We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, February 20. 2007
Rodham Clinton takes offence at Rebel flag. To us, it symbolizes the American rebel spirit, states' rights, and Federalism. Has nothing to do with promoting slavery. We oppose slavery, except for our own slaves (who work on this blog, and are mainly of the sort-of whitish persuasion, but with some Indian and Spanish and Italian mixed in), and God knows we believe skin color to be a big, irrelevant nothing. We happily discriminate on the basis of behavior - never on skin color or race or any of that BS.
Long may that proud flag wave for the positive things it represented... just like the Federal flag, which once flew over a slave nation, an Indian-abusing nation, an imperialist nation, etc. etc. blah blah blah evil country blah blah blah.
Woops. Did I just say that Israel was the greatest threat to world peace?
Giant mosque blocked in London.
Tiny houses the new fad? I doubt it. Althouse found the article in the NYT. Didn't we call these cabins?
Momentum shifting? Indepundit thinks so.
Cow farts a major threat to planet. I suggest free Beano for all cattle and other ungulates. And let's kill all the Aurochs. Oh, we already did? Great. Then let's kill all the buffalo. Oh, we already did that too? Gee, great.
10% of EU households contain no-one who works. Cool, dude. Very progressive. How do we get to 100%?
Cool blog: World Climate Report. Will add to our Science blogroll.
Legal persons and limited liability. Bainbridge
Murtha in command. Novak. I hate to ask it, but is he in command of his senses?
NYT terms illegal immigrant critics Klansmen. That's one way to sell a newspaper: insult the intelligence of all of your readers. Hey - is there a FREE Spanish edition?
New Orleans murders. Cops blame the schools. Nice try, cops.
Sunday Afternoon Links
Defending the honor of the Confederate flag. AOL News. We already explained why we honor it, and it ain't racist. Nobody remembers that wealthy Yankees had slaves during the war until the Emancipation Proclamation. We honor our southern brethren at Magg
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Mar 18, 16:35
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Attacking the Rebel Battle Flag (shown is the Naval Battle Flag) is an easy attack to make nowdays. Lets do a quick review on who the nation was founded which directly relates to why the Civil War took place.
First, all thirteen colonies were needed to form the nation. Deals were cut allowing the Southern States to retain slavery (see 3/5th compromise) So the counry was formed with lots of northern abolitionists upset. They agitated from day one and continued t organize (this is not a defense of slavery) The Northern pols had to bend to the abolitionists cause they now had pressure groups and votes.
various other compromises for new states were argued over with Kansas/Nebraska a huge battleground.
It became apparent that slavery was foing to be abolished.
The Sothern States said ..."whoa nellie we would have NEVER come into the UNION if we new that a few years down the road the promises made would be reneged on and we would lose our way of life..we're outta here"
Lincoln said "Nope, can't leave"
South said ," watch us"..." It was you the North that abrogated the original compact that brought this country together and now you are going back on the original agreement"
Lincoln, "We're gonna force you to stay"
South, "That means war, that YOU are bringing"
Lincoln "(basically) "too bad" we have all the guns,men factories etc to win, we'll beat you.
April 12th 1861 Ft Sumpter SC bombarded..war begins.
Lincoln later "frees the slaves" BUt only those in the states currently in rebellion...there was still slavery in the North and they weren't freed by the Emancipation Declaration
Lots of battles..South loses.
But the South has a very distinct heritage and it's not all predicated on slavery.
Hillary should go fu*k herself.
Cow farts are bad but the cow patties lend a special home and hearth bovine potpourri plus adding heat for the Franklin stove and a special taste to foods cooked over their embers. Alass the embers are ephemeral.
But perhaps the best known use for the lowly cow patty is:
"Psilocybe cubensis can be found in many parts of the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Australia, and even Southeastern Asia. It is usualy found growing on or near cow dung in pastures during warm rainy periods from February to November. There are several species of mushroom which occur on cow dung, but fortunately none of these bear much resemblance to the San Ysidro"
Yes folks Magic Mushrooms
**THIS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY**
T H E G I A N T M O S Q U E I N L O N D O N S T A N
Into everyones life a litle rain must fall. This time it has fallen on the peaceful philosophy and psuedo religion Islam.
But there is always an upside and a downside
First the upside..it ain't being built
Now the downside... British MI-5 will not have as many photos to take of Muslims in town or those wayfaring through London to plan and caring out their nefarious deeds. It won't have a place to bug which would no doubt produce an abundance of great intel.
So good and bad, but you have to ask youself..do you want a landfill in your back yard?
I have always enjoyed my visits to the South. I have spent time in South Carolina and Florida. I especially liked how well mannered people were. The men would stand up and take their hats off when women came in the room and that was quite a treat. We Yankees can be so abrupt in our mannerisms.
So what is up with attacks on the Rebel Flag? We were fast car lovers as teens and the fastest cars often sported a Rebel flag or plate. Here is another attempt to 'divide and conquer' by the so called 'loyal opposition'. Hillary and the the Dems are becoming like squishy fruit. Think I am kidding? Check out the mascot of the SU Orangemen. It is an orange. That is right. The SU mascot is a squishy fruit. It is so embarrassing. This isn't though...
SU lacrosse outscored Hobart 4-1 in the final period to pull away from the Statesmen
and win a thrilling season-opener 13-11 in front of 5,252 fans. The win
brings the Kraus-Simmons Trophy back to Syracuse, where it had resided for
19 years before Hobart carried it home last season.
With only 12,000,000 illegals entering the country over the last decade and there's an "uptick" in membership of alleged "hate groups"......
I'm amazed there's gambling going on at Rick's...
watched Casablanca last night (own it) NOBODY has ever smoked a cigarette as well as Bogey did. I often ewatch movies a number of times on the theory that one cannot take in everything i one viewing..plus Casablanca or To have and Have Not or The Big Sleep...Bogey baby..
