Creed of the Children of the Confederacy

Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Services, and upheld its flag through four years of war, we, the children of the South, have united in an Organization called the “Children of the Confederacy,” in which our strength, enthusiasm and love of justice can exert its influence.

We, therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals; to honor the memory of our beloved Veterans; to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is, that the War Between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery). and always to act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble and patriotic ancestors.

They actually have that hanging in the Texas Capitol Building?  What the hell is wrong with Texas ? 

 What the hell is wrong with Texas ? 

What's right with Texas?

San Antonio, Arlington, Austin

San Antonio, Arlington, Austin

Ok, those are nice places but......

Then there's Lubbock, Abilene and El Paso to counteract....lol

A short-sighted question. If you don't know, look it up.

Why? I've been there, Dallas and, Huston are too congested, the other towns and, roads remind me of places from 70 years ago, the interstates through there are in need of repairs all the time and, there are more Hookers in Amarillo than there are citizens, I think.

Abilene has an Air Force Base and a place called Joe Allen's - one of the best steak places in the universe.

Mr Giggles was stationed there. He said it was the ass end of the world

Dallas and Houston are rather large cities. Are they more congested than, say, San Francisco/San Jose or Los Angeles? Or Boston or Chicago? Or really ANY large city in the US?

Never been to San Jose but, I can say they may not be more congested but, the roads are more confusing in Dallas especially, Houston is somewhat confusing, especially when driving a large truck, (semi). Never got to drive around D.C., I always had a driver when I went there, who usually met me at the airport.

Washington DC

Yeah DC is awful but i got to experience it in a different way this fall.   That is, as part of an escorted Honor Flight.

We were escorted all through the town to all the monuments and memorials.   It was really cool and let me tell you.   Don't mess with those escort troops.   They will run you off the road no questions asked.  

That was fun to watch as well.   You know, that smart ass driver who is always cutting everyone off?   They got theirs compliments of our escorts.  Big time.    It was hilarious!

I liked the Trail Dust in Dallas - good thing I didn't wear a tie.

I liked the Trail Dust in Dallas - good thing I didn't wear a tie.

Ooooh, you missed the fun.  

The point was to wear the most hideous tie you could find, let them cut it off and staple it to the wall with your business card while you went in to drink copious amounts of beer.

Ate a fabulous huge steak there - I think it was two pounds..  

I wasn't prepared for the tie cutting - I only brought really good ties with me.  My business card wouldn't have done much good there anyway, since my business was in Toronto.  I was there on business, though.  My client was buying a trailer park in Arlington.  I bought a pair of great cowboy boots at Sheplers.

What in their mind is a "pure ideal"?

And the Civil War was an act of rebellion and was all about the preservation of slavery. Of course, Texas history books won't tell ya that!

It wasn't rebellion. It was secession.

It was rebellion the moment the Confederates open fired on Fort Sumter

actually no it wasn't TG, the issue of seccession came up during the drafting of the counstitution ,it came up a second time that I know of when the new England states were about to enter into a convention amounst themselves to discuss leaving the union during the war of 1812 due to the effect the war was having on the economy of the region , the convention never happened because the war ended .

 Thing is , until the civil war , it was believed that a state COULD leave the union on a vote of its legislature, it was only after the war that that was not the case , and to this day there is NO Constitutional provision  for a state to leave the union if it so desires, some had suggested that if such a thing existed it would most likely have to follow the ways a state actually becomes a state nowdays..and that would take a constitutional amendment to allow it.

before the shots where fired on ft sumter, SC had already voted  to leave the union and had recalled their representation from the US congress, the fort was  a US military garrison in territory that SC claimed . IF they had not fired on the fort , the north would have had no reason to invade , but the minute hostile actions were took was the justifications for war. now if the union had invaded without the provocation of the attack on the fort , they would have been viewed as the aggressor and in the wrong , and most likely other nations would have recognized the confederacy as a separate entity from the US.

 as for slavery , only about 3 % of the population of the south owned slaves , and some of that 3 % were colored themselves , so was the war fought over slavery ? it played a part yes , but was it the only reason ? or one that affected the entire southern population?  

Something else had to be in the mix , and it goes back to the 1840s and 50s .  one of the major causes for secession and the war was the industrial revolution of the  time , the north was changing from a more agrarian society to an industrialized one , one in need of raw material to produce into products made by industry . the south remained agrarian , or industrialized at a slower pace because they were making money off the raw materials  industry needed .  Sounds like a pretty good match right?  one side supplying the raw materials the other side making a finished product.

Fly in the ointment , the us was not the only place the industrial revolution was taking place , so there was a demand for the raw materials , and eventually the suppliers found they could get a better price if they sold outside the country .  of course that didn't set well with the industrialists , so they petitioned their representatives to place a tariffs on exports of the raw materials, tariffs steep enough that there was no profit in exportatrion since the profit went to pay the export tariffs  tarriffs. and this led to the industrailists being able to offer to pay less and less for the raw materials, increasing their profits because the export tariffs didn't apply to them look up the intolerable tariffs of the 1850s. it explains the economic reasons war came very well I f you see how they were applied  and it also explains to me how  the confederacy could get its populus to fight the war.  so there had to be an incentive other than slavery  to get the others to fight .

I can see 3 main causes for the war that took decades to simmer over . one is the issue of slavery itself . I have relatives that fought on the union side , and his diary makes no mention of fighting to free the slaves , instead it is to preserve the union and tin extent the raw materials available to the union . I also have relatives that fought on the opposing side , not as many writings but oral history tells a different story of why they fought , and it generally ended up being having the freedom to sell what they produced  for the highest price they could , in other words the economic freedom to choose who they would sell to. and they were not slave owners.

