Question....and not intended to offend anyone

[timNms]

streetsoldier, I agree with you 100%. All soldiers, whether they be from the Vietnam war, revolutionary war, or the civil war, should be properly honored! Seems to me, our country has double standards.

[stormchazer]

The very moment one gives due honor to Confederates, one runs afoul of a RABID liberal/black revisionist vendetta, without any regard for history as it actually happened.

Remember...history books are written by the VICTORS, and "our" side of the story (FI, 90% of the boys in grey didn't own slaves, and couldn't have cared less...they were fighting for their independence against what they considered as foreign invaders) is sadly unknown except amongst ourselves.

Bill,

Member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars, by virtue of the service of Capt. Joseph Benjamin, Benjamin's Company of Horse (raised in Concordia Parish, LA), 1st Louisiana Cavalry Regiment, Provisional Army of the Confederate States (April 1862-August 1865).

On this we will disagree. Wars are rarely fought by those who actually started them. Though state rights were an issue, the one issue that could not be overcome was the question of slavery, and more important, its expansion to the west. The slave issue played a part in every issue after the turn of the 1800s, from the War of 1812, to the Mexican War and onward through the Missouri Compromise. The Dred Scott Judgement and the events in Kansas fueled the divide. Pro-Southern Congressman fought to gain Slave States to balance them against Northern Free State Congressman, meaning every expansion to the West was a war between Free-state and Slave-state. The final straw was the Brown attack at Harpers Ferry and the election of Lincoln. The Moderate Southerner gave way to the Pro-secession movement and the Civil War followed.

Remember, the Southern states seceded before the North invaded. The Southern Army was raised before First Manassas.The south fired the first shots. The common soldier may not have owned slaves, but he was fighting in support of a government who were slave-owners and very pro-slavery. He fought for a way of life, a way of life which included slaves.

I think the revision went the other way. After the War, many Northern Historians did there best to give the South an honorable stance by giving the excuse of "states rights" as credence for war. The Southern soldier did not need this honor, but many of the slave owners who had to become US citizens again did need that honor. I agree that today, Black Groups want the south to continue to pay a tab that no southerner should have to, but no matter what History you create, the Civil War happened because of slavery.

[firefighter16]

streetsoldier, I agree with you 100%. All soldiers, whether they be from the Vietnam war, revolutionary war, or the civil war, should be properly honored! Seems to me, our country has double standards.

Are they trying to create a double standard or our they trying to let a nation heal ? Some people think if you don't recognize something it will just go away. I'm not saying thats right but it's seems like thats more of the route people take these days when dealing with controversies.

[GalvestonDuck]

Down here in Galveston, some people also take the day off for Juneteenth (although it's not a paid holiday).

Tim, I can guarantee, not every black person celebrates or pays mind to "Black History Month." About the same as me and gay pride week in June. Sometimes I completely forget until someone mentions it or I see some picture of a rainbow-flag-waver on Yahoo news and think, "Oh, that's right...it's June, isn't it? *yawn* Okay, so? Bring on the Independence Day! If there's anything I'm proud to be, it's that I'm proud to be a free American!"

As for King's b-day being celebrated on his birthday, it's the same as President's day. It's "observed" on a Monday, even though the actual date does not always fall on a Monday.

Why was Lee/Jackson Day also on the same day? I'd never heard of it until HD mentioned it. But being from the north, how could I? I'd never heard of Juneteenth either until I moved down here. Would you guys expect northerners to observe it? How about westerners? Is there a Grant Day?

[stormraiser]

Shoot, I was lucky Walmart was even open up here

[vbhoutex]

Don't even get me started on this subject!!! My children are direct descendants of Jefferson Davis. My son got in trouble at school for having a confederate flag in his note book which a black kid objected to!! WHAT ABOUT MY CHILDRENS HERITAGE? ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO IGNORE IT? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

As far as the Civil War being over slavery-BS!!! It was about state rights and about the fact the South had a MUCH MORE VIBRANT ECONOMY than the North did and the North wanted part of it. You are right in the fact that the South seceeded before shots were fired but it wasn't about slavery.

And as has been said ALL of our fallen soldiers and all those who have fought in American wars should be honored!!

[streetsoldier]

Jara,

I have pored over dozens (if not hundreds) of letters, diaries, newspapers and "official" papers carried by both Union and Confederate soldiers...NONE of the examples I've seen ever mentioned slavery or slaves.

If slavery was the issue, why didn't the enemies call each other "slavers" and "abolitionists"? No, the common terms were "Yankees", and Rebels" or "Secesh"...references to what the fight was about (at least as a far as the vast majority of soldiers were concerned). Perhaps the most wealthy on both sides sallied forth with "fire-eating" rhetoric, but the average Billy Yank and Johnny Reb saw things MUCH more simply.

Even in Europe for the first two years, the Confederates had a higher "moral" standing...the Union was trying to force unwilling States to knuckle under to a Government that was ill-representative, ignorant of, or indifferent to their needs, stacked against them in sheer numbers and industrial potential, and ever more repressive in trade and tariffs. In short, the Southerners saw Lincoln as the Colonials saw King George III, 85 years before.

Please note Lincoln's own reason for prosecuting war (which, BTW, violated seven of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the North to accomplish)..."If I can preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it; if I can preserve the Union by freeing some, and leaving others alone, I would do it; and if I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it."

Add that Lincoln waited until the Union troops had the upper hand in the War for Southern Independence (July, 1863, when his troops gave him the victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg) before he published the Emancipation Proclamation, and you have a better understanding of the near-desperation Washington had suffered to that time in forcing their way with the agrarian South. Yet, it still took the "blue boys" two more years to completely subjugate the Confederacy.

As to the call for militia...the profession of arms was NOT a vital part of the Northern states, but it enjoyed widespread popularity in the South; few were the Southern counties that did not boast military academies south of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, and the Southern children were raised hunting and shooting, Northern boys, on the other hand, were mostly farmers or workers in industrial sweatshops, and had to be pressed into training and more training before they could come close to equalling the Southern soldiers in the field.

More, five of the nine senior U.S. general officers pre-1860 became CSA generals, as did 67% of the entire U.S. officer corps then serving in the Regular Army. This disparity plagued Lincoln, whose armies had to literally build their land forces from "scratch".

And, lest we forget...as far as the South was concerned, the first blood shed in the war was in Kansas (1856-59), and the "Free Soil" partisans fired the first volleys...read the papers I have, and that "fact" comes at you again and again.

Don't be surprised...I've been studying the "late unpleasantness" since I was about 8 years old.

[Lindaloo]

Don't even get me started on this subject!!! My children are direct descendants of Jefferson Davis. My son got in trouble at school for having a confederate flag in his note book which a black kid objected to!! WHAT ABOUT MY CHILDRENS HERITAGE? ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO IGNORE IT? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

As far as the Civil War being over slavery-BS!!! It was about state rights and about the fact the South had a MUCH MORE VIBRANT ECONOMY than the North did and the North wanted part of it. You are right in the fact that the South seceeded before shots were fired but it wasn't about slavery.

And as has been said ALL of our fallen soldiers and all those who have fought in American wars should be honored!!

Next time your son sees that kid wearing the letter "X" be sure to tell him to go to the principal and object to that. See where it gets him. Their beef over the rebel flag is just that, a beef. Oh but do not attack the letter "X" Look around it is everywhere too.

Schools here in MS can't object to that type of thing because it is our state flag. A Muslim took our State Flag seeking damages of over 70,000,000 dollars saying that it bears the St. Andrews Cross to the U.S. Supreme Court. They refused to hear the case. He needs to do a history check on the Confederate Battle Flag and the St. Andrews Cross.

[streetsoldier]

I omitted something important...it galls ME to see the Confederate banners mis-appropriated by hate groups, holding fast to an ugly ideology which the "Rebel", if he suddenly returned from his grave to behold, would repudiate out-of-hand, and "make them pay dearly" for the affront.

And NO "politically-correct" mouthpiece will ever change that (as I lovingly fold again my "Orphan's Brigade" battle flag, and place it carefully next to the Stars and Stripes in my drawer).

As to Lee-Jackson Day...that should have been today, because Robert Edward Lee was born on this date in 1807, the son of a Continental soldier/statesman. Confederate Memorial Day has been generally celebrated on April 26 (also my sister Anne's birthday), but I'm uncertain if it still is in the "deep South".

[stormchazer]

Jara,

I have pored over dozens (if not hundreds) of letters, diaries, newspapers and "official" papers carried by both Union and Confederate soldiers...NONE of the examples I've seen ever mentioned slavery or slaves.

If slavery was the issue, why didn't the enemies call each other "slavers" and "abolitionists"? No, the common terms were "Yankees", and Rebels" or "Secesh"...references to what the fight was about (at least as a far as the vast majority of soldiers were concerned). Perhaps the most wealthy on both sides sallied forth with "fire-eating" rhetoric, but the average Billy Yank and Johnny Reb saw things MUCH more simply.

