Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Coming Soon: A Large Confederate Memorial on I-10, Just Inside the Texas State Line

By Comments

The further east you go in Texas, the deeper the drawl, the more catfish and sweet tea on the supper table, and the more honored the Confederate dead. As if to prove the stereotype, the Sons of Confederate Veterans are now nearing completion on a monument to their ancestors just off I-10, just this side of the Sabine and the Louisiana border.

Situated at the corner of I-10 and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, “The Confederate Memorial of the Wind” will feature a walkway lined by the Confederate battle flag and those of several dozen (the count varies in every article) Texas regiments leading up to a circular monument composed of 13 columns honoring each of the Confederate states.

Around the time the project got underway two years ago, Granvel Block, an Orange resident and the SCV’s Texas statewide commander, rejected the idea, often espoused by the NAACP, that Confederate symbols are hateful relics of white supremacy and slavery.

Block said the group wants to preserve history. He said some people, white and black, do not like the Confederate battle flag design because they don’t understand the history. “So many things (about the Confederacy) have been taught wrong or with a poor skew,” he said. As examples, he said the Civil War was not fought over slavery and that slaves were owned in the north, not exclusively in the south. He said individual state governments were sovereign and that “our states were invaded by northern troops.”

In an editorial, the Beaumont Enterprise called the project “divisive,” “offensive,” and “the last thing Southeast Texas needs,” one that with its prominent position next the area’s primary conduit to the outside world, could sully the reputation of the entire region. (Your support will enable passengers in over 55,000 cars per day to see the Confederate flag flying proudly in the Texas breeze, reads an SCV appeal.)

“Anyway you look at it, this is a bad idea,” the editorial continued. “Maybe if enough people in Southeast Texas make this point, the proponents will reconsider. Maybe they will realize that just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should.”

The editorial also stated that “nobody else” in Orange wanted the memorial, but that in a susbsequent poll of Enterprise readers, fully 77 percent were in favor. According to Block, polls of Orange Leader readers and listeners to Orange’s KOGT radio were also overwhelmingly pro-monument.

The SCV purchased the plot for $9,000 several years ago. (Block has said the low price was his prime motivator, not to “stir the pot” by placing the monument near MLK Dr.) Donations and the sale of commemorative plaques and inscriptions have funded the $50,000 project, according to SCV officials.

Elsewhere, the SCV Texas chapter is in a higher profile battle protracted war over its beloved battle flag,  Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans now before the United States Supreme Court, where they are challenging the State of Texas’s rejection to sell vanity SCV license plates bearing the organization’s logo and the Confederate battle flag. The SCV argues that the ban is a violation of free speech while the State of Texas maintains that it has the right to approve or deny what goes on government-issued license plates, as it might imply endorsement of the message. (Personally, I wish the state would apply that logic toward banning the sale of license plates touting such Texas-hating institutions as the universities of Oklahoma and Arkansas, but no such luck.)

It seems the same principle would apply here. The SCV owns the land and took no tax money.

Area politicos know there’s little they can do to fight the monument, especially now that it is nearing completion. All Orange City Council could do was pass a non-binding resolution against the project. Orange City attorney Jack Smith said he didn’t like the memorial either. “I think it’s a bad idea,” he said. “But they own the property, and the First Amendment warrants them that right.”

(Flyer: Courtesy Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans.)

Related Content

  • Jasson Blaair

    Lol, Texas was really so inconsequential to the Civil War, that this monument is even MORE useless than standards modern monuments of this type.

    • James Rademacher

      Not even close to true. The Texas Brigades played major roles in General Lee’s Army. Especially Hood’s Brigade who was considered by many to be the elite of Lee’s Army. Texas Brigades fought in every battle that the Army of Northern Virginia fought(save Chancellorsville) including Gettysburg(the battle for Devil’s Den). So yeah Texas was right in the middle of all of it holmes….They didn’t call us the backdoor to the Confederacy for nothin’…

    • Randall Scott Erwin

      The monument is very useful to Texas families who lost loved ones in the War of Aggression. And, especially my G-G-Grandfather who fought at the Battle Of Galveston to save many Texans from Union invasion forces. Be respectful of others and have reverence for those who made your existence possible.

      • Yehudah ben Shlomo

        Aggression? The Confederacy fired first at Ft. Sumter.

        “to save many Texans from Union invasion forces”

        Except for the ones where were enslaved, of course.

        My great-great-grandfather was in the 7th Louisiana Cavalry, but I don’t see that as something to be proud of.