I think economics played a larger role than most would like to say , especially if they wish to narrow it down to only a single cause for the war , since the majority of the population of the south didn't even own slaves. so I think the right to sell to the highest bidder is what convinced many to fight for the confederacy , not the institution of slavery, yeah that 3% that owned had a loud voice , and most likely had the money and connections to be elected to get the verbiage into their documents they did . but that alone doesn't mean those that fought for the south fought for that reason . just as those from the north didn't fight to free the slaves , at least not all of them. for some they were fighting to keep the union together and protect their economic livelihood in an ever increasing industrializing society. without the raw materials there was no industry .

last reason is rooted in the tariffs and the response , Plain old human greed , and how when one side gets an upper hand they push too hard on the screws to squeeze out maximum profit.

 sorry for the length , but there is my 2 cents.. One over all cause ? no , there were many that took years to come to a boil and explosive point when combined .

Never apologize for writing a coherent comment .

the fort was  a US military garrison in territory that SC claimed . IF they had not fired on the fort , the north would have had no reason to invade , but the minute hostile actions were took was the justifications for war.

But you agree that the South fired on the North first and that makes them the aggressor. So when people call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" I tend to get a little tight jawed.

There is no doubt Sc fired the first shots , and it is dependant on how one looks at things if they were the agressors or the defenders in that particular firing on the fort, they claimed the fort because it was inside their claimed territory , they had already voted to leave the union , and as such considered themselves as no longer part of the union , any other nation that has a garrison on what another claims has to have permission even today . and even today , any nation that does not agree to a military force in their territory has the right to eject said military force by any means they deem fit.

 Now I think we are drifting into more of the politics of the era . At the time , there were not enough abolishionists to force a confrontation by military force  to end slavery, and the people of the union didn't really give a squat , they were content to let the status quo continue , my meaning there is the abolishionists didnt have the power to get the nation to go to war over slavery and neither could the government rally such support.

 I will point out throughout our shared American history , the population as a whole was loathed to go to war there was never really a overwhelming support to START a war , the thinking was and still is to some degree , we wont start it , but we will finish it.

 lets start with the revolution .

 what was the battle cries that stirred the people to fight? At concord bridge it was "remember Lexigton" and it was used through out the war as were other battles.

 war of 1812 , the burning and sacking of the capitol was used .

Mexican war, remember the Alamo was used 

Civil War  remember ft sumter.

Indian wars , remember custer ( who was an egotistical moron whose last words  most likely were where all these injuns come from?)

Spanish American war , remember the maine

WW1  remember the Lusitania

WW2 remember pearl harbor

 Korea , remember pusan

Vietnam was the outlier , even though I was alive then I don't remember any rally cry justifying going to war

  I will call the next one , the terrorist wars , remember 9-11

With the exception of Vietnam, all have 3 major things in common ,

 1. the majority of the people were not behind the effort to go to war

2. the government realized they needed to provide a very good reason to mobilize the citizens behind any war effort

3. every single one of those major conflicts were entered Viet nam excluded AFTER what most people would say  we as a nation  were attacked.

the government and those that run it have always known that to incite the people to go to war , there better be an irrefutable reason, and that they need the support of the people to wage and win the war once started , last war we came out victorious? WW@ , after that public support wasn't there for any of the following.

 So there are a couple more reasons the war started and where it did , as I said if SC had not fired , the union didn't have the popular support to fight , but AFTER the attack , it was used to rally the troops , and it wasn't over slavery , it was more over the audacity of the confederacy to vote to and actually leave the union , and I think but am not sure they used the 10th amendment as the power and had other justifications  as I pointed out.

Rufus King , constitutional delegate from Mass. was asked by another delegate, if a state decided they didn't want to be part of the union of states , could they leave? his reply was that if a state , its legislature and its people found that it was detrimental for them to be part of the union they most assuredly should be allowed to disjoin said union , and I believe that was one of the basises of why the NE states called a convention to secceed during the War of 1812 , that ended up never happening . and up until the Civil war happened that was a belief of those in government that was how a state COULD leave, but they never thought it could or would come to that , they always thought there was room for compromise , sound familiar? , but  that wasn't the case after the war.

 so factors contributing to the reasons for the war? economic , political, the fact that the confederacy dared to actually leave the union , not just think about it, something that had never been doine. and the usual root cause for all wars , greed.

contrary to what educators wish to teach , and what some point to as the story line they hold as true, the actual facts do not support that the war was fought over slaves, their freedom and emancipation was a happy result of the war , not the cause though slavery DID play an important role in the causes of that conflict.

 and all that before I had my coffee......

so factors contributing to the reasons for the war? economic , political, the fact that the confederacy dared to actually leave the union , not just think about it, something that had never been doine. and the usual root cause for all wars , greed. contrary to what educators wish to teach , and what some point to as the story line they hold as true, the actual facts do not support that the war was fought over slaves, their freedom and emancipation was a happy result of the war , not the cause though slavery DID play an important role in the causes of that conflict.

Mark, I think you are basically a good guy, but this is complete nonsense.

The South seceded because Lincoln, the representative of the Republican Party, and someone who was known to be anti-slavery, was elected president.  They foresaw four years or more of continuous eating away at their rights to own slaves AND expand slavery to new territories. It was necessary to create new slave states because as the number of states grew with westward expansion, unless some of them were slave states the South would be overwhelmed by hostile votes in Congress. Lincoln was 100% against the expansion of slavery in new states, as was all of the Republican Party.

The South seceded.  But Lincoln never recognized the move as the creation of a new nation, he never accept "secession" as legitimate. The Union had military bases in Southern states, including FT Sumter. When the North signaled they would resupply such military installations the South initated armed conflict. A rebellion was underway, and Lincoln called for the creation of a Northern army to put doen the insurrection.