Today he'd be having to deal with "Cigarette hate Groups"
hey don't Bogart that thang!!
Yes, and Lauren Bacall loved him. Yes he died of tobacco, but BEFORE that he was up close & personal with that long legged whiskey voiced green eyed long long legged well you know.
Great ill of the flag, BTW, NJ. I always look at it as a symbol of a buncha po farmer boys who barely had shoes much less slaves, fighting for their land. But with the war as with everything big, there were facets aplenty--and we look at the ones that make us feel best. The notion of deleting it from history is noxious, as it is part of history. Deleting history is for the soviets--not us.
Patina..Don't know your age but did you know a Bob Jokl at Hobart?
I think Mr. Larsen said it best. We don't delete our history, the Soviets do. We face it.
As the country was coming together almost all dlegates knew the slavery issue was, a Jefferson called it,"the snake under the table"
It's OUR history.
There was a good discussion here some weeks back re the South. I admitted to conflict, perhaps precipitously. She has no balls Hillary, as, unfortunately, the other 99% of our politico's. None if them can win a war outside our borders as they are too damn busy waging war on US. And all for a fricking vote. The whole thing stinks. I am thinking of disengagement myself, work, drink, sleep and repeat.
The Edwards comment on Israel--ain't that just like your Lib thinker? Not Iranian nukes, but Israel responding to the mullah's promise to use them for another Holocaust, is the greatest threat to world peace.
So, what's Edwards saying to Israel? "Shut up and die" ?
I'm behind here. I think that is what he was saying BL. What a thing to utter. The man has no shame. He's got his and to hell with the rest of us. I did like the "aggressively photogenic" quip though. Is it really all about hair, since Eisenhower anyway.
BTW, those H's and K's are very difficult to discriminate a difference.
Ha--maybe it HAS been all about hair, since Ike. TV = Satan.
Some of us dislike the Stars and Bars for other reasons, such as the following:
Many of our ancestors were killed or wounded fighting those who waved it.
The Confederates were traitorous, treasonous dogs.
Anyone from rural New England who displays the Confederate flag is a moron, and insults every single New England boy who lies buried on any Civil War battlefield, not to mention the ones who fill cemeteries throughout the region. In rural Central Maine there is a cemetery I visit every year which includes among its denizens the remains of several Maine boys who died in Confederate prisoner of war camps. They must be continually spinning as they see pick up trucks sporting the Rebel Flag driving by, representing those who killed them. Disgusting. I have no problem with anyone in the South doing whatever they want with their stupid flag. Just keep it out of New England.
Not too long ago, the Texas Star held a superior position to the US flag. They would never have flown it above the US flag, but they frequently do place the pole with the TX flag in front! Just a little reminder folks. They still have the right to seperate into 5 seperate states (or, is it 4--I forget). I would say that there is a stronger more positive devotion to the TX flag than there is to the Confederate flag. But, then maybe Arkansas has oil? ;-)
Mr. Slater, do you also hold the same vehemence toward England? I actually do not own a "Stars and Bars" flag, but I do the "Union Jack." Might I suggest a deeper and, perhaps, more subtle appraisal on your part.
Your Yankee boys wouldn't have died it you Yankees hadn't reneged on the original compact that formed this nation. That is the crux of the matter.
I do not now fly any of the various Confederate flags on my cars, however knowing it drives you crazy I will make it a point to buy the largest one I can find and parade it all over New England if I ever get up there. I may buy a smaller one and seek out cemetaries in which to march through. The spinning effect should be seismic.
All the best,
I do have a T-shirt with a Rebel Flag on it. I have dedicated it to the Battle at Cold Harbor where your general grant got whipped badly by a general most historians agree was one of the greatest to ever live. General Robert E. Lee. I would appreciate it however if you did not utter his name. Instead raise a grog or five or six to the "boozer" grant.
You should however study your history more closely.
I missed responding to the slur, "The Confederates were traitorous, treasonous dogs."
You are a son of a bitch, E.S. Slater, now go back under the porch and continue licking your genitals.
May you rot in hell,
Habu the Rebel
No Habu I do not know him.
E.S. Slater is certainly entitled to his opinion. Every town in the North has a cemetary with the graves of soldiers from The Civil War. The Northern and the Southern armies were the ones who did the fighting but the English and the French were in the political mix too. As usual.
One leg of The Underground Railroad ran through Syracuse to Ontario.
It was just a try. He is a friend of mine who went to Hobart.
As for mr slater. What he offered was not an opinion but a vituperative slur. We are however also entiled to those here in American unless the "thought police" around and then it becomes "hate speech", then "hate crime" and then everybody is sorry.
Sorry, I skimmed the traitorous, treasonous dogs slur too which IMO was out of line and uncalled for.
RE: Those little ugly houses. They are pretty awful. I have been drawing a small house but it is 1150 sq. ft. Which is cozy. 125 - 700 sq. ft. is not cozy. It is really tight.
(a few lines closing Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech)
"...He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
copy @ http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
Apple pie, the Lone Star flag gets such honor from Texans due to Texas having fought its own war of independence, and having been its own sovereign nation for some ten years afterwards--under that Lone Star flag. Alamo, Goliad, San Jacinto, all those old names are battles of that war. There was a good many Tennesseans and Louisianians in the fight, but not as United States soldiers--just volunteer Texians (as they were called then). All the states have their noble stories, I know that. Just relating the 'sovereign nation' aspect of the Lone Star flag.
I disagree with your vehemence. As a Yankee myself, I feel nothing but sadness about that war. And bear in mind that a large fraction of the North (including the Dem Party) and the Copperheads were opposed to "Lincoln's War."