      • Michael

        Have you not read a history book

    • Oneyedcarl

      Not so! Texas kept the South alive longer! We weren’t defeated! If Sam Houston had not died, he wanted to keep Texas out of the war! Would have been a Lot shorter war!

  • Guest

    The biggest problem with the never ending PC brigade is that nobody remembers out history. In the century since the civil war, it has been all about slavery. That is not what this war was all about. Stop decimating the history of our country because certain groups seem too delicate for certain facts. “Gone with the Wind” was Margaret Mitchell’s story book. It was fiction.

    • Randy Smiggles

      Ok I’m a native Texan. One of my ancestors was able to hear the the sounds from one of the last Civil War battles. But to say the Civil War was not mainly about slavery followed by the need to disprove the South’s laughable contention that it was ok to secede is just ridiculous. That along with calling the conflict ‘The War Of Northern Agression’ was a way for the South to make ourselves feel better after we lost. It’s pure revisionism to say the Civil War was because of Northern jealousy of our economy. If we had accepted that slavery was evil and should have been outlawed, the Civil War would never have happened. Noble the Confederate Soldiers may have been. But in the end no matter their personal reasons for fighting-in the end they were fighting to preserve a morally bankrupt social system. Imagine what we in the USA would say to Germany building a major memorial to Nazis killed in WW2. The situations are analogous.

      • Sean

        Regarding a hypothetical Nazi memorial–if it is privately funded, there should be no issue. No matter how disgusting, tasteless or base we may find certain ideas and forms of expression, we live in a free society where we should not fear retribution from our elected officials. To quote Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

        • Randall Scott Erwin

          I’m always amazed at innocent Northern judgments, or maybe it’s just selective history, but the South is not complicit in America’s slavery when thousands of black slaves from Africa disembarked at New York’s Castle Garden Wharf and they remained enslaved until the War of Aggression. It wasn’t the Confederate flag that flew over slave ships.

      • SoUnderwhelmed

        Exactly. And any man who owned 20 slaves was exempted from military service, as were his sons. It was “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”. The rich planter class exploited not only their slaves but poor whites as well.

      • Andrew Rife

        it was a war of nothern agression if you understand that most of the battles were fought in the south,fact. dont confuse emotional reactionary thought pattern with reality. the northern states banded together under lincoln and fought a war that more than half of the north didn,t want. fact. if the north would have left the south alone, slavery would have fallen under it,s own weight, opinion. see how things work? as for analogies, i dont think there is a monument to nazi,s, so the point is mute. get the facts strait then come back. or spout your political agenda, which we dont care for anyway. welcome to america.

      • UnreconstructedRebel

        “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious
        humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the
        Southern States.”— Charles Dickens, 1862

        • Yehudah ben Shlomo

          Oh, some English author said it – that makes it true.

      • Randall Scott Erwin

        Lets compare documents, Randy. My Confederate ancestor fought in the Battle of Galveston and we know why he fought because he told us. We also have the letters from many of his fellow soldiers. Would you please provide letters/documents or witnesses who can vouch for soldiers who fought for slavery. I’ve read thousands and not one wrote home and asked about his slaves. Lets first get our historical facts straight and then we can have reasonable debate.

        • zigthenzag

          I think the question of “why does the soldier fight” and “why do the politicians send armies to war” is always going to have a different answer. I doubt many of the soldiers in the trenches were fighting for or against slavery. Nor even most of the generals cared. And yet. soldiers follow orders and fight for honor and for their countries. It’s the politicians, safe behind lines, that give the orders. Just because the soldiers didn’t care about slavery, doesnt mean the war wasn’t about slavery.

        • Eric C

          Here is a document that might interest you:

          DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
          A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

          Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

          We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

          That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

          Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

        • Yehudah ben Shlomo

          German soldiers in WWII didn’t all fight for the Holocaust, but they allowed it to continue by fighting.

        • Michael

          The declarations of secession by every treasonous confederate stated that preserving slavery and white supremacy as the cornerstone for secession

    • zigthenzag

      ahh the old “Not about slavery” argument. *edited.* I’m editing my post because I was rude, and because I am willing to grant that that the Civil War was not *all* about slavery. Mostly. It was mostly about slavery. States rights? well, sure. The right to keep slavery legal.

      • chewinmule

        Google Fanueil Hall, Boston. Sometimes referred to as “The Cradle Of Liberty”
        Donated by Peter Fanueil, wealthy slave trader who did own five slaves when he died, according to his will. You “heel-headed twits” make me sick.

