that owner had a responsibility to care for that slave in his or her old age (not some slave retirement community with a golf course, think Uncle Remus in Song of the South: cabin, some clothing and a little food, plus tasks comemnsurate with his age). It was bad form to say "Happy 60th birthday. You're free. Now get off my property." Local communities since the Tudor days in England had helped the indigent and handicapped. If an able-bodied person did not have a job, the local authorities wanted to know what he was doing for a living (the implied suspicion was thieving for a living), that is why all states (north and south) had harsh vagrancy laws. Thus, local communities took a dim view of slaveowners emancipating old slaves, because they would end up on the county dole or just stealing for a living.
Northeastern states adopted gradual emancipation laws. All slaves born after a certain date (which varied from state to state) were freed when they reached a certain age (18 years in some, 21 in others, 25 in others). Many slaveowners in those states responded by selling their slaves south to avoid emancipation. So many did this, that Connecticut had to adopt a "no selling south" law. See Disowning Slavery by Joanne Pope Melish. She's very good.
The thing about emancipation that startles modern readers is that it was bad form to emancipate a very old slave. Once a slaveowner had used up a slave's economically useful life, that owner had a responsibility to care for that slave in his or her old age (not some slave retirement community with a golf course, think Uncle Remus in Song of the South: cabin, some clothing and a little food, plus tasks comemnsurate with his age). It was bad form to say "Happy 60th birthday. You're free. Now get off my property." Local communities since the Tudor days in England had helped the indigent and handicapped. If an able-bodied person did not have a job, the local authorities wanted to know what he was doing for a living (the implied suspicion was thieving for a living), that is why all states (north and south) had harsh vagrancy laws. Thus, local communities took a dim view of slaveowners emancipating old slaves, because they would end up on the county dole or just stealing for a living.
One thing that is funny is that Conecuh County in the deep south of Alabama voted against secession. I have no idea why. Something to do with local politics, I would guess.
I cannot even begin to fathom the stupidity involved in this topic. Did someone tell these people that by taking down a flag, destroying monuments and digging up graves they would erase what happened 160+ years ago?
I found this interesting. The bases are listed with a little history of each.
http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
But the U.S. Army certainly can give Columbia’s banner a run for its money: it operates posts named for nine Confederate generals and a colonel, including the head of its army, the reputed Georgia chief of the Ku Klux Klan and the commander whose troops fired the first shots of the Civil War.
U.S. Flag Waves Over 10 Army Bases Proudly Named for Confederate Officers
http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
But the U.S. Army certainly can give Columbia’s banner a run for its money: it operates posts named for nine Confederate generals and a colonel, including the head of its army, the reputed Georgia chief of the Ku Klux Klan and the commander whose troops fired the first shots of the Civil War.
Long time no see. Hope all is well.
As for a large portion wanting the South to leave - they mostly livein the South, but I digress.
And we who live in the South would like for all those "South haters" to leave. We don't need them here, and if they hate us so badly then they don't need to be here. We don't go to New York City and tell them how to run their lives, and we'll thank them to leave us and our heritage alone as well..Long time no see. Hope all is well.
As for a large portion wanting the South to leave - they mostly livein the South, but I digress.
Found this. http://slavenorth.com/
[FONT=verdana, arial] "The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]"
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial]"1. For Seward, see Doris Kearns Goodwin, "Team of Rivals" [Simon & Schuster, 2005], pp.30-31. For Lincoln: "RUN away on the 13th of September last from Abraham Lincoln of Springfield in the County of Chester, a Negro Man named Jack, about 30 Years of Age, low Stature, speaks little or no English, has a Scar by the Corner of one Eye, in the Form of a V, his Teeth notched, and the Top of one of his Fore Teeth broke; He had on when he went away an old Hat, a grey Jacket partly like a Sailor's Jacket. Whoever secures the said Negro and brings him to his Master, or to Mordecai Lincoln ... shall have Twenty Shillings Reward and reasonable Charges" [Pennsylvania Gazette, Oct. 15, 1730]. Mordecai Lincoln (1686-1736) was great-great-grandfather of President Lincoln."[/FONT]
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