So I'll go along with "rebels" but not with "treasonous traitorous dogs."
My blog for Robert E. Lee Day 2005 features the image of the (second) Confederate navy jack, popularly known as the Rebel or Dixie Flag, and is one of my most popular blog entries. Contrary to the first comment, I do not believe the jack is a "battle" flag, but rather a flag identifying the nationality of the vessel.
What makes Mr. Slater's characterization necessarily 'off' is the effort and sacrifice of the ordinary Confederate private soldier.
Remember, there had already been one war of secession, fought by all 13 colonies, only about as distant in time as we are now from WWII.
BTW in the case of Texas, there had been two already, the second a good deal closer in time than is the VietNam War to us today.
So for the southerner who fought--who walked the walk--for his individual state, and the confederacy of such like autonomous states, it was not "treason" or "treachery" nearly so much as it might appear from this point in time, from a more evolved central/national perspective.
The individual states were a much bigger deal back then. There's no especial moral aspect to it--it was just the state of the political/administrative/governmental historical reality of the time.
Particularly well put BL. One must always keep in mind historical context. Of course that would destroy many a lefty's world view should they do so. That is not in reference to Mr. Slater.
The Civil War changed us from a "United States" to "America." For better or worse. In many ways, worse.
We used to be a voluntary union. Or so people thought.
thanks, Luther. Anyhoo, that's what the Stars n' Bars means to me--those soldiers, and the moms & dads, wives & kids, siblings, friends, neighbors & home towns they saw themselves as fighting fer. And furthermore, I'd bet that if you could ask Billy Yank if he wanted to 'disappear' the symbol of the opponent that he himself had sacrificed so dearly to defeat, that anytime after Spring of 1865 he'd have said no, maybe pointing out that it would dishonor both armies.
Well, you rebs are quite spirited! And I mean that in the most endearing way. I am however, a little shocked that someone accused Mr. Slater of not knowing his history. The Stars and Bars is a symbal of southern rebellion, there is no other way of putting it. I happen to have many family members that fought on both sides of the conflict, and one "yankee" great great grandfather that took a bullet in the hip during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. To me, the southern flag resembles what shot and almost killed my great great grandfather. And if he had been killed I would not be here right now.
So you are telling me that Mr. Slater and myself cannot and should not be angry with the Southern Flag? The Civil war was a horrible event in our countrys history, and whoever "started" it can be questioned. What cannot however is the fact that I have little sympathy for people that would like to feel rebellious for an issue that they today have no involvment. I hope you feel very hardass.
Oh and I wonder if the 20th Maine would be fond of licking their balls? Why don't you ask them.
An overly harsh assessment I think. As far as the flag being a symbol of rebellion, of course it was. American's are known for their rebellion, individually and as a Nation.
So far as I know the war was started for one of two reasons or perhaps a mixture of both. State's Rights and Slavery. For myself I hold mostly to the "Rights" issue. But I really do not wish too start that debate, as it eventually comes down to personal opinion.
I am somewhat mystified that you still hold anger over a war that occurred and ended some 141 years ago. Even considering the family history you mention. In context, that war may have been more personal for you, but I ask, do you still hold anger against Germany, Japan, Korea and Vietnam.
Your comment reminds me of the foes we now face, able to hold anger, hate and need for retribution for hundreds of years. No matter a changed, and changing, world.
And, BTW, I do not understand your comment as to anyone here feeling hard-ass, well, maybe except for H., but then, he is a hard-ass, one that you might prefer not to meet. The type of hard-ass that has been serving this country since its beginning, in helping to keep you free.
You join a club. You like the rules.Soon a new group of members decide to change the rules. You try to opt out. They say "no you can't"
You say, "you changed the rules , I don't want to be a member any more, and oh by the way if I hadn't agreed with the original rules along with twelve of my friends this club would never have come into being"
"Too bad says the new faction, you're staying"
"No I'm not and my friends are coming with me"
Then the new factions threatens by force of arms to make you remain....buy now you're gett'n a bit hot under the collar 'cause these new rules are gonna change your entire way of life.
You and your friends leave, form your own club and adopt a motto, crest,flag, and articles of your new club.
The old club comes after you and your club with guns ...
See Gordie that's what happened. The USA would have never come into being without the South so a compact was made. The North broke the compact, not the South.
You had more guns and men and won. It doesn't mean in the least that what you did was correct.
You intentionally salted the crop fields of the South so they wouldn't grow crops. You looted the South against Lincolns wishes.
Now, you and many Yankees want the South to simply repudiate their heritage and their symbols. It ain't gonna happen, no more so that if Maine were told to do the same.
And by the way, the 20th Maine did a splendid job on the left flank. J.L. Chamberlain was truly a hero of the first magnitude. One must remember however that the attacking rebels had just finished a 30 mile march in 90 degree heat and gone straight into that engagement and they still almost took that position. They also had no water. It is doubtful that had they been fresh and hydrated the 20th Maine would have been able to hold their ground.
Anyway, that war was a good long time ago and each death was an American death. It was very sad all around.
One more thinga bit off topic but the plausible.
Lets say in our lifetime enough Muslims come to this country to start to insert sharia law into our Constitution.
They tell us we can't be Jews or Christians or Mormons or whatever the First Amendment guarantees us we can be, but rather we MUST ALL CONVERT TO ISLAM, pay a special tax, or DIE....
Tell me ... you think we'd fight?
Oh one more thing Habu, we would fight. Well at least my family would, were scottish, what else can we do?
Ok first off, I would like to apologize to anyone who thought I was insulting anyone who died in the Civil War. Habu was right, every death was an American death.
