Texas retained it's right to sovereignty, which is why it is the only state flag that can be flown at the same height as the US flag.
And the Corwin Amendment was passed by the 36th Congress and ratified by 6 states, not enough to make it law. However, it STILL sits on the books and can be ratified if states choose. Case in point, MD just rescinded it's ratification in 2014. Texas also reconsidered ratification in 1963.
So...Congress needs to remove it from ever possibly being ratified. Think about that.
Thank you for trying to educate and inform people with some facts and truth and while it is true that SC cited the failure of the federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act in its secession document, North Carolina, Virginia and the Cherokee nation did not. The causes of secession and the war are numerous and complex and not as simple as people are told to believe they are and that the ludicrous and ignorant comparisons to the Confederacy and the Nazis and the swastika to the battle Flag are little more than thinly veiled efforts to make anyone tht feels pride, honour or in fact anything positive about the Confederacy automatically as a Nazi, racist and something to be ashamed off.
Bravo, Jack Hunter! Hip Hip Hurray for the TRUTH!
And we can tell who knows their history and who doesn't. Wonderful article!
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.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper