0 votes
in Living by

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

40 Answers

0 votes
by
It's good to have a month about how awful racism, slavery, and treason are.
0 votes
by
firing on US soldiers by US citizens is an act of treason.
0 votes
by
I am knowledgeable enough of American history. The fact that ALL of the US once engaged in the slave trade does not excuse your bigotry.

This isn't about North VS south, it is about right and wrong. I don't care if the whole world owned slaves yesterday, it is still wrong. Pointing out the errors of the north, or Lincoln or black slave owners does nothing at all to excuse YOUR bigotry.

I'm a born and raised, lifelong southerner that "wasn't" steeped in the racist white culture of the south by my parents, but I know how racist it is because I lived there and interacted with other people. The south is in fact so racist that it can even cause minorities to become bigoted about their own ancestry, just so they can "fit in" with the racist white majority.

I love it when bigots try to defend their bigotry!

Hilarious!
0 votes
by
All that should be commemorated is the SURRENDER.

appomatax surrender confederate flag lincoln assassination april
0 votes
by
I do think that the ************* of Lincoln was the worst thing that could have happened to the South. It left the door wide open for the Northern carpetbaggers during the so called reconstruction period.. Had Lincoln lived, he would have gathered all the blacks and sent them to Liberia.
0 votes
by
Treasonous acts should not be celebrated.
0 votes
by
Treason, treason ,treason. Name one Confederate ever tried for TREASON or convicted. You can't because it never happened, so watch out about using the word TREASON !

The government appointed three separate attorneys to take on the case against Jefferson Davis, but all three eventually declined when they decided the case was “doomed to failure.” The following quote is attributed to one of those attorneys. “Gentleman, the Supreme Court of the United States will have to acquit that man under the Constitution, when it will be proven to the world, that the north waged an unconstitutional warfare against the south.”

The fact is, they didn't dare bring President Davis or Vice President Stephens (a brilliant attorney) to trial because together, they would have destroyed the government’s case against them.

“If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.” Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
0 votes
by
simply because they were not tried for treason doesn't mean the act wasn't treasonous. All it means is Presidents Lincoln and Johnson were forgiving men.
0 votes
by
“If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.” Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
0 votes
by
The CSA was a separate country. It had it's own President, it's own government, it's own army and navy, it had it's own currency for four years.

You are under the impression that secession is not constitutional. It was and is.
0 votes
by
<!-- <OBJECT orig_size="425x355" width="350" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="1430496307.43" height="292"><param name="allowNetworking" value="internal"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="never"><param name="enableJSURL" value="false"><param name="enableHREF" value="false"><param name="saveEmbedTags" value="true"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/XQmO-WfEkk4&amp;rel=1&amp;autoplay=0"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/XQmO-WfEkk4&amp;rel=1&amp;autoplay=0" allowNetworking="internal" wmode="transparent" allowScriptAccess="never" enableHREF="false" height="292" width="350" enableJSURL="false" autostart="false" orig_size="425x355" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></OBJECT> -->
image
0 votes
by
Who recognized this independent country? Certainly not England, Spain, France, or the USA.
0 votes
by
Brazil. The United Kingdom and France maintained consular offices in Charleston, St Louis and in Texas, but limited their activities to diplomatic protection of their own nationals.
0 votes
by
Bingo, not recognition of the sovereign CSA, just exactly what I was saying.
0 votes
by
and now its may!
0 votes
by
You're late for the party.
0 votes
by
yep,didn't get any share on it in april.
0 votes
by
If the true history of the Confederacy is taught, there is a valuable lesson in it that's already very obviously lost on this generation.
0 votes
by
You do realize slavery wasn't just a Southern thing ?
Boston was the birthplace of slavery in America, New York and Rhode Island were leading importers of slaves. The institution existed here for 100 years before any of the founders was born. All American slave ships left Northern Ports, with Northern Captains and Northern financing flying the US flag (never the Confederate flag).
Five of the first seven presidents owned slaves, 12 of the first 18 owned slaves, 8 owned slaves while in office and the last president to have owned slaves was U.S. Grant…
If the Yankees hadn’t brought the ******* here in the first place (making fortunes in the process), there may have been no slavery in this country.
0 votes
by
They are patriots. Confederate patriots.

As far as America is concerned, yes they are nothing but seditious morons!
0 votes
by
Since when is slavery & treason something to celebrate? It's perplexing that these folks have the nerve to consider themselves "patriots".
0 votes
by
..."The War was about slavery, really ?"....

Yes, really. Despite your revisionism, the fact is, that they did a pretty good job of keeping records back then.

Take South Carolina, for example. In their declaration of secession, they complained that several Northern states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” The laws mentioned, would have allowed slaves to stay as free men within their territories. They also complained that the North had “encouraged and ******** thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Mississippi's declaration was a bit more explicit. They openly that the their “position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”

On to Georgia, who cited a provision in “the Constitution [that] requires them [Northern states] to surrender fugitives from labor.”, They also criminalized runaway slaves from other states; “Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals [runaway slaves] who seek to ...













..."The War was about slavery, really ?"....

Yes, really. Despite your revisionism, the fact is, that they did a pretty good job of keeping records back then.

Take South Carolina, for example. In their declaration of secession, they complained that several Northern states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” The laws mentioned, would have allowed slaves to stay as free men within their territories. They also complained that the North had “encouraged and ******** thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Mississippi's declaration was a bit more explicit. They openly that the their “position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”

On to Georgia, who cited a provision in “the Constitution [that] requires them [Northern states] to surrender fugitives from labor.”, They also criminalized runaway slaves from other states; “Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals [runaway slaves] who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us.”

Texas (you're going to love this) apparently decided that no one was going to outdo them when it came to racism. Their declaration mentions slavery 21 times....

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

and...

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator."

Not only did nearly half on the confederate states cite slavery as their reasoning for seceding (actually, they bragged about it). And there's more...

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the ***** in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."-- confederate vice president, Alexander H Stephens

Once again, yes. the way was completely about slavery. This whole "states' rights" garbage continues to be nothing but a dishonest distraction by Southern sympathizers too embarrassed, or too cowardly to own up to the truth.
(more)
0 votes
by
Slavery?
"America was a slaveholding country — North and South," said." Cheryl LaRoche, a historical archaeologist at the University of Maryland.
"Over the years, that reality has been lost, stolen or just strayed from the history books
"Every slave that ever entered into this country came in on a Northern built, owned and operated slave ship, or a European slave ship. Slave ships would primarily enter the U.S. into major Northern ports, such as New York and Boston. The early financial infrastructure of those cities were built primarily on the slave trade. These ships would take Northern made rum into Africa and trade the rum with African tribes for slaves that these tribes had captured during tribal wars."

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States."
Charles *******, 1862

Treason?
Name the Confederate who was tried and convicted of treason.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
U.S. Attorney General Jeremiah Black ruled that the Union had no right to force the seceded States back into the Union, declaring that a war with such intent was illegal. Attorney General (1857-1860)
“If they "have a right to secede," it is no business of the Federal Government what they do. However, if as ...




Slavery?
"America was a slaveholding country — North and South," said." Cheryl LaRoche, a historical archaeologist at the University of Maryland.
"Over the years, that reality has been lost, stolen or just strayed from the history books
"Every slave that ever entered into this country came in on a Northern built, owned and operated slave ship, or a European slave ship. Slave ships would primarily enter the U.S. into major Northern ports, such as New York and Boston. The early financial infrastructure of those cities were built primarily on the slave trade. These ships would take Northern made rum into Africa and trade the rum with African tribes for slaves that these tribes had captured during tribal wars."

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States."
Charles *******, 1862

Treason?
Name the Confederate who was tried and convicted of treason.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
U.S. Attorney General Jeremiah Black ruled that the Union had no right to force the seceded States back into the Union, declaring that a war with such intent was illegal. Attorney General (1857-1860)
“If they "have a right to secede," it is no business of the Federal Government what they do. However, if as Congress says, they cannot secede, “they are still in the Union” and the Union CANNOT MAKE WAR ON A STATE.” “Facts the Historians Leave Out” John S. Tilley p.79
Therefore, if the Union made war on States that were "still in the Union as Congress claimed," then the president was guilty of treason. Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, “ Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them…”
~Robert Mestas, Defending the Heritage~
Either way ‘THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT’ thank you very much.

“Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right.”…. Abraham Lincoln July 4th 1848,
(more)
0 votes
by
Yes slavery. Look, just because the North had engaged in slavery, doesn't relieve the South of their culpability. One by one, the states in the North had begun abolishing slavery, yet the South held on because it made their - primarily - agricultural based economy more financially profitable. Why pay for labor when you get it for free?

Yes treason. Once again, this is not to say that the North went exactly by the book. But one who rejects their nation is, in fact, acting in treason.
0 votes
by
Treason? you are a 21'st century hack . Second guessing the 17th century U.S. Attorney General Jeremiah Black. You're an idiot !

Slavery Free? $1500-$1800 a piece in 1850 was not a cheap price. Plus food, shelter, medical. The North realized this when the cheap immigrants started coming in. They sold their slaves south and hired the cheap, throw away immigrants.
0 votes
by
Technically, he was an 19th century A.G., but I digress... It's quite apparent that you long for the good ol' days of the 1800's, but idol worship of a hundred & 150 years ago is rather silly. Yes, I do second guess. Times were a **** of a lot worse back then. The moral bankruptcy we had as a nation during times leading up to the Civil War would make a modern day Christian zealot's head spin.

..."Slavery Free? $1500-$1800 a piece in 1850 was not a cheap price. Plus food, shelter, medical."...

That's your angle, the cost? Jesus Christ, and you have the nerve to call me an idiot? Are you seriously justifying the owning of another human being as a piece of property by mentioning the cost? Ok, look. Perhaps "free" wasn't the appropriate word, but when consider the fact that the slaves, themselves, never saw a dime of that money, it's pretty **** close to "free". At least, from the slaves' point of view. And just so you know, $1800 in 1850, would be between $40-55,000 today. Think about it... You could buy a person, work them like a dog for 16 hours/day, pay them no wages, whip and beat them senseless if they didn't perform up to expectations, have your way ******** with them, and kill them for virtually no consequence once they lived out their usefulness. All for the cost of the same...&
Technically, he was an 19th century A.G., but I digress... It's quite apparent that you long for the good ol' days of the 1800's, but idol worship of a hundred & 150 years ago is rather silly. Yes, I do second guess. Times were a **** of a lot worse back then. The moral bankruptcy we had as a nation during times leading up to the Civil War would make a modern day Christian zealot's head spin.

..."Slavery Free? $1500-$1800 a piece in 1850 was not a cheap price. Plus food, shelter, medical."...

That's your angle, the cost? Jesus Christ, and you have the nerve to call me an idiot? Are you seriously justifying the owning of another human being as a piece of property by mentioning the cost? Ok, look. Perhaps "free" wasn't the appropriate word, but when consider the fact that the slaves, themselves, never saw a dime of that money, it's pretty **** close to "free". At least, from the slaves' point of view. And just so you know, $1800 in 1850, would be between $40-55,000 today. Think about it... You could buy a person, work them like a dog for 16 hours/day, pay them no wages, whip and beat them senseless if they didn't perform up to expectations, have your way ******** with them, and kill them for virtually no consequence once they lived out their usefulness. All for the cost of the same cost as mid-level secretary's salary for one year... $1800 was a "deal" for them. Oh, that's right, the slave owners were kind enough to cover medical (which consisted of pouring whiskey in a wound and wrapping it up with a cloth, or getting shot & dumped in the woods for anything much worse), food (spoiled leftovers and anything else their owners didn't find good enough for themselves), and shelter, (a decrepit shack crammed with 10 times more people than there should be). Boy those slaves sure had it great... If there's one thing I do my best to avoid, it's name calling... But you are honestly one of the most malevolent pieces of filth I have ever come across.
(more)
0 votes
by
I'm not defending the institution of slavery. I just get tired of the bleeding heart Northern apologists who act as if their ancestors had nothing to do with it.
So please, If y'all are so mad about slavery, thank your ancestors who brought them here and made a fortune in doing so. No Confederate flag ever flew over a slave ship. But Old Glory sure did!
All we ever asked WAS TO BE LEFT ALONE !
0 votes
by
If you really can't tell the difference between a "Northern apologist", and a critic of the South, then you might want to consider enrolling in a critical thinking class.

Make no mistake, I cast more than enough blame on those who brought the slaves here... However, just as important as how you start, is how you finish. The Southern states had every opportunity to abolish slavery as well.

..."All we ever asked WAS TO BE LEFT ALONE !"...

So did the slaves... And you would've gotten what you asked for if you weren't still trying to keep the ability to own people.
0 votes
by
At the time of the Fort Sumter attack, the Confederacy had took over all but four of the Federal forts, ********, and military posts in the South.
When the South fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the war, there were eight slave states in the Union and only seven in in the Confederacy. But when Lincoln called for an invasion of the South, North Carolina. Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas left the Union. Kentucky’s sympathies were with the South, but when Lincoln guaranteed the continuation of slavery in the Union, the state decided to remain neutral. Kentucky would defend her borders against invasion by either side.

Why would the typical young Southern man fight for the Confederacy?
The odds are overwhelming that he did not own slaves at all.It is impossible to believe that such men would have continued to fight against unnatural odds—and take casualties beyond the level of virtually any other modern army—simply so that the 5% of their population who owned slaves could keep them or because they held to a form of racism so virulent that they would rather die than allow the slaves to leave plantations. Something deeper was motivating them.
The Confederate soldier knew that slave-owners in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, the slaveholding states that remained in the Union, (a...

At the time of the Fort Sumter attack, the Confederacy had took over all but four of the Federal forts, ********, and military posts in the South.
When the South fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the war, there were eight slave states in the Union and only seven in in the Confederacy. But when Lincoln called for an invasion of the South, North Carolina. Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas left the Union. Kentucky’s sympathies were with the South, but when Lincoln guaranteed the continuation of slavery in the Union, the state decided to remain neutral. Kentucky would defend her borders against invasion by either side.

Why would the typical young Southern man fight for the Confederacy?
The odds are overwhelming that he did not own slaves at all.It is impossible to believe that such men would have continued to fight against unnatural odds—and take casualties beyond the level of virtually any other modern army—simply so that the 5% of their population who owned slaves could keep them or because they held to a form of racism so virulent that they would rather die than allow the slaves to leave plantations. Something deeper was motivating them.
The Confederate soldier knew that slave-owners in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, the slaveholding states that remained in the Union, (along with West Virginia in 1862) were allowed to keep their slaves when the war began. The consequence of this reality was that in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up. So what did this say to the individual soldier about the importance of the slavery issue?The Confederate soldier was aware that when President Lincoln ostensibly ***** slavery on January 1, 1863, through the Emancipation Proclamation, his order specifically exempted all the slaves in the North as well as those slaves in areas of the South that had previously been conquered. Vast stretches of Louisiana and eastern Virginia—ironically, the birthplace of the American slave system. ~John A. Scott,ed.,Living Documents in American History,pp.644-45. ~ All the slaves on Union territory as of that date remained slaves for the duration of the war, and the only slaves who were freed by this proclamation were those residing in areas of the South subsequently conquered by the Union Army.

The War was about slavery, really ?
(more)
0 votes
by
Why was West Virginia was allowed to secede from the state of Virginia and was admitted into the Union “AS A SLAVE STATE” June 20 1863, six months after the Emancipation Proclamation. (The EP took effect in Jan. 1863). West Virginia continued practicing the peculiar institution until Feb. 1865
0 votes
by
No revisionism at all. Both sides kept very accurate records. The words from speeches of Southern leaders and declarations of secession from Southern states tell the tale very accurately.

The South proved more that it was about slavery than even the North did.
0 votes
by
Once again, you only know half of the story.

West Virginia only became a state, based on a compromise that ******* slavery would be gradually abolished. Their slave state classification was designed as temporary from the beginning. It ***** permanently when the state legislature abolished slavery, as well as ratifying the 13th Amendment.

But tell me, how does that indicate that slavery wasn't the factor for the Civil War? Or are you just that desperate to prove a point that you've clearly lost?
0 votes
by
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
0 votes
by
Did you not happen the catch the words for the vp of the confederacy who said otherwise? I posted it twice, and you failed to address it or acknowledge it both times. So no sense in posting it again, you know where to find it.

Lincoln's words in his first inaugural address do not epitomize to motivation for the war. Name a President that kept every promise he made in a speech... I'll wait.

What tells the story with so much more accuracy, is the fact that Alexander Stephens explicitly stated that slavery was - essentially - the ONLY reason the South was seceding.
0 votes
by
The Johnson - Crittenden Resolution passed unanimously in the Senate and by a 96-4 vote in the House on July 25,1861. Stating that the War was being fought to preserve the Union and not to abolish slavery.

The Corwin Amendment (36th Cong. 2nd Session 1364 March 2, 1861 which attempted to constitutionalize slavery, was adopted by the necessary two-thirds in both the Houses and actually submitted to the states for ratification. It was ratified by three states before the war pre-emptied the debate.

This proposed Amendment is still pending, because Congress submitted it to the state legislatures without a deadline.
0 votes
by
The Johnson-Crittenden Resolution passed after the war had already started. Seems a little late to define why something was going to be done, after the wheels were already set in motion.

That being said, it still doesn't change the fact that Secession - as stated as the official reasoning from the South - was due to slavery.

Here, I'll spell it out for you.

The South secedes to keep slavery, and the North fights to preserve the Union.
0 votes
by
But the North still had slavery.

The Confederate soldier knew that slave-owners in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, the slaveholding states that remained in the Union, (along with West Virginia in 1862) were allowed to keep their slaves when the war began. The consequence of this reality was that in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up. So what did this say to the individual soldier about the importance of the slavery issue?
The Confederate soldier was aware that when President Lincoln ostensibly ***** slavery on January 1, 1863, through the Emancipation Proclamation, his order specifically exempted all the slaves in the North as well as those slaves in areas of the South that had previously been conquered. Vast stretches of Louisiana and eastern Virginia—ironically, the birthplace of the American slave system. ~John A. Scott,ed.,Living Documents in American History,pp.644-45. ~ All the slaves on Union territory as of that date remained slaves for the duration of the war, and the only slaves who were freed by this proclamation were those residing in areas of the South subsequently conquered by the Union Army.
0 votes
by
The Northern states had also set time tables on when slavery was going to ***, as I noted previously with West Virginia, for example.

However, nothing you've said negates the FACT that the South seceded over the issue of slavery first and foremost.
0 votes
by
Your revisionism came in the form of Northern written history books.

“ History is a fairy tale written by the Victors.” Napoleon Bonaparte
0 votes
by
so?
...