I'll take this in steps-
Luther-You say that you don't understand what I mean about hardass's. Let me tell you about some hardass's. My Great Grandfather served in the First and Second World War, he won a silver star in the Second. My grandfather was with Patton in the Third Army. They are hardass's. THEY are the ones that are keeping you free. In comparison to some hick that drives around with a confederate flag out the window singer dixie claiming to be a rebel...I think you get my jist.
I do hold a grudge against anyone who has spilled American blood. I do not think that the average German living today had anything to do with either World War, nor do I think that the average Southerner today had anything to do with the Civil War. I do think though that pretending you did is wrong.
I don't want no retribution from the South. They paid alot for the Civil war, what the North did to the South after the war was horrible. This does not make the South blaimless. They fought a war two, and the argument that they fought just to protect their homes is only partly true. The average Southern soldier, it is true, did not own slaves and was most likely a poor farmer. However the Confederacy and the ideals it stood for led them not only to defend their homes but to invade the North (Yes I know it was an "Offencive Defense" that was supposed to end the war sooner but....).
I am not asking you to give up your heritage, I am asking you to give up an element that reeks of slavery, rebellion, and death. Have all the southern pride you want, but don't say I am being "overly harsh" just because I don't believe that the South had the right to make war. Be as it may we are in a new world and it may be time to look at past events in a different light than from that of being sorry at the outcome.
Oh and Habu, The 20th would have held, trust me, they would have held.
I believe they had not eaten either, habu, that day and a good deal of the previous day. It was an Alabama unit. I say these things without 'search' so better check.
At any rate the 20th Maine's bayonet charge was as heroic as anything could be, and it saved the Union line--and the battle, and DC, and the war (especially with some of Europe waiting to come in on the southern side had Gettysburg gone the other way).
The only thing near it in critical stakes and providential timing in all respects, imho, was the arrival of the Dauntless squadron over the EOJ fleet at Midway, 79 years later.
Oh and Habu, we will fight, were scottish, what else would we do?
Glad to have you on board. Fascinating that the Civil War is still being fought. I have an ancestor who fought in the Rev. War, but not one in the Civil. But both wars were brother against brother, and therefore painful to think about.
If we limit our thinking about the CW to being a war about slavery, it's all simple. But it wasn't about slavery - it was about State's Rights, with slavery as the flashpoint. Remember that slavery persisted in the North through the CW, and was widely accepted as normal life despite a progressive Christian-based movement against it. It was like regular household help to us today - as it had been throughout the western world until the 1800s.
Oh the war wasn't originally about slavery, and if it had been the north never would have fought. It was a combination of things, but one of them, in the end one of the main ones, was Slavery.
You're right, Gordie, that dumb crackers don't earn much of the Lost Cause via a reb bumber sticker on a Dukes of Hazzard dodge hemi.
But the KKK is pretty much dead these days, down hyar in de deep souf. The last few KKK rallies I know of were in the midwest, most notably Skokie.
Ya man, I didn't say anything about the KKK though. Im glad that most of them are dead and gone.
We don't get to many rallies up in Cambridge, to bad, I have alot of loose garden bricks.
Not that I would ever prevent free speech, I'd just like to excersize my own right to respond.
LOL--nothing like a good heavy rectangular masonry exclamation point--
Well when the time comes to loosen some more masonry I will certainly invite you to my front porch to enjoy some good old Northern Hostpitality.
I mean everybody enjoys a good sit "on tha ol' veranda"
especially if it involves masonry colliding with the KKK
My problem is with neo-Confederate secessionists and those who romanticize the Confederacy, the Lost Cause, and etc. I admit I have special contempt for those who live in New England in general, and Maine in particular, who sport the Stars and Bars on their windows or license plates or wherever. I could care less about Southerners who do so.
To respond to those who responded to me:
No, Mr. McLeod, I do not hold the same vehemence towards England. I do feel the same vehemence to those who sport swastikas, iron crosses, and hammer and sickles, however, and believe that many of these people sport these symbols for precisely the same reasons as many sport the Confederate flag. My ancestors have fought and died in every conflict since King Philip’s War, including on both sides of the American Revolution, and all other major conflicts the United States has been involved with up to and including the present war in Iraq. I don’t like seeing the insignia of any of our enemies displayed to show off some sort of arrested development, loser “Rebel” posture or stance. I don’t think that the commenter Mr. Gordie is actually angry at the South or about the Civil War (and either am I), but rather at a symbol, and what it represents to us. It does, also, to every black American I’ve ever known, represent nostalgia for if not slavery, then at least Jim Crow, regardless of the intent of those displaying it.
Mr. Habu, you seem to be very handy with the vituperative slur yourself! Yours tell everyone much more about your hobbies and sexual predilections than mine do, not surprising in one whose idea of a summer vacation would include driving around rural Maine displaying an enormous Stars and Bars in hopes of making dead Yankees spin in their graves. I encourage you to do this, and even have a venue where you might feel very welcome. This is an annual gathering of motorcycle enthusiasts in Franconia, NH, a three-day weekend if memory serves. There you will find all sorts of fellow travelers and aficionados of failed fascist ideologies sporting Nazi iconography and your beloved flag. Rebel yells can be heard long into the night, and a good time is had by all. I agree that Robert E. Lee was a brilliant General. Too bad he didn’t honor his oath to his government. If he had, the Civil War might have lasted months instead of years, and many fine men on both sides of the conflict would have lived. It is fitting his former front yard is a cemetery. You are correct that it was all very sad, and that each death was an American one, (something we agree upon). And believe me, I don’t wish you to repudiate your heritage or your symbols. Just keep them south of the Mason-Dixon line. Oh, and yes, I’d fight against Sharia law.
Mr. NJ – I share your sadness about the Civil War. A tragic and avoidable business. I am well aware of the Copperheads – isn’t our present-day Congress full of them? That said, I don’t see the descendents of Copperheads driving around Northern New England with little Copperhead Flag decals on their pick-up trucks.
Mr. Larsen – I share your sympathy for the average, non-slave-owning Confederate soldier. I also sympathize with the average, non-Nazi German soldier who was fighting to defend his homeland in 1944, the average Japanese soldier on Okinawa, and etc. I understand them all, and why they fought, but they were wrong, and they deserved to lose. As far as “disappearing” the flag, you are probably right. Americans have always been generous in victory, and combat soldiers have much in common with one another. However, I know my relatives who fought in WWII hated seeing young “Rebels” wearing Nazi paraphernalia, as did my stepmother who lost most of her family in Nazi concentration camps.
I stand by my original point. If people in New England want to make some sort of anti-government statement, I think they should display the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag or something. I think displaying the Confederate flag dishonors the Union dead. I don’t like the idea of protestors sporting the hammer and sickle around Vietnam memorials either, or Nazi regalia around WWII memorials. I am uninterested in debating the causes of the Civil War, but I don’t think that it was all about State’s Rights, or all about Slavery, or all about culture, or all about agrarian vs. industrialized lifestyles, but rather a complicated mix of all of these. I do think most Southerners were ill served by their government, by their class system, and by their leaders. I think slavery had to be ended for the moral good of the USA, despite the fact that the South had been allowed to have slaves 80 years previous. I do think the reconciliation of the North and South, (Mr. Habu excepted, evidently), is one of the greatest triumphs of the American spirit.
My sister lives on Martha’s Vineyard (no, not everyone who lives there is rich or a Clintonista). The native islanders call the mainland “America”, which is a sort of a Confederate Flag thing, and I have seen Confederate decals on pick-up trucks there too. There is also, in downtown Oak Bluffs, a statue (of a Confederate soldier) honoring the Confederate dead. Oak Bluffs is a summer vacation destination for middle class black Americans, and has been for a long time, say one hundred years. This is a great American thing, or reconciliatory symbol, this statue in a small Massachusetts resort town that has a large black population. This, to me, is a far more honorable thing than Confederate flag cigarette lighters being sold at state fairs in New England.
Thanks for all the thoughtful commentary from the Maggie’s Farm community. BTW, are any of you the authors of this great blog?
North and South were not Black and White, morally speaking. Believe me.
Lincoln and the pro-war folks used slavery as the main political spin to try to get war support, which neither North nor South were enthused about, naturally. Lincoln cared personally about the slavery issue, but he said he would have gladly sacrificed that issue to hold the nation together.
Of course slavery and racism are evils - that is not debatable. At Maggie's Farm, the only slavery we accept is that of our unpaid, whip-lashed, half-starved posting team.
This last comment was from me, but accidently sent as Anonymous. And, jeez, Mr. Larsen, we don't think as you seem to think us Yankees do of the South (as you said to mr. Gordie). My beef is with Northeners displaying the Stars and Bars. Richard Brookhiser wrote about this same thing in the 1/29/07 issue of the National Review "Rebels on the Hudson".
Commpendable post Mr. Slater, well thought out.
BD- The facts speak for themselves, as I stated in my previous post. The North would not have fought if it had been portrayed as just a war on slavery.
It seems that Maggie, and the others on the farm do well with the meager materials that they have.
You're right, Anon, war symbols are close to "fightin' words" in many ways. The swastika especially, because of the murder ideology, and the North Vietnamese flag, too, because of the insult that the USA anti-war movement made to the war effort. Both those elements stab pretty deep, when displayed in proximity to memorials of the very wars fought against them. And good point re the meaning of the Stars n' Bars to other Americans besides the descendants of those who fought under it.
I guess that's the genius of "free speech", everybody derives different meanings from almost everything.
That there is a seemingly arbitrary 'free speech' courtesy extended to symbols deemed 'hateful' by various aggrieved groups (I'm thinking here of the Roman cross in the cemetery in California, recent ACLU cause celebre) is just something we have to live with, and slug out case-by-case, I guess.
Gordie: That was gratuitously cruel. We can be wrong, but we ain't stooopid. Ad hominems not welcome. Debate on issues: Great.
Thanks, Mr. Slater, for the clarification. I'll take the chip off my shoulder, in that case, and admit that I was indeed on 'red-neck code-word alert'.
Not one of you Yankee adressed why sessession took place. I outlined it two in the terms of how the nation was formed and then in a more easily understood metaphor..Not one acknowledgement from any of you that it was YOU abrogation of the tenets of this Union that forced the South to leave...that is undeniable history. The Nothern abolitionists finally gained enough power to push the issue to war. Not the South.
In my easily understood metaphor you all continued to stand mute and if you substituted North and South for the club and new club, well there it is.
I believe you're the one that bloviated about the "hard ass issue"
Let me give you hard ass ok.
My father, my brother-in-law, and myself all served in the United States Marine Corps. My father fought in three wars, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. My brother-in law fought in Vietnam (3 tours) and Desert Strom. I fought in Vietnam as a Marine and behind the lines in Laos and Cambodia with the CIA.
My father assaulted the islands of Guadalcanal,Tarawa, and Peleliu before returning to the states for flight training. He won the Navy Cross and Silver Star. As an aviator in the Korean War he won two Distinguish Flying Crosses. My borther -in-law won the Silver Star and Bronze Star with combat V and three Purple Hearts while acting as a FAC up at Con Thien where 3000NVA attacked 800 Marines. He choked three men to death..the Marines won the battle .Take a look see at operation Buffalo. Before being a ground FAC he was an A-4 attack pilot who volunteered for ground duty.
