Courtney, sadly Lona Ann passed away a few years back. Atom Taler is working Ripley's Believe it or Not in Florida.
Reconstruction wasn't punishment enough?
U need to read a book. Theft of life, property, liberty, food, monies, etc. is not punishment enough.
Why do you think people in the South rose up and said ENOUGH.
If it had been done like Lincoln wanted it to be done that would not have happened.
This is a consistent piece for the most part, and it's even kind of nuanced for an article that basically just applies a ten word definition to a few different cases.But yes, I think plenty of "anybody's" may disagree with the death penalty for conspiracy--maybe planning or doing are morally equivalent (although this is far from certain, particularly since we cannot know what he would have actually done) but legally there is generally a difference, and hanging may have gone a bit far. Truman may have deserved hanging more than Vesey, if you look at what the two actually did.
and the shooter was yet again a liberal
The Confederacy Compared to Nazi Germany
by Lewis Regenstein
by Lewis Regenstein
To the Greenville, (NC) East Carolinian
To the editor:
Peter Kalajian's article comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany and its battle flag to the swastika is highly offensive, especially to those of us who are Jewish, & shows he knows little about either the Confederacy or the Nazis.
Some 3,500 to 5,000 Jews fought honorably and loyally for the Confederacy, including its Secretary of War & later State, Judah Benjamin ("See Robert Rosen's The Jewish Confederates and Mel Young's Last Order of the Lost Cause). My great grandfather also served, as did his four brothers, their uncle, his three sons, and some two-dozen other members of my Mother's extended family (The Moses� of South Carolina and Georgia). Half a dozen of them fell in battle, largely teenagers, including the first and last Confederate Jews to die in battle.
We know first hand, from their letters, diaries, and memoirs, that they were not fighting for slavery, but rather to defend themselves and their comrades, their families, homes, and country from an invading army that was trying to kill them, burn their homes and cities, and destroy everything they had.
If you want to talk about Nazi-like behavior, consider the actions of the leading Union commander, General Ulysses S. Grant, whose war crimes included the following actions:
Ordering the expulsion on 24 hours notice of all Jews "as a class" from the territory under his control (General Order # 11, 17 December, 1862), and forbidding Jews to travel on trains (November, 1862);
Ordering the destruction of an entire agricultural area to deny the enemy support (the Shenandoah Valley, 5 August, 1864).
Leading the mass murder, a virtual genocide, of Native People, mainly helpless old men, women, and children in their villages, to make land available for the western railroads (the eradication of the Plains Indians, 1865–66). What we euphemistically call "the Indian Wars" was carried out by many of the same Union officers who led the war against the South – Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, Custer, and other leading commanders.
Overseeing the complete destruction of defenseless Southern cities, and conducting such warfare against unarmed women and children (e.g., the razing of Meridien, and other cities in Mississippi, spring, 1863).
Contrast these well-documented atrocities (and many others too numerous to list) with the gentlemanly policies and behavior of the Confederate forces. My ancestor Major Raphael Moses, General James Longstreet�s chief commissary officer, was forbidden by General Robert E. Lee from even entering private homes in their raids into the North, such as the famous incursion into Pennsylvania. Moses was forced to obtain his supplies from businesses and farms, and he always paid for what he requisitioned, albeit in Confederate tender.
Moses always endured in good humor the harsh verbal abuse he received from the local women, who, he noted, always insisted on receiving in the end the exact amount owed.
Moses and his Confederate colleagues never engaged in the type of warfare waged by the Union forces, especially that of General William T. Sherman on his infamous "March to the Sea" through Georgia and the Carolinas, in which his troops routinely burned, looted, and destroyed libraries, courthouses, churches, homes, and cities full of defenseless civilians, including my hometown of Atlanta.
It was not the South but rather our enemies that engaged in genocide. While our ancestors may have lost the War, they never lost their honor, or engaged in anything that could justify their being compared to Nazi�s. It was the other side that did that.
Firefighter asked: "... can you please cite non-biased proof of Lincoln's "proposed...13th amendment...forever protecting the institution of slavery ..."
That amendment -- known as "the Corwin Amendment" -- was offered 2 March 1861 by Ohio Republican Representative Thomas Corwin, gained large Congressional approval, and was favorably commented upon by Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address. (An identical proposal had been previously offered by New York Republican Senator William H. Seward.)
