The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

12 December 2010

My second comment on NAACP protesting Secession Ball in Charleston

This is follow up to my comments on the article on the NAACP protesting the Secession Ball coming up in Charleston SC.  I respond to two comments this time, one written by Sark, who prompted my first comment, and one by artrogue, who addressed me and ended with a R. E. Lee quote to which I felt some response was necessary.

I realize both postings in this paper are probably exercises in futility, but if I reach one open minded person... 
That is what this blog is really all about.


"Not a single thing you said, Honourablemeans, changes the facts in regard to the contents of the Declaration of Secession. Entire books have been written trying to rehabilitate the Confederacy, but they can't get over the facts of that country's founding."--Sark


"South carolina is too big for a insane asluym and to small to be a nation.
Interestingly enough..especially for the poster that majored in history....the Confederate Constitution did not allow for state rights.... a state could not be a member and forbide slavery!! So much for states' rights.
I'd like to hear any other right...just one... that any state was willing to spill blood over. There seems to be only two..the one is the right to have a right and the other was slavery.
I salute the ancestors of both sides that fought for what they belived and gave thier all but it does little good to continue these salutes and rememberances when we need to be a healed and whole nation.
While its important to remember its also more important to be one united country. We do need a strong central goverment(albiet i would agrees a less intrusive one and smaller leaner). One of the downfalls of the confederacy.. was just that..a weak central goverment...states could choose to send their resources or keep them for themselves..which many did when they had serious issues of their own. While its nice to have the states..its pretty ovbious we need to stand as one united strong nation aginst our common enemie's..
even Robert E Lee said "lets furl the banner never to unfurl it again.""--artrogue


After that quote at Appomattox, he later said:

"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
 Gen. Robert E. Lee

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." CSA General Robert E. Lee



Does the possibility that someone else can have an opposing view DESPITE knowing and acknowledging what you say is true (i have read the secession ordinances of all Confederate States)threaten your world view? Does it give you pause that your focus may be too narrow? Probably not. Many people become trapped by complacency in their knowledge base, and trapped by their faith in the sources of that knowledge. The knowledge base may be lacking. The sources may be inaccurate or spun a certain way. Anyway, all I suggest to open minded people is to read both sides of an issue and let reason be your guide.
On slavery again: the southern perspective was that the federal government was tyrannically reaching beyond it's own mandate, and the issue of 3/5 representation and it's extension into western territories affected the balance of power between competing ideologies of government, and interfered with Northern protectionist and mercantilist economic goals. These issues were contemporary to that time period -- not revisionist history. Saying the war was fought over slavery, implying it is a struggle of moral Yankee principles against southern evil principles IS post war revisionism. Freeing millions of slaves at a stroke with no plan for integration, certainly no compensation, empowering blacks politically and taking away the rights of white southerners was a recipe for intense racial animosity. This suited the ruling class.
The country's founding: slaves introduced to New England in 1630's. New Englanders profited most from the slave trade. 1776 1/4 of Connecticut families owned slaves. Stars and Stripes was the flag flying over a country whose founding had legitimized and institutionalized slavery in it's Constitution and laws for 74 years before the Confederate States of America was founded....but other than that you are absolutely right...
Does it make sense that a CSA soldier fought tooth and nail and risked all until broken to protect the right of the wealthiest 10% of the CSA to own slaves? 
 These guys were Americans! They fought until their ruin for their wives, children, their read of the Constitution, and to prevent what did come to pass: everything they believed in has disappeared, or nearly so.

But go on and say " the war was fought over slavery" and I won't trouble you any more trying to disrupt your knowledge with my knowledge.

1 comment: