Happy Confederate Heroes Day

[FloridaConfederate]

If the States that Seceded never left the Union according to the Federal Government? Why did they later have to be Readmitted to the Union?

Because administrations have played little word games with the law and Constitution since before the signatures were even dry.

As of yesterday TV man says we haz a President who don't do dat now.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, FLorida

[plankmaker]

Because the winners said so. The Reconstruction had some really strange requirements for the rebellious States if they wanted their representation back in the Legislative Branch. It was the Fed Guvment at its best.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[plankmaker]

This kind of sorta explains it:

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/...dom/page5.html

I think it was more, getting even.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[flattop32355]

Mr. Meister,

You are dead set in your viewpoint on the subject. You are more than welcome to that point of view, correct or incorrect, and whether anyone else chooses to share it, in its totality or in part.

My viewpoint is that your viewpoint is incorrect, based upon my own reasonings. I am equally welcome to mine as you are to yours. Neither of us has any posibility of changing the other's point of view. Only fools would continue to attempt such, given the absolute entrenchment of our opinions, and I do not think either of us a fool.

Given the above, I pose the following queries to you, for my own personal enlightenment:

1) The South having lost their effort to break away from the Union, do you regret now being a citizen of the United States of America, the country that prevented said breaking away?

2) Given the ensuing national/world history after the conflict at issue, do you believe that the Southern states would have been better off separate from the Union than as a part of that Union?

3) Do you believe that the issue of slavery had any bearing upon the reasons for the Southern states to secede, beyond being a component of the "states rights" issue?

In addition:
Wars have been fought for millennia without any formal declaration of war, which is a relatively modern fabrication, between combatants. As to a legal definition of war; that, too, is a modern concept. Any armed conflict resulting in large numbers of deaths, etc. meets the traditional definition of war. One may add other terms to it, such as revolution or civil or what have you, but it is, in the end, still war.

You are correct that the Emancipation Proclamation was never intended to free all slaves. It was, indeed, a military and economic tool to weaken the South's ability to carry on the war, and it proved most effective.

Mr. Lincoln had repeatedly stated that he had no constitutional authority to abolish slavery, but did wish to see it limited to the areas in which it already existed, with a fervent hope that it would one day cease altogether. Had there been no states in armed conflict within the Union, no proclamation would have been issued. The greater issue of the correctness of the existance of slavery as an institution had to be dealt with by other means, at another time.

Let us also not forget that these same quoted English, who cast a jaundiced eye at Mr. Lincoln and his administration, supported slavery for many, many years before finally, and somewhat reluctantly, seeing the light and admitting to the error of their own involvement. Their quoted view strikes me as similar to the idea that there is no piety quite so strong and fervent as that of a reformed prostitute.

[sbl]

Pie are round, cornbread are square.

[Danny]

...In response to Danny there were loyalists as well as slaves in the United States during America’s first War for independence. There were also slaves in the United States after the War Between the States...

David - And in that first war for independence there were heroes on both sides, to get back to the point of the thread. There weren't any legal slaves in the United States after the War. Folks were illegally kept as slaves after the CW, and even today. So what point is there to be made about that?

...everyone is led to believe that America's War of Secession was fought specifically to abolish slavery... I submit... "...the Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

... which confirms then that the war became about abolishing slavery, doesn't it? Whatever started it doesn't matter, whatever the motivation doesn't matter. Anyway it worked and we are all glad slavery didn't survive. I know you agree with me in that.

Dan Wykes

[David Meister]

There were legal slaves in the United States after the war until the 13th amendment was ratified.

Had the United States Lost its war for Independence and still remained in the British Empire Slavery would have ended in America by 1840

[tompritchett]

I pulled the posts on the House bill from this thread and moved them to a new thread. Consequently, if you are using the threaded or hybrid display modes to view this thread, you may want to switch to the linear mode as I am not sure that all the posts will be visible in the other two modes.

[plankmaker]

I guess it all depends on how your view the heros. Lots of blame to go around though, for sure.

http://www.mdgorman.com/Written_Acco..._pp_472502.htm

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[Texasbutternut]

Yes sir, it's celebrated in Texas. http://www.news8austin.com:80/conten...229426&SecID=2
It's celebrated in Alabama too, http://www.clantonadvertiser.com:80/...liday-alabama/
It might be observed in Georgia and Arkansas, not sure.
Confederate Memorial Day is observed in late April.

Hank Van Slyke
3rd Texas Light Artillery