That amendment read: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
If the seceded States had wished to preserve slavery, they had only to re-join the Union and ratify the amendment. They did not because they had seceded to escape an all-intrusive overweening government - just as thirteen States had seceded from the British Empire in 1776, Mexico from the Spanish Empire in 1818, and Texas from Mexico in 1836.
Mr. Lincoln did not *propose* the amendment -- he endorsed it. You can read more on Wikipedia -- look for "Corwin Amendment." Had that amendment been ratified, it would have been number 13.
Firefighter also said: "The only 13th amendment I know of for a fact is the one Lincoln actually passed through Congress which permanently abolished slavery."
The Corwin Amendment was never ratified, so it is not one of the numbered amendments. The amendment abolishing slavery took effect upon its final ratification 18 December 1865, by which time Mr. Lincoln had been dead for eight months.
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.
why did lincoln not turn the reins of government back over to the british after his election as the us was formed by seceding from britain
Also, Sherman and Grant were antisemites. Something the nazis obviously were. Judah P. Benjamin, a Jew, served at multiple top level positions for the confederacy.
No. The Deep South seceded because they feared the expansion of slavery was threatened. Slavery where it existed was not threatened as Lincoln said. The expansion of free vs slave states is misleading, though. Free meant free of blacks, literally. And free meant that the north's industrial economy could expand vs the South's agrarian one. Lincoln was a former railroad lobbyist, and was definitely pro northern economy. It wasn't a moral issue. He, like most Americans, was a racist. Tn, Va, NC seceded when Lincoln threatened to invade the Deep South because they recognized such a move as a tyrannical one. As our declaration proclaimed, any people had the right to alter or abolish government. It was okay vs the British, but suddenly was not okay when the South attempted to do the same thing vs the north. The constitution wasn't a blood oath. Lincoln militarily forced the South to remain in the union against its will much like the Soviet Union did with its empire. Lincoln did not want to lose the territory or the revenue. He was a military imposed dictator, on the South, at least.
This misquote from Mein Kampf is absurd! "[T]he individual states of the American Union ... could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union; on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."
The part after the ... is another paragraph where Hitler is talking about Germany. In truth Hitler recognized that the American States 1. have some historical basis for remaining Sovereign, 2. they have practical purpose in remaining Sovereign (be he didn't think the German States had such purpose) and 3. most importantly, under the Constitution they were entitled to remaining Sovereign.
More to the point.. Hitler wouldn't have invaded Austria if it refused to join Germany. BTW Austria voted 97% to join with Germany and given that the Soviet Union had plans to invade ALL of Europe, it was in both of their best interests.
True both Lincoln and Hitler wanted to dissolve the individual States in their respective countries and have a strong central government, but the circumstances are entirely different. What works for Germany doesn't necessarily work for the United States. Lincoln had a more European vision of America, which is not necessarily an immoral thing, but I would argue erroneous. What is bad about it is that it went against the majority of Americans will (including most northerners) and that he acted on by instigating an awful war. Adolf Hitler didn't instigate war on anyone, rather he was dragged into every conflict of WW2; but that is a discussion for another time.
Does jack hunter have a simple definition for treason? If so then I'm sure he will consider the south treasonous for initiating a civil war in order to protect the institution of slavery.
I'm hopeful that he will consider the confederate flag a symbol of treason.
If, at the end of the Civil War, millions of white men, women, and children had been transported to Africa and sold to work as slaves on palm sugar plantations under cruel black overseers who routinely debauched the women and tortured the men, it would have been simple justice. I'm not saying I would have supported such an action, though we see from this article that the lesson administered by defeat did not suffice to morally educate some of you in the Treason State. Obviously, Reconstruction wasn't adequate punishment. Something was needed like the comprehensive denazification that occurred in Germany after World War II.
It may not have been prudent of Denmark Vesey to plan an uprising (if that's what he actually did), but he had a perfect right to murder your ancestors in their beds since the behavior the whites effectively thrust South Carolina into a state of nature in which there was no law for anybody.
That means all the slave holders were terrorists for targeting innocent blacks for their pathetic agenda of making money and holding others hostage. This is ridiculous. These people were fighting for their God-given rights yet you call them terrorists? Give me a break. How about you live a life of slavery and then see how it feels to be treated less than human; like you're an animal.