The secession documents of the various states, and the Secession Commisioners , who were prominent southern men who were sent to borfder states to argue for secession there, prove that slavery was the cause for secession, and thus cause for the war. Serious historians no longer dispute this.

well john you and I have had this discussion before , what was it 6-7 years ago now? and agreed to impasse because neither of us are going to change the others minds .Hopefully though , what we dicuss and bring to the discussion table  does make others think  and think for themselves , that's how people learn is it not?

what I do see is that some that wish to place slavery as the only reason for the conflict are ignoring a lot of things that fed the fires that ultimately led to the conflict, you cannot ignore the 20 some years of actions on both sides that fed that fire that exploded into open war.

historians agree? after omitting pertinent facts ? and they have never been wrong before?

Lincoln never recognized them? so the british never recognized it when the founders broke away either , and right up until the war of 1812 , continued to call the nation , the colonies in rebellion.

What I believe John is both of us , are looking at a period of history that we were not a part of , through eyes educated and conditioned by our 20th and 21 st century beliefs and educations along with all the morals and beliefs that came with the age of our upbringings .

 the period we are discussing and disagree on is far too complex  volatile and was ever changing , that those of us alive today cant really grasp what was being thought back then on the individual level to ever be able to boil it down to any single cause for what happened , there never will be an acceptable single simple solution. because the facts do not support a single simple cause.

Your comments in this thread have been informative and I thank you for that. It appears that you've studied and researched this period.

The assertion that the war was caused by something besides slavery is a revisionist posiition. At the time, everyone knew the war was over what would become of slavery in the south.

I am a history buff , it has always fascinated me as far as the different wars and the reasons and causes to understand who one is , one must understand where they have and who they have come from , and like you who clenches their jaw at the term , war of northern aggression , I get a similar feeling when someone states the only reason for the civil war was slavery, and as I have stated , the situation was far too involved and complex to even really try to boil it down to any single reason, and it actually started a long before the actual first shots were fired, and I feel to disregard all the other facts in preference for a single fact, is an actual injustice to history.

I believe that in order to believe that slavery was the sole reason for the war , one would have to ignore some 20+ years or more of history that came before it and half the actual war itself. and I think if one is to come to an honest conclusion , one must look at all the facts no matter how distant from the actual event they occur , because they are also the seeds of discord that fuel the fires of conflict..

nd with any person , historian , academic , they will individually choose themselves what they  not history feel is relative and causatory to come to a conclusion .

history is always written by the winners , and usually goes about it in a backwards fashion, its almost like they are trying to justify a victory.

To me , any and all wars are fought for the 3 reasons I mentioned , economical , political , and just plain human greed and arrogance.

and I am still a work in progress , and hope to be until the day I draw my last breath.

revisionists because it does not conform to what you wish to be believed and is currently taught as fact in acedemia. using cherry picked facts that support that conclusion.

first 2 years of the war from a northern point of view  was in the preservation of the union , to continue acsess to the products of the southern states as well as the warm water ports they afforded , without those things the norths rapid industrialization would have collapsed  for lack of cheap through tariffs  raw materials it would have been an economic disaster for the northern textile mills if they lost the southern supply to other nations on the open market during a definitive time of one of the industrial revolutions . in stead of being an exporter , the north would have become an importer and at the whims of the supplier of those raw materials, which would have curtailed US economic and national expansion and manifest desyiny, which wouldn't have been a bad thing in my view.

how important was slavery to the north except to the abolishionalists? not that important until half way through the war and the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in only those states areas in open rebellion against the union if the state stayed in the union , they kept their slaves , why did it become important then? the union was fighting and getting their asses handed to them on a regular basis by a south fighting a defensive battle, remind me how many generals did the army of the Potomac go through and replace?

I agree , the issue of slavery would be decided by who won this war , but if slavery was of such import, why did it take a union state until the 1990s to ratify the 13th amendment when it was a requirement for readmission of southern states  into the union ? acedemia says that was just a mere oversight.....and if they had to be readmitted to the union , that means the union recognized they LEFT the union to begin with.

And this is why we called impasse those years ago failure to recognize anything that does not conform to ones ideological metrics of the story being related .

The war was ended on the battlefield in 1865 , but it is still being waged in educational intituions and somewhat in the court system, the battlefields simply shifted and continues.

Lincoln was an abolitionist, but even he did not want the war to be about slavery. It was about union and the ideal stemming from the 10th amendment that states rights included the right to leave the union....

No it didn't..... I would say that legal slavery drove the wedge that caused the war yes, but from the original northern perspective it wasn't about slavery.....

Eventually though, it was made about slavery, to give a higher purpose to all the slaughter, Even Lincoln in his pragmatic sense eventually realized that to effectuate his ideals of union forever, had to change the focus to something greater than just the ideal of unity......

The abolition of slavery and the question of legal slavery was the issue that was readily on the table and the easiest to implement....

In Ken Burns documentary "The Civil War" Shelby Foote said that the Civil War had a very important impact on how our nations citizens viewed the nation....

It changed the ideal that " The United States ARE to The United States IS" I describe it to changing the Constitutional conventions description of this nation to the  actual established fact of this being a nation......

The civil war completed the conversion of this nation from a confederation to a complete nation where no one could even conceive of having such a war in the first place.....

It corrected the major error of the constitutional convention (slavery intact) and clarified that we are all in this together and once in you can never leave... (permanence)

STATE SECESSION CONVENTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND DECLARATIONS

Indisputable evidence of the seceding states’ reasons for secession comes from their own secession resolutions and declarations.

What could tell us more accurately why states seceded than their own contemporaneous statements, explanations, and justifications?²⁴

South Carolina, of course, went first. Its “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” issued on December 24, 1860, complained of Northern states’ and federal failure to return fugitive slaves in accordance with the Constitution and federal law: “But an in- creasing 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.” It complained that Northern states had condemned slavery as sinful and that Northerners had elected as president a man who had said, “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free.”

