What?
A version of the Stars and Bars used by Nathan Bedford Forrest. Was he a fighter or terrorism or did he participate in a type of it?
That's one darned ignorant bumper sticker.
No matter how you conceive of the Civil War, the South wasn't combating terrorism.
Neither side was.
The Confederate States were in rebellion against their nation over the issue of slavery. That really is what the war was about, and at the time, Southerners were pretty darned open about it as they headed towards succession.
They weren't fighting terrorism. They wouldn't have even known what terrorism was.
Now, no matter what you think of a rebellion that was entered into to preserve slavery, neither side fought in a terroristic fashion. The Union certainly did not. About the closest you could get to that would be John Brown's 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry, but that would really be pretty far from an act of terrorism. The Southern forces didn't engage in it either, although I suppose you could claim that Southern privateers and partisan rangers might in some ways have crept up on that. But then letters of marque and reprisal were accepted as part of war at the time, so that really wouldn't count.
Indeed, the closet you can get is acts by people like Nathan Bedford Forrest after the war designed to try to defeat Reconstruction, which in fact did engage in terrorism and which were illegal.
So, the bumper sticker is not only insulting, but historically inaccurate. If a person is going to be insulting, they ought to at least be historically accurate.
The same vehicle, I'd note, also had a big sticker stating "Cold War Veteran". That was a new one as well. Now, a person can put any veteran sticker on a vehicle they want to, but I also qualify as a Cold War veteran, and I just can't see putting that on a sticker. It's not like most of us got shot at.
9 comments:
Let's see. It was well and good for colonist to revolt against King George,but not ok for Americans in the South to seek independence for the same reasons? Slavery? Really? Week excuse for an invasion and war. The South voted to leave the Union and stated so by forming the Confederacy. The Union invaded after being asked to remove their presence from the South then acted rightfully to that invasion. The US supports other peoples rights to seek just forms of government. Oh,but we cannot have that within our borders. The southern most border of the US should be the Mason/Dixon line. It is right. It is just. It is my line in the sand. Good day,sir!
There's one significant problem with your comment, this being it; "The South voted to leave the Union and stated so by forming the Confederacy."
That's not true.
But that is the basis of the Southern claim to sovereignty.
In actuality, the Southern white landed class voted to leave the Union.
By and large, the Southern Yeoman class didn't vote on the issue at all. Indeed, in at least one instance the question presented to the delegates left no other option but to vote for one of two succession options in and of itself. In that particular instance, the white yeoman delegate was nonetheless held in contempt by his county for having voted for succession.
Moreover, blacks obviously weren't voting on this issue at all, which makes the claim that Southerners voted to leave the union all the more suspect. South Carolina had more blacks than whites as residents of that state, but they were almost all held in bondage. If they, the majority of South Carolinian's, had been able to vote, do we suppose that they would have voted in favor of succession?
So, at the end of the day, no vote of the Southern populace was ever held. There was never a referendum per se. And the voting demographic of the South in 1860 was pretty much limited to the planter and professional classes, who were all white, and who were a minority of Southerners.
Not very democratic, was it?
And if a person is to defend that vote, shouldn't they address how white Southern yeomen and the millions of Southern blacks would have voted had they had the chance?
No stupid, the south was fighting the terroism of the government wanting to tax you and has lead to the corrupt crap of a government he have today. It was never about slavery as both sides had slaves. You people need a truthful history lesson and stop believing the left wing liberals on the TV. Again the good old Confederate army was fighting the over reaching long arm of government and the Yankee types we're and are stupid enough to fight for being taxed and large government, Moran's. I'm Confederate till the day I die.
Was never about slavery, north and south had slaves, it was about the south fighting the terroism of the government and taxes, long over reaching government that has resulted in the crap government we have today, Yankees were stupid enough to fight in a war against common sense to get to be taxed and be stolen from by government, and the same dump Yankee and Westerner mind set is still on display today fighting against common sense at all cost, I'm a confederate till my dying day, another revolution against this government is past due
"Was never about slavery, north and south had slaves"
A couple of points.
By 1860 the only states in the north that retained slavery were the border states, so you're pretty much looking at Maryland and Tennessee, if you consider those "northern" states. Neither left the Union although you can debate that in regards to Tennessee. FWIW, of course, there were large segments of the South where slavery was legal and succession was opposed, the western portion of Virginia being the most obvious example but there being others. So your point is here is quite far off the mark historically.
It would also be a real shock to southern legislators that voted to leave the Union as they specifically and repeatedly made reference to slavery as the reason they were leaving. It's all well and good today to declare that the whole thing was not about slavery, but that makes liars out of the southern legislators who said it was. Why, if they said in 1860 that they were taking their states out of the Union due to slavery, would we say they were lying about that now?
2. "it was about the south fighting the terroism of the government and taxes"
Oh? What act of terrorism would those be, exactly. Surely you can site some, if that was the causi belli? Any?
And regarding taxes, that's odd, as there was hardly any taxation before succession. The US was nearly completely funded on import excises at the time and there was no income tax at all until the war, as you no doubt are aware. Was the war over the import excise? I've never heard anyone claim that. If so, there's a huge irony in regards to that as the import excise is how the Confederacy funded their war effort. If the war was about income taxation, that'd be bizarre as the Confederacy would have had to have known in advance that the US would impose the first income tax in its history due to the Civil War. But for the South leaving, in other words there would have never been an income tax in the 19th Century, because as you know it was phased back out after the war was over.
And of course as you also no doubt know, the CSA in part got along by direct confiscation of some things such as horses and payment for them at below market rate while the North actually paid market rate for them. Many Southerners at the time resisted that effort of the Southern government due to a sense that it was unjust.
So, while you may happily be Confederate till your dying day, if these are your points, I'm sorry to say that the basis of your latent Confederate sympathies actually would make you, gasp, a Yankee. The war was in fact about slavery, the southern states aid so. Taxation was never part of the issue leading to war, and it was the South, through animal conscription, that hurt the average man the most.
❤️
For those interested in this topic (which seems to be quite a few folks) an expansion on some of the topics brought up here can be found, also on this blog, here:
https://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2017/10/why-learning-and-teaching-history-real.html
Your logic states that it was fine for the colonies to leave British rule. I'm pretty sure that resulted in a war with Britain. We won, so we got our independence. Had we lost, we would be drinking a lot more tea. That same logic would state that the South could declare their independence and it should also be just fine. However, yet again, it resulted in a war. A war in which the South lost. The US borders did not change. The United States is stronger and better for it. Saying that the borders should stop at the Mason Dixen line is the most unpatriotic and unAmerican thing you could ever say.
Just so it's clear for any readers, the comment immediately above of today's date is a reply to the very first comment in this series of comments. That's pretty clear if read in context but I thought that it should be noted.
Post a Comment