If a group of Jewish concentration camp prisoners planned a revolt and needed to kill the families of their Nazi captors in order to successfully flee the camp and escape to freedom, would it be reasonable to smear those Jews as "terrorists"? What if the person accusing those murdered Jews happened to be a non-Jewish German? To call someone a terrorist is basically the worst kind of demonization possible in the post-9/11 United States. Now why would a white southern man in 2014 feel the need to fight back so hard against the memory of a long-dead black slave who dared to fight back? It's an interesting question. In any case, people have a responsibility to carefully consider the larger context of historical situations, as well as the current context and their own position within existing power structures, before making these kinds of claims.
The word is 'hanged,' not 'hung.' We will never truly know how many blacks were hanged without trial during the genocidal era of America's slave trade. After the mental-midget journalist returned home from Starbucks, he hung his corduroy pants.
Other than the price of gas going up and some things costing a little bit more I can not tell any difference from the USA I was born into 40 years ago and today...nothing...absolutely nothing has changed.
and don't forget the tyrant, Jefferson Davis.
Why do some people only want HALF truths to be told? So better include the other side of the story.
Lincoln a tyrant. and so was Davis if you use Lincoln as your example.
Davis violated habus corpus three times for a total of 1 1/2 years.
so did Lincoln
Davis declaired marshall law in various parts of the south for the entire war. So did Lincoln
Davis instituted conscripotion/draft and later forced men to belong. Lincoln did also BUT did not FORCE men to remain
Davis order out of the country anyone loyal to the union and failure to leave ion 40 days ment confiscation of your property and exzile to the north. Lincoln did this twice. Davis thru pout the south.
Davis ordered the Provost Guard to put down the unionist in east tenn and when done 5 civilians were hung and their familys jailed without trial.
Davis supported slavery as a fundemental state right. Lincoln did also.
As for a new confederacy it wont happen. If you use the previous one as an example, it became what it tried to leave. The states right issue died with confederate congressional and Davis promotion of,
1. limited censorship of the press
2. National FORCED conscription (draft)
3. Inability to control stragglers and desertion
4. National Marshall.
5. Violation by Davis of the writ of Habius Corpus
6. Allowing a Rich Poor class structure with political office only held by rich land and slave owners.
7. Income Tax on the nation
8. Failure to attempt any form of E.P.
Dog gone shame when the facts get in the way of revision.
Treason? Traitors? Yet not one Confederate was convicted of treason. Anyone who honestly thinks it was treason(not the clowns just spouting rhetoric), and the North just let it go for the sake of reconciliation, something I've heard the Lincolnites say, read up on the trial of Jefferson Davis. He was held for over two years while prosecutor after prosecutor and special councils read over the case for treason. Davis demanded a trial, but the Yanks had no case, and admitted such. Now the Feds were looking for a way to avoid trying Davis without vindicating the South. Quite an interesting story that seldom gets taught.
You are incorrect. There are only two secession declarations that mention slavery as a reason for secession: South Carolina and Mississippi. Yet slavery was older as the republic. Virginia mentioned slaveholding states were not being treated as equals in the Union.
The first seven states to secede were all heavy cotton exporting states. In 1860 the House passed the Morrill Tariff which raised taxes international trading states had to pay from around 18% to about 45%.
Mississippi stated in its secession declaration that the South had lost control of the government, which was abundantly clear in the election of Lincoln. There was little doubt the North's agenda of imposing crippling taxes on the South could no longer be blocked.
The Upper South did not declare secession until after Lincoln called for troops to invade the states that had seceded. These states had slavery, but were not as dependent on international trade. Slavery was not the reason for their secession. Lincoln's unconstitutional call for troops to force the states back into the Union was.
Lincoln called for troops to maintain the Union, not to end slavery. In his first inaugural he endorsed the Corwin Amendment which would prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery, and stated he would only invade if the seceding states did not collect the new Morrill Tariff.
The Union was joined voluntarily. It was an agreement among the states. States had the right (States' Rights) to leave it and resume full sovereignty. Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union, if it became a danger to the liberty of the people of their states, when they ratified the Constitution. Since the states had the right to leave the Union, there was no treason in secession.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper