The New Confederacy

Confederate Outlaw,

I hope you begin to see my point about being more afraid of someone imposing their religious beliefs onto others simply because so much harm can be done because of one's assumptions about a particular group or faith than the knowledge of it.

My wife is a Catholic, and I assure you, she does not ascribe to your view concerning that faith nor does she assume she knows all about the Baptist faith either.

No disrespect intended, but no faith, Baptist, Christian, Fundamentalist, Church of God, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Shinto, Budda, etc., has no call to be superior over another, in my own opinion. That would simply be another form of religious racism. I am proud my nation favors no religion, but allows each person to practice the faith the choose. After all, each person's faith is a private affair and as we all know, only you and God know what is in your own heart, as it should be. "Judge not, least ye be judged."

And with that, I will state once more, I am glad the Confederacy has passed away and is now only a historical curiousity, to be debated and discussed on boards and forums such as this. Nothing was lost except a way of life that was a source of continual shame and embarassment to the founding principles of this nation. I for one, have no problem remembering the brave men of the South who fought for their homes and families, but I utterly have nothing but contempt for the men who brought the CSA about and spent those men's lives as if they were nothing but minie balls in a musket.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA & LONG LIVE THE UNION.:smile:

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Before our host reads too many of these, I'd like to respond to Neil whom I've grown to admire and with whom I still have a problem on one small point. While Confederate Outlaw does have his own viewpoints, one of the things he mentioned that Neil still struggles with is the fact that when one of us with Confederate ancestry refers to that group of folks, attitudes and deeds of long ago, we're not taking the strictly political road. There is a love of the southland within us that is difficult for those who don't have that sensation to comphrehend and even more difficult for us to express. Neil, please relax your grip on the social issues and consider the angle of southern pride only as an expression of our love for our brothers, all of them. When I hear the melody of certain songs that we identify with our homeland playing in the background of some civil war era film, there is a warm fuzzy feeling. No animosity to anyone, just a love for the south. Yep, we lost the war, but the memory of the valor of the Confederate soldier, the privates, lives on.
 
Larry,

I hope that I will be able to convey my meaning more clearly, as I do respect your opinion and value it highly. I have NOTHING against a soldier, a man in the ranks of the Confederate army. I have nothing against his courage, his bravery, his out-and-out stubborness to defend his land, his family, and his way of life. He and his need to be remembered, honored and never forgotten.

At least one of my Confederate ancestors charged with Pickett at the angle in Gettysburg and I have reenacted that charge on the actual ground and have nothing but amazement at his courage and guts in making that charge. I have no anger or shame at his courage and I am glad I researched and found out about him and his acts on that long ago July day.

But I also found out that he owned slaves and I am not proud of that. I can view it and try to understand that in his eyes and his fellow Southerners, it was not wrong to do so. In fact, I know that he inherited his slaves, but the fact of the matter he had them, worked them and considered them property no matter how fond he was of them or took care of them.

When I say I am glad of the Confederacy's death, I am glad that the attempt at making a slave republic in the Southern part of this nation failed. I have no sympathy for those who created it, who led those brave soldiers to defend it and who did so with the sole idea of preserving that insitution.

I am of the opinion if slavery had been restricted, as Lincoln and the Republican party had wished, keeping it from the territories, it might have given time to those in the South to reconsider and begin to face the idea that maybe, someday, the system had to die out. I admit, it is a small hope, but it would have been much better than the one those in leadership chose for the entire South, to include those brave men in the ranks.

I can't make it any clearer than that, Larry. I have much sympathy for the common soldier, because I was one, and I understand about serving your country, even if you don't agree with it's course of action. I have no symapthy for the Confederacy or what I percive it's goals were.

I hope I have explained it a bit better for you.

Sincerely,
unionblue
 
Neil, I'm in complete agreement with your last response and thank you greatly for the consideration. My point remains that the war was far more complex than slavery and the lasting spirit of the Confederacy hopefully has nothing to do with slavery. As a political institution, the Confederacy was not well thought out. You have very clearly stated such and I understand and agree wholeheartedly. I don't think you've grasped my attitude quite yet, but give me a little more time. The Confederacy means many different things to many different folks. Some of it is quite positive; that's the part we're striving to keep alive. "I salute the Conferate flag with affection, reverence and devotion to the Cause for which it stands". The definition of that term CAUSE is often misunderstood and is not well defined. We're working on it. The valor of the Confederate soldier, the guy in the trenches or open field who just showed up because he was ordered to do so or felt he was fighting for freedom from an invading army or just to kill a few yanks who were stealing his hay and mules. The Confederate spirit....... we need a press agent who can bring focus on our positive past.
 
New Confederacy

I contend the old Confederacy was sufficient. No need to start more mess. Let us band together from this time and worry about the stars and stripes. Plenty of problems surround us that are more deserving of our efforts.
 
Amen, Larry. The "New Confederacy" has every right to join that particular class I call radical kooks. I would, however, rather it didn't interfere with the common quest of most on this board -- discussion, debate, and learning.
Ole
 
In my opinion, the causes of division between North and South in the mid 1800s lay deeper than the institution of slavery. There were basic political differences between the two sections, particularly regarding the role of the central government.

With growing migration, and with poor farming practices having depleted the capacity of many farms to produce sufficiently to make a living, many farmers in the South felt the pressure to pull up stakes and move to the new lands in the west.

Those who had slaves naturally wanted to keep them and use them in their new locales. This raised the issue of "slave or no slave" in the territories. The centrists, mostly in the North, were opposed to extending slavery to the territories -not on moral grounds- but because they knew that Southerners would be drawn to areas where slavery was permitted and wield more political power.

So, it was politics, not morality, that drove the anti-slavery movement.
IMHO

However, I see no virtue in seeking a "New Confederacy". I believe those who are so engaged are misguided, but being misguided is one of those rights we as Americans so fervently espouse. I see no value in fighting them, as they will defeat themselves in the end.
 
However, I see no virtue in seeking a "New Confederacy". I believe those who are so engaged are misguided, but being misguided is one of those rights we as Americans so fervently espouse. I see no value in fighting them, as they will defeat themselves in the end.
Amen, Will. However ....
So, it was politics, not morality, that drove the anti-slavery movement. IMHO
It was a lot of things, including politics, morality, prejudice, cultural difference, economic difference, and on and on. There was no single motor to the anti-slavery movement. The anti-slavery and pro-slavery folks had a great many motives for their positions. One of those motives was political power. Most folks, north, south and west, didn't much care one way or another.

Just a thought.
Ole
 
The abolitionist movement was active throughout the English speaking world. In reading the new bio of Frederick Douglass, it is interesting to see how money, ideas and people moved from England, Ireland, Canada and the US.
The rhetoric and ideas flowed in unlikely currents. Recently I read Caleb McDaniel's essay on the influence of Daniel O'Connell's Catholic Emancipation movement in Ireland on abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison.

Whatever else you can say about the abolitionists, they were sincere in their detestation of slavery.

However, the movement to limit slavery's expansion into the territories brought in a lot of folks with little interest in abolishing slavery, and a lot of interest in keeping the west open to free labor and farmers, i.e. "free soil, free men, Fremont" I second Ole's post above.
 
There is no way that a "New Confederacy" is going to happen. The issue was decided in April of 1865 and we still deal with the fall out.

While I favor smaller government (I'm a Reagan Conservative) and disagree with about 90% of the liberal position, secession will not work. Especially now while the nation is at war. We need to be more united than ever. (not lockstep, but with respect)
 
Back
Top