I fought with a special intelligence unit and was transferred to the CIA where I won the Intelligence Commendation Medal. I'm 59 and can still do ten reps with 300lbs. on the bench.
Allow me to put my tough up against your tough.
I'd have you cry'n for you mother in 10 seconds.
By the way the Scots ,if you aren't aware have lost their balls and are basically serfs of the British and most are socialists...you know, wards of the state.
Like the paratroopers at Bastonge said, "shit Patton didn't save us"
and slater...why do i see a pencil neck geek when i think of you? this is dedicated to you...
Back when I was a kid, life was going swell.
Till something happened, blew every thing to hell.
That night my daddy stumbled in, all pale and weak,
Said "A woman up the block just gave birth to a geek."
Mom said, "Sell it to the circus, what the heck."
Dad said, "Nope, this one's a pencil neck.
And if there's one thing lower than a side show freak,
It's a grit eatin', scum suckin', pencil neck geek."
You see if you take a pencil that won't hold lead,
Looks like a pipe cleaner atached to a head,
Add a buggy whip body with a brain that leaks,
You got yourself a grit eatin', pencil neck geek.
Pencil neck geek, grit eatin' freak,
scum suckin', pea head with a lousy physique.
He's a one man, no gut, loosing streak.
Nothin' but a pencil neck geek.
Soon the geeks were poppin' up all over town.
You couldn't hardly sneeze without knockin' one down.
After a nice juicy steak, if you need a toothpick,
Just reach for a geek, they'll do the trick.
One day we cut one up for fish bait.
Learned our lesson just a little bit late.
Soon as the geek hit the drink, the water turned red.
Next day, sure enough, all the fish were dead.
Most any night you know where I can be found.
Yeah, stomping some geek's head into the ground.
So keep the faith 'cause in Blassie you can trust,
I won't give up 'til the last geek bites the dust.
They say, "these geeks come a dime a dozen."
I'm lookin' for the guy who's supplin' the dimes.
Its gonna be real hard times for all of these
dirty, lousy, rotten, stinkin', freaks.
Nothing but a pencil neck geek.
e s slater you stated that your peobelem was with yankees displaying the Southern Battle Flag.
that would explain this initial comment made by you then?
"The Confederates were traitorous, treasonous dogs."
e s slater
Operation Buffalo was pretty damn grim. Hand-to-hand in the dark. Jeez--valor.
Well H., I had a nice sounding and level post all writ out, rare for me, then you put anything I might proffer to say as BS. Good on ya. You are a hard ass and we need more of you. A heartfelt Thanks to you and your family.
slater i'd bet your next pair of Depends you have never read the South Carolina Declaration to Leave the union. have a peek...
Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
South Carolina Mississippi Georgia Texas
[Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, South Carolina Secedes (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81.]
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
Please figuratively move my last comment to here :-)
BD, all in all I did not much care for the program from this link. Sanitized, made for public consumption with a heavy PR hand from somewhere. I don't think America could stomach seeing it as it really is. Not nowadays anyway.
To understand the issues that led to the events of 1860, a good start is the "Missouri Compromise" of 1820, and the "Compromise of 1850".
The states-rights tension was simply stretched out over that span of time, to the breaking point.
The Hellenes defined 'tragedy' as that ill which everyone can see coming but yet cannot, because of their own intrinsic natures, avoid.
That's what the 'house divided' speech, Lincoln at Cooper's Union in 1858, was about. That a war had to be fought, that there was no other way to resolve the issue.
So when Lincoln two years later won the election, the southern states knew that the new president embodied their choice between war or sovereignty. The election of Lincoln, in that sense, was the beginning of the actual revolt.
BDS, and all that flows from this nigh-unexplainable phenomena, seems like an echo of the same sort of tragedy.
You're so right. It started at the constitutional convention and carried forward to 4/12/1861.
But damn it's been over forever. It should never be forgotten but some things are best left alone. If someone wants to show the Confederate Battle Flag fine.
Heck the Supreme Court says you can even burn our flag and call it free speech.
God has blessed me in never witnessing that because free speech or not some people would get very hurt. Might even be me but I'll be damned if they're gonna burn my flag in front of me without a fight. Too many men and women have given too much to have the symbol of this nation burned without consequences.
Gitt'n on toward sleep time...best to ya..Habu
There ya go. That's the capper. Johnny Reb Habu defending the Stars n' Bars on history & principle, and Old Glory on all that and something even more.
This was a very interesting thread. (except IMO for the dog slur. Mr. Slater, Maggie's is not the place to slur any American soldiers or any dogs.)
RE: States rights....Mr. Lincoln believed that without unity the nation was open to outside influences that were unacceptable and would take down the whole of the nation.
Somewhat o/t but, Canadians of course are still living with the every day reality that any province is 'free' to leave. In 1995 the drunken Jacques Parizeau led the province of Quebec to within a few thousand 'ethnic' votes in Montreal of doing exactly that.
Quebec has been threatening and holding the 'have' provinces responsible for paying extra to keep the Quebec in the Confederation for many years and for many billions of dollars. Ontario and some outside countries too, especially France and England , have used this internal division to leverage their own self interests within the nation against the provinces that have small populations.
If Quebec Francophones are really intent on leaving they can do so. But they turned their backs on their religion and they forgot to have kids and the numbers of true Quebecois has dwindled too much to now carry a vote. They have legislation that favors French speaking immigrants and many of these new immigrants do not assimilate but carry on in their tribal traditions in what is becoming a 'multicultural' mess that has devalued Canadian traditions and culture. And Quebec has become very used to using the threat of leaving without having to pay the price of actually doing so, while Ontario uses the stick that they are the only ones who can save The Confederation.
