Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just quoting the Vice President of the Confederacy. Forgive me for not having a reliable source.
Yes, you quoted Alexander Stephens. And you quoted his opinion, not a declaration of official CSA policy (which did in fact outlaw the slave trade). It is often called the cornerstone speech. However, earlier, I quoted Abraham Lincoln (and I thin we all know who he is) when he said essentially the same thing as concerns rejection of racial equality (in fact, the two were friends), so should his be taken in the same vein and application as concerns Union policy?
By today's standards, almost everyone in that day and age -- North and South -- would have been considered a hopeless racist.
A link and except which explore the speech and motivations more clearly:
The Savannah speech is a sad affair, not just because of the blunt racism of that one passage -- the racism itself, it ought to be noted, would hardly have offended any white audience in 1861 America, North, South, or West, outside a few abolitionist circles.
The "cornerstone" rhetoric doesn't deserve such prominence in a treatment of the Confederate Constitution, which pretty much was a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution except that it stipulated the government could not impose protective tariffs, grant subsidies, or finance internal improvements. On the matter of slavery, it specifically asserted the inviolability of that institution. This was more clear than the U.S. Constitution, but not at odds with it, and Lincoln and many in his camp publicly declared they were willing to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it say the same, if doing so would end the rebellion.
texas is definitely a fun state to visit. i don't think i could live there long term, but dallas and austin both were superb times.
however, some of the people i work with currently maintain that texas is more 'southwest' and not the 'real' south.
is that how texans feel?
I know this strays off topic, but the question is extremely confusing because there are so many definitions of Southwest. In sociological studies on the matter, the definite majority of Texans claim to live in the South, and be Southerners. And pick South over West when given a choice of regional affiliation. My own experience is that yes, Texans will claim a Southwestern identity as well, but not of the same ilk as the true SW states of New Mexico and Arizona (who likewise tend to reject Texas as part of their southwest...for good reason). Texas is really southwest as in "western South", a place where Southern history, culture, politics, traditions, etc. are flavored with many aspects of the post-bellum West (dress, wide-open spaces, cowboys and cattle). Kind of a very different and unique sub-region of the larger traditional South, so to speak.
Yes, you quoted Alexander Stephens. And you quoted his opinion, not a declaration of official CSA policy (which did in fact outlaw the slave trade). It is often called the cornerstone speech. However, earlier, I quoted Abraham Lincoln (and I thin we all know who he is) when he said essentially the same thing as concerns rejection of racial equality (in fact, the two were friends), so should his be taken in the same vein and application as concerns Union policy?
By today's standards, almost everyone in that day and age -- North and South -- would have been considered a hopeless racist.
A link and except which explore the speech and motivations more clearly:
The Savannah speech is a sad affair, not just because of the blunt racism of that one passage -- the racism itself, it ought to be noted, would hardly have offended any white audience in 1861 America, North, South, or West, outside a few abolitionist circles.
The "cornerstone" rhetoric doesn't deserve such prominence in a treatment of the Confederate Constitution, which pretty much was a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution except that it stipulated the government could not impose protective tariffs, grant subsidies, or finance internal improvements. On the matter of slavery, it specifically asserted the inviolability of that institution. This was more clear than the U.S. Constitution, but not at odds with it, and Lincoln and many in his camp publicly declared they were willing to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it say the same, if doing so would end the rebellion.
Stephens was speaking in his official capacity as Vice President of the CSA. I know you can quote a myriad of Southern revisionist who want to rewrite history, but the fact remains the South seceded over the issue of slavery. The fact that Lincoln probably would not have abolished slavery absent the South seceding is well documented and completely extraneous.
Stephens was speaking in his official capacity as Vice President of the CSA. I know you can quote a myriad of Southern revisionist who want to rewrite history, but the fact remains the South seceded over the issue of slavery. The fact that Lincoln probably would not have abolished slavery absent the South seceding is well documented and completely extraneous.
While I am replying to another of your posts, I caught this one. No, it is only your opinion that slavery was the only issue which caused the Southern states to eventually secede. Texas also mentioned the failure of the federal government to live up to certain provisions of the annexation treaty. Georgia mentioned tariffs. The Upper South states made nary a reference to slavery when they seceded, but rather, they felt an unconstitutional invasion was being launched against the states of the Lower South (which it was).