Even in Europe for the first two years, the Confederates had a higher "moral" standing...the Union was trying to force unwilling States to knuckle under to a Government that was ill-representative, ignorant of, or indifferent to their needs, stacked against them in sheer numbers and industrial potential, and ever more repressive in trade and tariffs. In short, the Southerners saw Lincoln as the Colonials saw King George III, 85 years before.

Please note Lincoln's own reason for prosecuting war (which, BTW, violated seven of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the North to accomplish)..."If I can preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it; if I can preserve the Union by freeing some, and leaving others alone, I would do it; and if I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it."

Add that Lincoln waited until the Union troops had the upper hand in the War for Southern Independence (July, 1863, when his troops gave him the victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg) before he published the Emancipation Proclamation, and you have a better understanding of the near-desperation Washington had suffered to that time in forcing their way with the agrarian South. Yet, it still took the "blue boys" two more years to completely subjugate the Confederacy.

As to the call for militia...the profession of arms was NOT a vital part of the Northern states, but it enjoyed widespread popularity in the South; few were the Southern counties that did not boast military academies south of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, and the Southern children were raised hunting and shooting, Northern boys, on the other hand, were mostly farmers or workers in industrial sweatshops, and had to be pressed into training and more training before they could come close to equalling the Southern soldiers in the field.

More, five of the nine senior U.S. general officers pre-1860 became CSA generals, as did 67% of the entire U.S. officer corps then serving in the Regular Army. This disparity plagued Lincoln, whose armies had to literally build their land forces from "scratch".

And, lest we forget...as far as the South was concerned, the first blood shed in the war was in Kansas (1856-59), and the "Free Soil" partisans fired the first volleys...read the papers I have, and that "fact" comes at you again and again.

Don't be surprised...I've been studying the "late unpleasantness" since I was about 8 years old.

Again...you miss the point. I have a minor in American History. That does not mean I am an expert but I have studied the issue myself. The common mans opinion, as in most wars, makes not a hill of beans when it comes to why the Civil War happened.

Look at a different way. Lets consider economics as Lindaloo pointed out. The Southern Elite became rich off of "free" labor in the South. This elite was the "ruling" class in the South and those who held the positions in State and Federal government. Those who went to Washington DC, and represented the South, had one goal in mind. To do everything to maintain the "status quo" for the South. To do this, the South needed to maintain a power base equal to the growing Northern anti-slave attitude. Free-states were sending Congressman with growing free-state ideas. The South had to insure that the balance of pro-slave states was balanced against the Free-states. As you pointed out, this become even larger issue as the terrortories in the west were being carved into states.

By the 1850s, the slave question was becoming a major issue. Consider the Republican Party Platform in 1856:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/r1856.html

The message of the Tenn Governor to the Tenn Assembly in Jan of 1861:

The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a crisis in the affairs of the country

Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861

I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race?

The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States

It is not at all surprising, while such is the character of the Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess power over all the institutions of the country. The agitations on the subject of Slavery in the South are the natural results of the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility follows power; and if the people of the North have the power by Congress "to promote the general welfare of the United States," by any means they deem expedient, why should they not assail and overthrow the institution of Slavery in the South? They are responsible for its continuance or existence, in proportion to their power. A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted views, is omnipotent. The inducements to act upon the subject of Slavery, under such circumstances, were so imperious as to amount almost to a moral necessity. To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united on any matter common to the whole Union -- in other words, on any constitutional subject -- for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power, and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and Slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

The Constitution of the United States was an experiment. The experiment consisted in uniting

John Calhouns Address to US Congress 1850:

I have, Senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration --- How can the Union be preserved?

Consider these correspondence upon the end of hostilities:

From: Sterling Cockrill, planter from Courtland, AL, 18 Sept. 1865

"We have much to say in vindication of our conduct, but this we must leave to history. The bloody conflict between brothers, is closed, and we 'come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.' The South had $2,000,000,000 invested in Slaves. It was very natural, that they should desire to protect, and not lose this amount of property. Their action in this effort, resulted in War. There was no desire to dissolve the Union, but to protect this property. The issue was made and it is decided."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ladies of Greenbrier County, WV, 22 Sept. 1865

"Our plain view of the war is simply this. For a long series of years the people of the North differed with those of the South upon the question of slavery and the relations between the states and Federal government. All peaceable means of adjustment were resorted to and failed to reconcile us. At last the controversy was referred to that tribunal from whose decision there is no appeal--to the tribunal of war,--the arbitrament of the sword."

...and many more Letters, speeches and coorespondence.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/polit.html

I agree that the common Southernor may not have cared, but the slavery issue was the one issue that could not be overcome and led to the Civil War.

[streetsoldier]

You presented a host of "justification" rhetoric by people who would have been "fire-eaters" (fanatics), that's certain.

Just do not presume to take away my heritage, as seen through the eyes of MOST Southerners of the period, including my 3X great-grandfather (who owned no slaves, never surrendered his sword, his honor as he felt it, or "took the oath" to placate the conquerors).

You do have a point, that is still evident today; small cadres of relentlessly dedicated people, right or left, determine the fate of the nation. The most recent estimate is no more than 7%, equally divided into "enlightened" (Democrats) or "cognizant" (Republican) movers and shakers, who shape the tone of public support/debate one way or the other.

We, out here in the trenches have little "say" in the backroom negotiations (FI, no major candidate/office holder of Federal rank has ever called me, visited me, or asked my opinion).

And also note that the last few Presidential elections have been "won" for one party or the other by about 1/3 of the POSSIBLE voters (on average, about 67% actually vote). And, that is sad.

[ColdFront77]

School was still in session around here today. Thank The good Lord for that...lol

Very interesting... I believe the majority of schools in the U.S. are closed on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

[blizzard]

School was still in session around here today. Thank The good Lord for that...lol

Very interesting... I believe the majority of schools in the U.S. are closed on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Yeah, most of the schools here wre open...some had teacher's in-service though.

[timNms]

If the schools here weren't closed, all hell would break loose! I remember a few yrs back when MLK day was first introduced. Schools here were not closed. Some people complained, so the schools started having "in-service" day on MLK day. That wasn't good enough for some people, so the schools closed and the teachers stayed home.

[stormchazer]

Just do not presume to take away my heritage, as seen through the eyes of MOST Southerners of the period, including my 3X great-grandfather (who owned no slaves, never surrendered his sword, his honor as he felt it, or "took the oath" to placate the conquerors).

Its not just you heritage but mine too. Don't let heritage argue with what is true. Southernors of the 1800s were not evil, they were products of their time. For them, slavery always was and one can not be judge for living a life that was exceptable at the time even if now we rightly know it was wrong. I submit to you that it was just this " heritage",the "heritage" of slavery", that caused the war. Your last line "who owned no slaves, never surrendered his sword, his honor as he felt it, or "took the oath" to placate the conquerors." Those "conguerors" were the same who spilled blood with him at Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens and Yorktown. Before the war there were Southernors and Northernors, after there were only Americans.

[azsnowman]

Sheesh, these holidays are political footballs.

Ya know.....I know MLK was great man with a GREAT cause/purpose, but WHY on earth do we have a HOLIDAY in his honor?

Ed.....your comment brings back some BAD memories, Az did NOT honor/celebrate MLK day, UNTIL the NFL got involved and told Az, that IF we didn't make it an OFFICAL HOLIDAY, that they would PULL the Super Bowl from Az (can't remember what Super Bowl it was) but you talk about a bunch of POLITICAL BLACKMAIL I mean, being FORCED into celebrating a holiday because of the "NFL?" Now you understand why I have NO INTEREST what so EVER in PRO SPORTS What's next?? "Michael Jackson Day?"

Dennis

[j]

The only problem I have is that we do not shut down our schools or anything for Veterans Day nor Confederates Day.

Agreed 100%!

[hurricanedude]

wow...nice debate I started here...way to go HD!!! LOL
THE SOUTH RULES!!!!!

[streetsoldier]

To be fair and balanced, I must also note that my 2x great-grandfather was Capt. Asbury Ephraim Wilson, commanding Battery "B", 10th Illinois Volunteer Artillery, Army of the Cumberland, Grand Army of the Republic...and son-in-law to Capt. Benjamin after the war was over.

We don't mention HIM much...NOT!

[Anonymous]

This is a stupid arguement. Everybody knows, for the most part, the Civil War was about state's rights, not slavery.

And what's this crap about the Confederate Flag, guess what??



YOU


LOST


Get over it! And put your damn flags away! I'm tired of seeing them on the side of pickup trucks.

And who is the idiot that made this stupid Lee holiday the same day as MLK day? Sounds racist to me.