Now the jig goes on but with a new step. The rest of Canada is very tired of being bashed as rednecks and knuckle draggers while being financially fleeced by Quebec and Ottawa. And Alberta has increased its population to the point where if the socialists in Quebec come knocking with their Kyoto credits scheme, it will be Alberta that holds a separatist vote. And they have lots of good reasons to really go. The billions in 'equalization' payments to the 'have not's' in Quebec come from Albertas' budgets.
And it is a good thing there is no law that allows the rest of Canada to vote on whether they want Quebec to stay. Many people would vote to kick them out.
That's a pretty solid ex-post-facto defense of Lincoln's underlying position, Patina.
A ong comment will follow in response to many peoples comments. I thought many were very interesting but I do have some of my own spirited responses that will come soon.
Patina, come on, Mr. Slater a slur dog? They were traitors to the Union, no matter the reasoning, they were. I am sorry that you yourself have stooped as low to insult Mr. Slater. I cannot find much respect for any man or woman who does not know that those who fought against the union were traitorous. They were traitorous "dogs", altough I am a large fan of animals, dogs in particular. So please, when you attack someone just because everybody else is, please try to think about what you are saying. The truth hurts, and can at times be offensive.
As I stated I will follow up this post with a longer one later tonight.
I do have to adress one issue though before I leave. Habu, you said the Scots are serfs to England? Mabye they have become a little more civilised, but they are still hardass's. When was the last bayonet charge? Take a wild guess.
In what war you ask?
and the present day Iraq
As in Operation Iraqi Freedom
No casualties, well on the Scots side that is.
And im not scottish, my ancestors where, just so you can't in some way insult me for that.
You say they aren't badass? Please, habu, please
Mr. “Hard Ass” Habu just can’t seem to get past the bare fact of this sentence of mine “the Confederates were traitorous, treasonous dogs.”
(I do regret the dog part, because I love dogs, especially mine, but it is, after all, an expression.)
My Webster’s Third new International Dictionary defines, (in part), “Traitor” thus: “One that commits treason against his country; one that violates his allegiance to his nation by levying war against it.”
“Treason”: “The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.”
Which of these did the C.S.A. NOT do?
We, North and South, were traitors to George III, and our American Revolution was an act of treason. At least our Founding Fathers were honest enough to admit and recognize this, as do I. They were proud of their treason. “If this be treason” and etc.
The Confederates were traitors, and they committed an act of high friggin’ treason against the Union. Mr. Habu may think this treason was justified, as I think we were justified in rebelling against King George III, but at least I admit the truth of the matter, that it was treason. If Mr. Habu were honest, he would say he is proud of this treason, and proud of Johnny Reb being called traitors, one and all.
I am personally sick of Sons of the South, neo-Confederate secessionists, and Lost Causers hiding behind States Rights, and this includes the Maggie’s Farmer who wrote the original post. What you mean to say is Slave State Rights, and I wish you would just come out and say it. Mr. Habu accuses myself and other Yankees of not responding to his question of why secession took place. Here is what I said: “I am uninterested in debating the causes of the Civil War, but I don’t think that it was all about State’s Rights, or all about Slavery, or all about culture, or all about agrarian vs. industrialized lifestyles, but rather a complicated mix of all of these. I do think most Southerners were ill served by their government, by their class system, and by their leaders. I think slavery had to be ended for the moral good of the USA, despite the fact that the South had been allowed to have slaves 80 years previous.”
How is this not responding?
Secession was Treason, anyway you look at it. I hold cowards like Jefferson Davis, the Southern aristocracy, (the top ten percent of the landowners, controlled forty percent of all assessed wealth), and the small group of politicians who led the South into a disastrous war responsible and accountable for this treason, and it is their treason I refer to rather than that of the common soldier (though he was committing treason too – just for different reasons).
Here is Alexander Stephens, Vice president, Confederate States of America, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861.
“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”
This is, in essence, what the C.S.A. stood for. Not States rights, but Slave States Rights. Mr. Habu is obviously a fanatic on this question, but I was surprised to read the calmer and saner Mr. B.D., in a very disingenuous manner, deny the importance of the slavery question other than to call it a “flashpoint” That, and the preservation of the Union, in his view, are all secondary to Slave State Rights.
OK, let’s do “Hard Ass.” First of all, Mr. Gordie was referring to the pathetic types who drive around with Stars and Bars or swastikas on themselves or their cars, and only mentioned his family’s military service in response to Mr. Larsen self-righteously (knowing nothing about Mr. Gordie or his family) saying to him that it was hard asses who allowed him to be free. Mr. Gordie merely replied, saying he understood the concept, and here are some of my family’s hard asses. Because, I gather, they are (or were) Yankee hard asses, Old Mr. Habu felt the gauntlet was thrown down or something, and told us all about his family’s distinguished military service, as if this were a contest of some sort. (I admire both Mr. Habu’s and his family’s service).
I mentioned a little of my family’s military service, but not in as great detail as Mr. Habu. Both my grandfathers fought in the First World War. One of them was in the Calvary, and fought in all the toughest American engagements – Belleau Woods at Chateau Thierry, Soisons, and St.Mihiel. He was an All-American football player for a big ten university. In the Second World war he was assigned to MacArthur’s HQ, and was on his staff throughout the war. He won a bronze star for capturing three fully armed Japanese soldiers in the Philippines armed with only a .45. He was 47 years old at the time.
My uncle S., who was also my godfather, was in Marine intelligence during WWII, stationed in North Africa. He learned to speak fluent Arabic, and was one of the nicest men I have ever met. At his funeral, in Maine, several years ago, the Marine hymn was played, and a Marine color guard played taps and presented us with a flag. (I hope when Mr. Habu is driving around Maine trying to cause Yankee dead to spin in their graves, he doesn’t bother my uncle).