Did you bother to read the article concerning Stephens? It is hardly Southern revisionist. But if you want to apply that standard, as president, Lincoln spoke of the inequality of blacks and sending them back to Africa. Neither this opinion nor that of Stephens was official policy of either nation, but opinion. Here was Lincoln's when president, in speaking to a black delegation and proposing colonization back to Africa:
You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.
So Lincoln too was speaking in his capacity of president, correct? And I am not condemning him for it. He was a product of his time like anyone else. Point is, we can exchange quotes all day long, and none prove anything.
While I am replying to another of your posts, I caught this one. No, it is only your opinion that slavery was the only issue which caused the Southern states to eventually secede. Texas also mentioned the failure of the federal government to live up to certain provisions of the annexation treaty. Georgia mentioned tariffs. The Upper South states made nary a reference to slavery when they seceded, but rather, they felt an unconstitutional invasion was being launched against the states of the Lower South (which it was).
Did you bother to read the article concerning Stephens? It is hardly Southern revisionist. But if you want to apply that standard, as president, Lincoln spoke of the inequality of blacks and sending them back to Africa. Neither this opinion nor that of Stephens was official policy of either nation, but opinion. Here was Lincoln's when president, in speaking to a black delegation and proposing colonization back to Africa:
You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.
So Lincoln too was speaking in his capacity of president, correct? And I am not condemning him for it. He was a product of his time like anyone else. Point is, we can exchange quotes all day long, and none prove anything.
You're correct about Lincoln, but it was the South that seceded. The fact that Lincoln held view that today would be considered racist is just a historical sidebar. Lincoln's primary interest from the beginning was to preserve the United States. I was discussing the motivation for southern secession not the North's reason for not allowing it.
BTW I never said slavery was the only issue, but it was the "cornerstone." Can you really suggest that had an avowed abolishionist not been elected, the south would have still attempted to secede?
How can one fly a flag that, like it or no, is bound forever with the institution of slavery (and yes, the South did secede in large part because Lincoln was against the further spread of slavery)?
Do you not think, or do you not care, how a black American will feel seeing this flag?
Since my family was in Texas before the Civil War, no problem "Texas Native" LOL. Give it your best shot.
And I seem to be a better shot than you! LOL But anyway, the original question was asking if the Texas Flag of today (there were two previous ones...the Bonnie Blues) was also a flag of treason since it was the one in use at the time Texas seceded. And also, for a very brief time during the time after secession and when it formally joined the Confederacy, in which case it was an independent Republic once again.
Quote:
As a former officer in the regular Navy, I can assure you that your resignation has to be accepted even today.
Yes, my lady friend was also Navy and I consulted her on this. An officers resignation has to be accepted, true. However, this is today, not 1861. And for your case to be valid, you would have to show that not only could such not be done at will in that time, but more importantly, that the said resignations were not accepted. I can find no instances of where this was the case.
Quote:
They would have been hung as traitors had they lost. Ever hear the phase, "We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately"
Sure, but this came up in the context of what would have happened if the Texians had lost their revolution and the colonists theirs. But not sure at all what it has to do with the War Between the States, since the Southern states were merely exercising a right they felt they had won during the American Revolution. Which was that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.
Quote:
You finally got something right. They weren't pardoned for a crime they didn't commit. They were pardoned for treason and they gladly took the pardons.
Touche! And maybe at some point, you will as well! LOL
Anyway, the record is clear on that one. The powers that be in the North knew they had no case for charges of treason. That, in fact, it would have made them look silly if the defense were to revolve around the constitutionality of secession (which is why Davis and his lawyers pressed for a public trial). So to say they were pardoned as if this were some magnanimous gesture on the part of northern leaders is to imply they were guilty to begin with. A charge which once again has been completely refuted.
Quote:
The legality of secession was decided. At the South's choice of venues -- the battlefield. Another colossally dumb move.
The question of a people wanting to secede and govern themselves is never one that can be legally decided. But if so, then accept too that the principle of governed by consent of the governed is likewise null and void. On a related tangent, the wisdom or not of secession can be debated, but that is a different issue entirely than whether or not it was "legal" (as per the auspices of the Constitution).
As may be, the choice of the battlefield to "decide" the question was made by the Lincoln administration. The South only wanted to go in peace. But this is all a matter of historical perspective!
You're correct about Lincoln, but it was the South that seceded. The fact that Lincoln held view that today would be considered racist is just a historical sidebar. Lincoln's primary interest from the beginning was to preserve the United States. I was discussing the motivation for southern secession not the North's reason for not allowing it.
As often happens in threads like this, as did with IrishTom (and others in previous threads on the topic), I find intelligent discussion -- albeit heated and disagreeing -- can actually take place, once all the histrionics of "the Confederate flag is racist and evil" can be filtered out" and people actually listen to each other.
I only brought up Lincoln's view on race in response to one pasted from Stephens. Otherwise, I would have left it alone, because it was immaterial to the larger issue. And the fact is, many non-southerners really do not know the extent of codified racism (as defined today) or slavery in their states, and etc. Many simply assume it was something unique to the South and thus, when Southern "sins" are pointed out, I fire back. The people who live in glass houses thingy...so to speak!
But anyway, yes, it was the South (or at least the seven states of the Lower South...South Carolina thru Texas) which seceded. And I agree that Lincoln's primary motivation was to "preserve the Union", not end slavery. However, where we likely disagree is his motivations for doing so. He told Horace Greely, when the latter asked why not let the South go in peace, it boiled down to that he couldn't afford to lose the tax base. Just as was the South reasons for seceding not based solely on slavery, I am sure he had other reasons as well, but this had to be noted as very important in an historical context.
And while your own main thrust is to discuss the South's reasons for seceding, mine are equally concerned with what you seem to suggest you are not concerned with. To wit, why the North invaded the South to begin with? If they hadn't, there would have been no war at all. And certainly northern public opinion, at least intitially, before the ingenious move at Ft. Sumter to provoke the South into firing first, most northerns, like most Southerners, didn't want to fight over it...
Quote:
BTW I never said slavery was the only issue, but it was the "cornerstone." Can you really suggest that had an avowed abolishionist not been elected, the south would have still attempted to secede?
I don't think there is any doubt that the issue of slavery in the territories was what brought the conflict to a head, but this was largely economics, not a moral issue (i.e. not slavery per se)...which many northern apologists try to present it to be. But your main question doesn't make that distinction. Still, to answer, yes, I do. Maybe not at that time, but sooner or later, yes. Or else some of the northern states would have (after all, New England wanted to over the War of 1812, and the annexation of Texas). There were just too many differences between the north and South (which dated back to animosities even existing in the old countries) for it to have been otherwise, and a large part of it being conflicts over the power of the federal govenment. State's rights if you will. Many Southerners -- many of whom detested the institution itself -- saw the slavery issue as simply the stalking horse for later, broader, attacks on state's rights.
Anyway, I have have typed enough for now. A beer break sounds good!
The Sons of Liberty made this country free, the confederates were the second sons of liberty, the direct decendants of the Original Freedom fighting Rebels. If a person wants to know the true stories, they'd have to seek the genealolgy of each side, visit the graveyards, and court records that survived the wicked forces that wanted no record left behind of a free nation, but you can thank those who kept those documents safe to prove there was such a thing as freedom in this country. Lest we become complacent! Next thing you know you're indentured to your cell phone bill, Mortgage, and Computer Ink and accessories or outdated equipment, dont you feel like youre being pulled around by the hair already? They have spied on your privacy for several years, whats next? Who is really in charge here?
How can one fly a flag that, like it or no, is bound forever with the institution of slavery (and yes, the South did secede in large part because Lincoln was against the further spread of slavery)?
Do you not think, or do you not care, how a black American will feel seeing this flag?
Gort, I noticed you posted something in the Ireland in the UK Forum thread that gave me the distinct impression you might be a Nationalist. Every Cork hurling match I watch has people waving the confederate flag to identify with their own "Rebel" past. The Corkers take great pride in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