The South Carolinians even criticized Northern states for allowing free blacks (non-citizens under the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford) to vote. Far from respecting individual states’ rights, they wanted to compel the federal and other state governments to enforce slaveholders’ rights.²⁵ Mississippi was simultaneously moving toward secession. On November 26, 1860, Governor John Pettus urged the legislature to convene a secession convention, declaring, “The existence or the abolition of African slav- ery in the Southern States is now up for a final settlement.” He accused Northerners of regarding slavery as a sin and urging its destruction. The North, he said, was ordering the South to decide “whether it shall be a peaceable and gradual abolition or speedy and violent.”²⁶

On November 30, 1860, the Mississippi legislature called for a secession convention with delegates elected by voters and authorized the governor to appoint delegates to other slave states. The North, they complained, had defied the Constitution’s fugitive slave provision, interfered with slavery, enticed slaves to flee, agitated against slavery, sought to exclude slavery from the territories, and opposed the admission of more slave states. Abolitionists, moreover, sought to amend the Constitution to prohibit slavery and to punish slaveholders. They had en- couraged John Brown’s raid and had elected a president and vice president hostile to the South and its system of labor. In convoking a secession convention, the Mississippi legislature left no doubt that slavery was the main reason for a withdrawal from the Union.²⁷ With its legislature already having determined that secession was the proper remedy for all the slavery-related grievances, Mississippi’s January 9, 1861, secession ordinance,²⁸ passed by the convention without a further vote by the people,²⁹ surprised no one. The convention’s declaration of the causes of secession got right to the point: Our 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 com- merce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an impe- rious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.³⁰

Edward BonekemperIII

The Myth Of The Lost Cause

dugan49.webs

Georgia seceded eight days later.³⁶ Ten days thereafter, the State published its reasons for seceding. Its January 29 Declaration of Causes solely addressed “numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave- hold-ing confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.” Georgia’s declaration went on for pages about the Northern challenges to slavery that had culminated in the rise of the “anti-slavery” Republican Party and the election of Lincoln. It complained that “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of [the Republicans],” and that “by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of the Federal law everywhere.”³⁷

The proof of what caused the Civil War is right there in the words of the secession documents and the Secession Commissioner's documents.  There is a lot more of this I could post.

all those document prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the 3% of the southern population that owned slaves had enough influence power and money from other slave owners both inside and outside the country to get elected to be able to get those conditions worded in that manner. how I read some of those statement is it was a PROPERTY ISSUE, that the state considered a federal obligation to uphold that different states would honor claims by other states for return of legally held property. and like it or not that is exactly what slaves were viewed as at that time , not human , but property like a dresser , a cow , or a pig or a buggy/ wagon , and the constitution protects or was suppose to, personal private property even if it is removed beyond state lines into another states jurisdiction .

look at it like this , I come to Illinois steal your car , bring it back to Wyoming , and the state says they will not honor your request for its return , same thing.

 so we are back to arguing that slavery was a property rights issue that the federal government failed to protect across state liness as the constitution requires. which is an economic loss to a property issue that was politicized .

wow 2 of the 3 things I think actually caused the war , economics and politics, with  slavery winding through both. and that's not even bringing in the punative tariffs instituted to force in country sale of product  which got price controlled by the purchaser and not the seller.

keep flailing john , the best you will get me to admit is slavery was but ONE of the causes , but it was far from the sole cause that you espouse , and that is because the facts taken straight do not bear the weight that it WAS the sole cause . I will let others who have read this make up their own minds which actually makes more sense and rings more true.

I suggest we continue our impasse instituted before because we are right back exactly where we were when we instituted it , neither has brought anything new to the table that is a revelation .

There is a theme that is often stated when this is discussed. It goes like this.

Southern apologists say the Civil War was over state's rights, which is true. The southern states wanted the right to own human beings , and when that was threatened, claimed the stae's right to secede.

In other word's states rights is not the cause , it is the method. Same thing with 'economics'.  The South claimed they would lose 4 billion dollars if they didnt leave the Union. Sounds very much like an issue related to economics, doesn't it?  But what was that 4 billion dollars referring to?  It was the worth of all the slaves in the south, whose value to the slave states would be lost if they were freed.

All of the "reasons" you are presenting are part and parcel of the disposition of slavery at that time. Thus the war was caused by the question - what was to become of slavery in the south?

What is more interesting to me than arguing over settled issues is, why do so many people feel the need to say something else was the cause of the war? What do they get out of it?

Southern apologists say the Civil War was over state's rights, which is true. The southern states wanted the right to own human beings , and when that was threatened, claimed the state's right to secede.

Technically, the war wasn't over whether Southern States could own slaves, they already could and no one was really threatening to stop them. There was no majority that was just about to ban slavery in Southern States when the South attacked our nations military. The debate over slavery came to a head because Northern States were claiming States rights to pass laws protecting escaped slaves and those helping them. The South was bitterly angry as they watched what they saw as their property, humans, escape their clutches to hide in the Northern "sanctuary cities" of the day. The South wanted the Federal government to force the Northern States to comply, force them to return their slaves or face major fines and jail time. They got the Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 but the Northern States continued to help slaves and the Northern legislature sued over the Fugitive Slave Act which eventually was ruled unconstitutional in 1855 which is when things got really heated.

So it was actually the Southern States fighting AGAINST States rights, trying to use the Federal Government to enforce the return of their human chattel from rogue States that believed in States rights. If the South hadn't started the war, it might have been much longer before slavery was banned in their States. I guess it's true, no matter how bad something might be, like treasonous slavers attacking our soldiers starting a war to force themselves on the Northern States, if you look hard enough there's a silver lining, if they hadn't started the war slavery might have been around far longer than it was. By stepping up for their ass whooping they got their long deserved punishment over with faster, the slaves were finally freed, and the principle of States rights was upheld.

But what was that 4 billion dollars referring to?  It was the worth of all the slaves in the south, whose value to the slave states would be lost if they were freed.

I don't know you supposing that that was the value of the slaves  alone , I could think by remaining in the union , loosing the slaves AND having to pay those export tariffs to the government  if they chose not to sell to US buyers was what the southern area was going to lose .

 so I will admit that the property had value and because the importation of new slave had been banned almost 20 years before the conflict , slaves were even though they reproduced , could fetch a preimium price due to availability, so my guess is that 4b loss is both in property and product and produce., and the same can be said of the northern mills if they lost the monopoly of purchase power at the prices they set for the material they needed to continue, either way was an economic disaster for eitherif it came to pass , we know how it ended up for the southern states , lost the property(slaves) , and control of the price of what they produced for a number of decades after the war.

They claimed states rights as a reason to secede because they knew that there was no other possible legitimate reason. But you are right, what they wanted was for the federal government to prevent northern states that were helping escaped slaves from continuing to do so.

The southern states seceded as a direct response to Lincoln's election. It wasn't even unexpected at the time.  Why did Lincoln being elected bother them so much?  Because they knew he was anti-slavery and that his party was anti-slavery. Most of the previous presidents had been somewhat conciliatory toward slave states and many of those presidents had been from slave states themselves.

holy CRAP!!!! there is something we can agree on regarding this ,they did think he was anti slavery , but they never gave him the chance to show how conciliatory towards the law of property he would be and what steps he would have taken that he could under the constitution. , they I agree "jumped the gun" and didn't wait to see and in doing so made their own worst fears become a reality.

I was going to post THIS to lighten things up as a kinda nice to know sort of thing when I saw your last post.

 the last confederate soldier ( confirmed) died in 1957-58? so he would have had to have been born in 1850-52 to be old enough to even PASS for being old enough in 1865 to have enlisted . still would have made him over 100 years old when he died 

 Due to legislation passed he got a soldiers pension from the government , here is what I found both ironic , and humourous , when he died he left a widow , who started collecting his widow benefits of his war pension as allowed by law . the federal government finally no longer has to pay it now that she has passed as of a couple 5 years ago or so , she was 18 when she married him and in her early 20s when he died , so you do the math , he was old as dirt , and had the feds paying a confederate even after death for  a half century .

the last confederate soldier......

In Lee's Last Retreat: The Flight to Appomattox , historian William Marvel identified Private Pleasant Riggs Crump , of Talladega County, Alabama, who died December 31, 1951, as the last confirmed surviving veteran of the Confederate States Army.

An extensively researched book by Frank L. Gryzb, The Last Civil War Veterans: The Lives of the Final Survivors State by State , published March 29, 2016, supports the conclusion by Dr. Hoar, Mr. Marvel, Mr. Serrano and others that Pleasant Crump was the last confirmed and verified surviving veteran of the Confederate States Army.

In his 1991 article in Blue & Gray magazine, Marvel confirmed Albert Woolson's (February 11, 1847(?), or 1850 – August 2, 1956) claim to be the last surviving Union Army veteran and asserted that Woolson was the last genuine surviving American Civil War veteran from either side. Woolson was a drummer whose company did not see combat.

Union Army veteran James Albert Hard (July 15, 1843 – March 12, 1953) was the last verified surviving American Civil War veteran who was in combat.

Everyone that claimed to be a veteran Civil war soldier after that has been debunked including alleged longest surviving Confederate veteran, John B. Salling of Slant in Scott County, Virginia. Marvel also showed that Salling had been too young to have served in the Confederate Army. In a post on the Library of Virginia blog on October 6, 2010, Craig Moore, Virginia State Records Appraisal Archivist, wrote that when Salling applied for a pension in 1933, Pension Clerk John H. Johnson could not find a war record for Salling at the Virginia State Library, which held the records of the Department of Confederate Military Records. Salling received a pension after providing a notarized statement attesting to his service. Moore wrote that Marvel had found census records which put Salling's birth date in 1858. After stating Marvel's finding, Moore concluded that although existing Confederate pension records do not confirm or deny Salling's claim, the Commonwealth of Virginia accepted his claimed status.

So they paid his pension on the basis of a notarized statement of witness when his confirmed birth date made him three years old when the war started. (his birthdate wasn't confirmed until after his death in 1959 so yes he was celebrated as one of the last)

There was another that was also thought to be the last that died in '59 also but he would have been four years old when he served. Now there were young men as old as twelve that served in the Confederate Army no doubt about that. But at twelve to have served in 1865 that would make their birthdate sometime in 1843. Generally a confirmed birthdate after 1843 precludes service in the civil War in any capacity.

Excuse me that was supposed to be 1853... not 1843....

my bad....

That is one of the ways they can discredit a claim, simple math and date of birth, but that doesn't preclude that someone under age can not have served .

 if what I have read is right , the youngest WW2 vet entered service in the US navy and served in battle in the pacific at 12 years old until he was caught , even based a movie on it with Rick Schroeder , too young the hero . interesting story and movie.

They grant that some served at 12 years old, younger than that there is a plethora of evidence that even the oldest serving would reject them or send them home when caught....

There is a practical limit they set on age.... and they caught several as young as 10 on both sides..... they did try to keep them in the non-armed service, drummer boys and flag bearers, runners and messengers as much as possible, but there is evidence that some carried firearms in battle....

Their age detection abilities became more astute by the time WWII arrived, but yeah a few still slipped thru....