There are numerous other extended family members of mine who served in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines. Some didn’t come home. One bomber pilot lies somewhere at the bottom of the English Channel. His younger brother was on a Navy destroyer off of Iwo Jima several months after his older brother was shot down, taking down casualty lists from Iwo Jima over the radio. He was hoping that one of the names he read wasn’t his third brother, a 19-year-old marine who was fighting on Iwo Jima.
My point in telling you about these men is this: Lots of Americans have performed valiantly for their country. It isn’t a hard-ass competition. But I will tell you one thing about my grandfather and my uncle – they would never, not in a million years, have dreamed of bragging about their military exploits on the internet in the wee hours, talking about how hard ass they are, insulting strangers, threatening violence, bragging that people they have never met would be screaming for their mothers. In fact, I’ve never known any combat veteran who has talked much about his service. My father- in -law liberated concentration camps with Patton, but he never talks about it. Perhaps Mr. Habu is merely the exception that proves the rule.
Thanks, by the way, for the words to “Pencil Neck Geek”. Haven’t heard old Fred sing this since college. Figures you’d like an old blowhard fraud like him, though I admit I did too. Thanks also for the treasonous South Carolina Slave State Rights document. Yawn. I agree with you about the flag burning though. I just want to make certain that you understand that, to me, the Stars and Bars represents the same thing that the Nazi Swastika or the North Vietnamese Flag does, and that it represents the same sort of society. The pre-Civil War South was a ghastly place. There is no record that wealthy plantation owners who started the war cared or did much for the poor white farmers who comprised their armies. These men, the common confederate soldier, would have been better off hanging the Southern politicians and planters, freeing the slaves and dividing up the good land that was mostly in the hands of the Southern aristocracy. That would have been a useful rebellion.
Mr. B.D., you talk to Mr. Gordie of Ad Hominem attacks. Have you read Mr. Habu’s entries? Mr. Gordie’s remarks are much gentler and saner sounding, but then that is true of almost everyone else as well. And Patina, have you? I’m slurring American soldiers? What do you call wishing to make dead Yankees spin in their graves until an earthquake is caused? Mr. Habu calls me a son-of-a-bitch. Is this not as much a slur on dogs as my comment about traitorous dogs? Or how about his under the porch licking genitals remark? This seems to be insulting to dogs as well. I think the Maggie’s Farm staff and friends are intimidated by Mr. Habu, and that there is a double standard at play.
And Mr. Habu, as Americans and readers of this blog, we have more in common than we disagree about. Maybe when you take your trip up north to rile dead Yankees you can stop by and have a porch beer or two with us Yankee sons-a-bitches, and we can discuss this into the wee hours. People are usually more reasonable face to face than they are on the Internet.
Interesting and informative. E.S. Slater. Ido appreciate your taking the time to respond.
Also please allow me to be clear. This is not my wish.
-What do you call wishing to make dead Yankees spin in their graves until an earthquake is caused?"-
Mr. Slater, I do think politicians like Ms. Clinton are very good at using issues like the Rebel flag issue to divide people who for the most part agree. I am somewhat curious if you agree with the banning of Indian mascots. They are being banned because dead Indian warriors were spinning in their graves.
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) -- The University of Illinois will drop its 81-year-old American Indian mascot, Chief Illiniwek...The move makes the school eligible to host postseason NCAA championship events, but it angered many Illini fans who say the chief honors American Indians. The NCAA in 2005 deemed Illiniwek -- portrayed by buckskin-clad students who dance at home...games and other athletic events -- an offensive use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason events. American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning... ...
Patina - No, I don't believe in the banning of Indian mascots. Ridiculous. I don't believe in the banning of the Confederate Flag, either. I don't actually like bans, (which is one of the reasons I visit this blog). I especially dislike the smoking in bars ban, but there are other bans I likewise dislike. Just because I don't like the Confederate flag doesn't mean I think other people don't have the right to display it all they want, just as long as they allow me to think poorly of them for doing so. I dislike Hilary Clinton, and agree she is using this issue divisively.
Good post earlier ESS. But glad too see you are not quite so focused as you appeared to be. Many shades of gray in this world. The only B&W for me, at present, is our current war. All else is beer table banter.
I was so prepared to write a long thoughtful post in response to many others, however I feel like Mr. Slater really summed up what I am trying to say.
I wish that people on this blog looked at all posts more equally though. Although I think that mostly it was a fair argument made by most people, and Habu, my only real "beef" with you is your hypocracy at calling out mr slater myself on some of our comments and not taking responsibility for your own. Otherwise I have the utmost respect for you.
However I am done, and I would like to say that alot of what I have written is meant in good humor, especially the part about the staff here at Maggies Farm. It is somewhat hard to convey sarcasm over the net though. Best wishes to all, thank you for the stimulating conversation.
OK, you Yanks ain't so bad. Include me with LM's summary. The war that we just gotta win is the one we are in.
"The pre-Civil War South was a ghastly place" I could've done without, tho. According to some, sure. But for about 80% of the population, the non-planters and non-slaves, it wuz just "home sweet home".
Mr. McLeod, Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Gordie,
I couldn't agree with you more about the war in Iraq. We HAVE to win it.
And Mr. Larsden, I was referring to the slaves and the poor white farmers who were both exploited by the aristocracy. You are right, though, that it was a sweeping statement, and I retract it. There were terrible aspects to life in both the North and South. By the way, I have relatives in Maryland, Texas, and Florida, and we go at it all the time - all in good fun, of course. I especially love Texas as a state, and not just because most of the best music comes from there (I'm not including the Dixie Chicks).
I have asked Habu to chill with the ad hominems. We want to be a welcoming and friendly place, regardless of disagreements. Indeed, we want disagreement. We all need our ideas to be challenged.