They claimed states rights as a reason to secede because they knew that there was no other possible legitimate reason.

agreed and the basis  of that thinking I think is rooted in the 10th amendment . We have to remember that a state leaving the union , even though it might have been discussed during the drafting of the current governing document ( US constitution) or the idea floated as it was during the War of 1812 , by the north east region , was not covered in the Constitution , and the idea as NWM  pointed out of once in never leave did not come about until AFTER the conflict and is what is very much accepted today even if they can prove a legitimate reason to do so.

remember the 10th states that unless the federal government is  granted a power and it is not forbidden to the states by the constituion that power remains with the states and the people of the states. the US Constitution even today says nothing about seccession , a state leaving the union .

IF the war we are discussing really proved anything  to me? is that a state could not leave the union under force of arms , which simply reiterated what happened in shays rebellion.

Until the civil war it had never been tested , just as it still has not been tested in the case of a state deciding to leave the union , PEACEFULLY.

You can argue that that would never happen , and it most likely wont , but remember people back in the 1800s never thought things would get as divisive as they did that a state or group of states would leave either.

To try and bring this all back in line with the topic of the seed , and I apologize for my part for going somewhat off topic , Our country has done a lot of things right , BUT, it has also done a lot of things wrong , these plaques , or monuments , serve as a reminder at least to me , of that very fact, I am a firm believer that if one wishes to erase the past , that they are predestined in the future  to make the same mistakes that have already been made that were in the wrong, and that is why I think it is important to look at the whole picture , ALL the facts and try to understand how those in the past thought , if that is possible , and why they reacted the way they did .

I see the old saying those that refuse to remember history ( I will add in its entirety), are doomed to repeat it  becoming more and more true.

I can see a correlation of how the confederacy reacted to the election of Lincoln , to the reactions that are happening today in present day politics , it just hasn't gotten to the point of states deciding to leave the union. the divisions haven't gotten that bad yet and I don't think any of us really want to relive that particular period of history.

Settle down Beto.

Take a breath---breathe---and study Supply Side Economics.  Learn SSE's in and outs---everything about it.  Lay the plot to prove to Americans how ill served they have been by this 'flawed' economic system that has controlled American workers and American wealth for these past forty years.  You do this and it will be an economic/social revolutionary winner.

Forget the statues.  After all---all of that is what made America and Americans the most resilient nation and people in history.

What if Beto O'Rourke, or someone else , can both learn supply side economics and make the point that the Confederacy is not to be honored any longer ?

Doesn't seem impossible or impractical. A lot of people have had about enough of the promotion of ignorance that is associated with celebrating the Confederacy.

From the Children's Confederate Creed

" nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery"

Yeah, it was.

If America is to advance---be the dominant player on the World Stage---it must use the economic engine of American wealth to achieve that.

American history is what it is.  Learn from it.  Become better because of it.  Never turn away from it because it is what we are.

Confederate history is not the enemy.  Wealth concentration is the foe.  And 'lazy wealth' is the anvil around our necks.  Beto wants to be a leader, take this bull of SSE by the horns and prepare for the fight of the century.  There are many that understand this.  He will not be alone. 

And there are many who will not let go of the status quo.  These folk may fight to the death.  This fight will not be easy.  It will take dedicated leaders and a lot of homework.

Slavery, racism the Ku Kluxers, Nazis and all the rest will slide into the swamps from whence they came when the economic disparity subsides and the American economic engine returns to doing what it is supposed to do. 

If America is to advance---be the dominant player on the World Stage---it must use the economic engine of American wealth to achieve that.

Personally I think we threw that option out the window this last presidential election. The president we now have doesn't seem to want America to be the dominant player except in war machines basically. I dont think our president puts much stock in words or cooperating with others. 

Words are really what allows us all cooperate together instead of for one force, person or government forcing the rest to do what the that one wants, but talking to people or countries and getting them to agree to do what you want is so much more involved.

But that's what the American people put into power, so we deal with it for now.

Perhaps our reputation is still salvageable, time will tell. 

"Personally I think we threw that option out the window this last presidential election. The president we now have doesn't seem to want America to be the dominant player except in war machines basically. I dont think our president puts much stock in words or cooperating with others."

The same line liberals have been parroting for the last two years. Yet I don't see where there are any wars going on with Russia/ China/ N Korea/ etc....

I see Trump making demand and actually getting things in favor of this country, not going on apology tours and trying to fit in with some global elite class like other world leaders do. 

I see Trump making demand and actually getting things in favor of this country,

I see it more like he is doing what he thinks will make America wealthier and keep him in power for 4 more years. . IMO: Wealth alone does not make for a great country. I dont like how he does much even if I agree it needs to be done. How someone does things is almost as important many times as what they do, especially if it sets a precedence for the future. 

trump is a manipulator of people, places and things, a true leader of men IMO: He is not. 

Also IMO: We will see just what good and bad this president has done years from now just as we do with all former presidents. 

Time will tell. Both the good and the bad. 

As far as promoting America as the true future global leader I just dont see trump pushing for that at all and I think that is one huge mistake. 

But, To each their own.   

Confederate history is not the enemy.

True.  Neither are statues of Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson or whatever.  

  Wealth concentration is the foe.

Nope.  Poverty and ignorance are the foes.  Poverty and ignorance keep people from creating their own wealth.  Wealth is not a zero-sum situation.  My gain in wealth does not need to correspond with somebody else's loss of it.  

And 'lazy wealth' is the anvil around our necks.

Define "lazy wealth".

  Beto wants to be a leader, take this bull of SSE by the horns and prepare for the fight of the century.  There are many that understand this.  He will not be alone. 

If Beto wants to win, he needs to take the center....not pander to the left.  For example...if he comes out strongly supporting adjustments to the ACA but denouncing Berniecare.  Or if he came out denouncing the wall as stupid while putting forward an immigration policy overhaul that actually made sense. Or if while he denounces school vouchers and supports increasing school funding, he puts forward a concrete plan to improve academic standards and accountability in public education.

You know...intelligent stuff that nobody's doing.  

Poverty and ignorance are the by product of concentrated wealth.

Lazy Wealth is that wealth sequestered offshore or in 'investment vehicles' that do not invest in this nation.

Left or Center has nothing to do with anything.  Supply Side concentrates the wealth and places higher tax burdens on average Americans for basic services.

Immigration policy?  Sure.  Been in the works for 30+ years and...…...there it is, there you have it.

The Wall.  Ask Jesus if he'd build a wall or a bridge?

Five subjects and that is all you got? 

You don't pay attention.

Would Jesus build a wall or a bridge?  Well?  What would He do?  You have a clue?  Or not?

It is foolish to think that poverty is the byproduct of concentrated wealth. Saying it is like saying there is a finite amount of money, and if the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, which is inherently stupid.

Your comment is incredibly inane. The accumulation of wealth by some literally sets the stage for poverty and helps to define it. 

and if the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, which is inherently stupid.

The only reason someone is described as rich is because it can be contrasted to someone else who is poor.

Yes, in CONTRAST. But that has never meant that a poor person is poor because a rich person is rich. That is like saying that there are starving folks in the world because there are fat folks in the world. 

(lol.)

If everyone who does not now have a million dollars manages to get a million dollars, do you think a million dollars will still be a lot of money?

Think.

If everyone in America were to suddenly achieve a salary of 100,000 dollars a year, 100,000 wouldn't be such a good salary anymore, would it?

you got that right

Poverty and ignorance are the by product of concentrated wealth.

That's like saying pain causes a broken arm.  Poverty and ignorance are the product of a poor educational system that continually lowers standards.  

Lazy Wealth is that wealth sequestered offshore or in 'investment vehicles' that do not invest in this nation.

That would include mutual funds investing in Europe or Asia, which would expand "lazy wealth" to just about every pension plan in America.

Left or Center has nothing to do with anything.

Except getting elected.  Especially to the presidency.

Supply Side concentrates the wealth

No.  It doesn't.  Ignorance does that.  People who don't understand how money works are destined never to accumulate any.  The tax code does not make people smarter.

Immigration policy?  Sure.  Been in the works for 30+ years

Not in any serious sense.

The Wall.  Ask Jesus if he'd build a wall or a bridge?

The wall is a stupid idea.  But so are open borders.  There is a sane alternative between the two.  That is the truth that neither batshit extreme wants to concede.

Bridge.

If everyone who does not now have a million dollars manages to get a million dollars, do you think a million dollars will still be a lot of money?

OK, so we agree inequality is not the problem. 

Excellent.  Glad we got that sorted out.

Preferring to be charitable, and acknowledging that I am not a Texan, I hesitate to judge. So my opinion from afar is that I wouldn't have no problem honoring veterans, as the first paragraph states. Americans have fought in various conflicts that we might disagree with, but I think it's still important to honor their sacrifice. I'm not just thinking about the Civil War, but other conflicts that were controversial, like Vietnam or Iraq. You might the cause was wrong, but we should still be good to the people who fought.

It's the second paragraph I can't agree with. I don't know what you call the Confederate States of America if not a rebellion. Seven states seceded from the union. What else is that? Vacation?

And of course we often hear that the war wasn't about slavery; it was about state's rights. Ok, let's go with that. A state's right to do what, exactly? Oh yeah! Allow one human being to enslave another human being. There were (and are) other issues of states' rights to be sure, like tariffs, but I am not aware of other rights being so at issue that states were prepared to secede over them. Therefore, the war was about slavery, like we all thought.

Since when do we honor defeated enemies of the US on government property. Confederate white supremacists stopped being Americans when the first shot of the Civil War was fired. Save the debate and give the plaque an acid bath.

So, does that apply to Native Americans also?  Or just to those you don't have pity for?

[Removed]

a few mixed race children born in the south after 1968 are still too ignorant to realize just how fortunate they really were

ToS, my ass. Confederates were traitors and should have been dealt with accordingly by the rule of established law.

It's about setting aside the politics and honoring the sacrifice. Remember that Lincoln advocated coming together and healing as a country, not spending the next 200 years hating each other over what happened in the war.

Lincoln advocated coming together and healing as a country, not spending the next 200 years hating each other over what happened in the war.

yeah? ... and how did that work out for him then, and for our country up to the present day? the healing won't be complete until every reminder of that demented culture and heritage is relegated to historically accurate books, documentaries, objective museums, or landfills.

If people want to heal fine, let there be healing. More often you have groups like the one that created a Jefferson Davis "Presidential" Museum in Mississippi a few years ago. What was Davis the president of? lol.  There are neo-confederate groups in the south that have influence. One of them put Hyde-Smith in office.

a pardon negates established law

logic is your friend

the south lost the civil war. confederate traitors died and deserve no memorials. deal with it.

then why did confederate traitors need a pardon?

why did confederate traitors need a pardon?

good question ,  most likely the same reason Vietnam draft dodgers got a pardon.

confederate traitors died and deserve no memorials. deal with it.

actually by federal law , the graves of confederates are protected and to be treated the same as any other US veterans .

 truthorfiction

closer to 154 years, and I'm not fighting it, I know who won. derp

I don't think you know what year it ended, for the north anyway. 

would the words over rule/change the inevitable judgement get that bee out of your gray and yellow bonnet instead? here's a  picture of the only confederate flag that ever mattered.

Please, do tell?

that would be like arguing the difference in semantics between white supremacy versus southern heritage

130 years ago was 1888. the civil war ended in 1865, officially, although apparently still being fought by some inbred relics of white supremacy that are left over.

I don't think all southerners are racist. I was born in the south and I'm not a racist. I'm glad the south lost too, but they apparently needed to lose a lot more than they did for where we are now since then. the losers didn't pay a steep enough price in that era for their treason as evidenced by the continued unconstitutional attitudes towards American law by some to this day. gentrification of their children by higher standards of education and interaction with a more mobile American society due to economic forces will spell the ultimate doom of past southern heritage in the deep south. I connect with a lot of southern born young professional people and to them sounding like a goober when they speak just isn't that cool and they judge their peers at home that have thick southern drawls as less educated. The old south is being eclipsed by the new south and it will all be over within the next generation. The relics of the past are fighting another war for their heritage they cannot finance.

waving around a 160 year old flag representing white supremacy might have something to do with it

so do I, as long as they refute the bad actions of their ancestors. silence is approval

only relating what I have seen and heard from the younger southerners

my ancestors didn't fight for the Confederacy they were salves

for burns, rashes, or itchy assholes?

So my opinion from afar is that I wouldn't have no problem honoring veterans, as the first paragraph states. Americans have fought in various conflicts that we might disagree with, but I think it's still important to honor their sacrifice.

So you believe we should have statues of infamous Tories decorating our cities too? You know, the colonists who remained loyal to the British and fought against our nations founding? Confederates also fought against our nation, wrote their own constitution and started a war that would lead to over a hundred thousand patriots deaths. Why honor the traitors who committed such crimes against our nation, all to protect their abhorrent practice of owning humans like cattle. We voted for the civil rights and voting rights acts to correct a major flaw that had plagued America for far too long. We can continue to be a more perfect union, but only if we self reflect with an honest critical eye and then follow through by changing the things we have put up with for too long. I can't imagine how black Americans can feel welcome in a place that still commemorates and honors the men who fought to keep them enslaved. We saw what showed up in Charlottesville to protect that confederate monument, the very bottom dregs of America with the Nazis, KKK, worthless white supremacists and anti-Semites. When someone stands up and defends confederate monuments, those are the guys who have their back, so don't be surprised if others get them mixed up.

I'll simply refer you to my comments above. Don't try to make more out of it than is actually there.

What's the big surprise?  The Democratic party constantly seeks to erase it's racist past. 

What's the big surprise?  The Democratic party constantly seeks to erase it's racist past.

Of course the racist Alt-Right is always looking for ways to promote its racist present and, future.

LMFAO!!!   Like the lowest unemployment for Black people in the country's entire history no doubt./s   How about the lowest unemployment for ALL minorities in decades? 

How about prison reform?   Who does that help most?   Don't you look at this as a first step to fixing lopsided incarceration?

Actions speak louder than words.  What have Democrats accomplished for minorities while BO was in power and they had the majority?  NOTHING!

What have Democrats accomplished for minorities while BO was in power and they had the majority?  NOTHING!

He did have a cozy "Beer Summit" to get things ginned up.

There is that ! 

LMFAO!!!   Like the lowest unemployment for Black people in the country's entire history no doubt./s   How about the lowest unemployment for ALL minorities in decades? 

Oh, snap, look at this.

How about prison reform?   Who does that help most?   Don't you look at this as a first step to fixing lopsided incarceration?

I think Trump is getting ready for his time behind bars, at the very least he's trying make prison better for his kids.

Actions speak louder than words.  What have Democrats accomplished for minorities while BO was in power and they had the majority?  NOTHING!

Oh snap I specifically asked what he has done for MINORITIES and you can't come up with anything.   All you have is deflection tripe. (as usual)  What a surprise!/s

Oh snap I specifically asked what he has done for MINORITIES and you can't come up with anything.

What he did was lower the poverty rate and, lower the unemployment rate OVERALL so, what Trump is claiming now as his accomplishment is actually what Obama did during his time in office. 

Next.

LMFAO keep repeating lies until you beleive them.  Whatever works for you.

The real irony here is that Trump turned the economy around almost soley by reversing BO's polcies.

BTW didn't you get the memo that bullshit lie didn't fly when BO tried it either?

Oh snap I specifically asked what he has done for MINORITIES and you can't come up with anything.

Well let's see, the Republican financial collapse of 2008 led to black unemployment going as high at 16.8%.

During Obama's last year in office it dropped to 7.8% by January of 2017. That's a drop of 9% for those who aren't very good at math, which I have to assume when having to explain things that the ordinary conservative brain reflexively rejects like any nice thing said about President Obama.

A year later under President Trump , January of 2018, it was 7.5%, a drop of just .3% from where Obama had handed it over. In May of this year it hit its all time low of 5.9% but didn't stay there for long, it went back up to 6.2% as of last month.

So all the crowing and cheering from Trump acolytes is over a total drop of 1.6% in black unemployment from where Obama had gotten it.

So Obama brought down black unemployment 9% and Trump gained on that by 1.6% but doesn't appear to be making any further headway and in fact is losing ground. Are you really still going to cheer Trump and vilify Obama even when the facts clearly show the opposite of what you're claiming?

data.bls

Democrats are GREAT at getting plaques and statues torn down …... and renaming Post Offices too ! 

Well they have to accomplish something for their constituents.

Well they have to accomplish something for their constituents.

They can be so petty most times !

"I'M OFFENDED" ! 

"FEEL MY FEELINGS" !

Sure, fight over a plaque that nobody has probably noticed in years. Anything to distract from real issues of life and death.

beto "said....   “take it down today.

and beto can fuk off also.

it was a real pleasure watching him lose in this state.

Beto kinda looks like a sweaty "Kennedy" !

beto "said....  “take it down today

It's hard not to think this mainly an initial effort by him to stay relevant, with so many people trying to convince him and themselves that somehow he is a viable candidate for president.

Lighten up Francis!

Why did a group called the Sons Of Confederate Veterans buy the land and pay for the creation of a Jefferson Davis Presidential Library a few years ago. What was Davis the president of?

(Same place that Cindy Hyde Smith visited and wore the confederate cap)

next he will want to tear down The Alamo

Deleted duplicate post