        • zigthenzag

          I’ve been to Fanueil Hall many times, and know who Peter Fanueil was. What’s your point?

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            His point may have been about the high toned blather of yankee slave traders who’s hypocrisy renders empty all their propaganda about fighting a war on behalf of the slaves. Just a thought.

          • Guest

            Peter Fanueil died in 1743, genius. he didn’t speak of fighting a war on behalf of the slaves. “just a thought?” no, not really.

          • Guest

            Peter Fanueil died in 1743, genius. He was a hypocrite, as were many of the founding fathers [especially the Southern ones] but I doubt very much he was propagandizing “about fighting a war on behalf of the slaves.”

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            You seem to have missed the point, which has nothing to do with the fact that Fanueil the slaveholder died in 1743, or that Cotton Mather the slavery supporter died prior to that or that Jonathan Edwards, another slaveholder died after that or that in between and well into the 19th century, New Englanders monopolized and profited from the Africa slave trade in America. Like they say, first you get your money, then you get your morals, and we’re not interested in hearing lectures from people like that or from those who shill for them.

            The only person I’m aware of that was propagandizing about fighting for slaves was Abraham Lincoln, who suddenly discovered that it made for good cover to deflect European opinion away from his illegal and immoral invasion of the South.

          • zigthenzag

            Your original statement, in relation to Peter Fanueil, was about “yankee slave traders who’s [sic] hypocrisy renders empty all their propaganda about fighting a war on behalf of the slaves.” Sorry but you are incorrect. Peter Fanueil did not propagandize about fighting for the slaves.

            Yes New Englanders traded slaves and made money. no one that I’m aware of is saying they didn’t.

            So ole’ Abe was immoral and illegal? What do you want? An official apology? Reparations? Want to start your own country in your mom’s basement?

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Fanueil was a slave trader, prominent in the Triangular Trade. Because he lived prior to the time when New Englanders decided to embrace abolitionists propaganda as a political weapon, he had no reason to “propagandize about fighting for slaves”.

            The original reference to Fanueil in the thread was to cite a prominent Boston landmark, named after and established by a slave trader. The commenter could just as well have cited Brown University in RI to the same effect. I think you are just being deliberately obtuse because you refuse to acknowledge Southern disgust at yankee hypocrisy.

          • zigthenzag

            “Fanueil was a slave trader, prominent in the Triangular Trade. Because he lived prior to the time when New Englanders decided to embrace abolitionists propaganda as a political weapon, he had no reason to “propagandize about fighting for slaves”

            ok glad you are finally willing to admit you were incorrect before.

            Your tenuous grasp of English composition makes it a little hard to tell what you are attempting to say sometimes.

            So what’s your new country going to be called? Good luck. Maybe you can conquer Cuba. Maybe Obama will give you reparations.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Again, you seem to have missed my point. I am not saying I was incorrect; I am saying that you are a jacka$$. Is that bit of English composition clear enough for your reading level?

          • Yehudah ben Shlomo

            How about Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens? He should have had some understanding of what the war was about, and why his country was founded, right?

            “The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

            Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

            . . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws.”

          • chewinmule

            Where’s the outrage? Why no huge outcry from the folks? Let’s change the name of that building, nancy!

          • zigthenzag

            I wouldn’t expect anyone to change the name of Fanueil Hall anymore than I’d expect them to change any of the hundreds of Washington or Jefferson place names. Slavery, and hypocrisy about slavery, is part of our collective heritage.

    • Yehudah ben Shlomo

      No one says it was “all about slavery.” There are a lot who pretend it had nothing at all to do with slavery, however.

  • Renee N

    The biggest problem with the never ending PC brigade is that nobody remembers our history. In the century since the civil war, it has been all about slavery. That is not what this war was ALL about. Hollywood and the politicos dancing through the tulips decided it should be the central theme. Stop decimating the history of our country because certain groups seem too delicate for certain facts. “Gone with the Wind” was Margaret Mitchell’s story book. It was fiction. Ignoring the actual history of various events leads to lots of idiots spouting whatever the cue cards tell them to. It is all about stirring up some kind of reaction to sell advertising space. That story line finds an endless following of sheeple to protest what they can’t possibly understand.

    • Bob

      Slavery is mentioned in nearly every secessionist declaration, it was most definitely about slavery and not states rights.

      • UnreconstructedRebel

        Obviously you haven’t bothered to read them. Of the 13 States that issued Secession Ordinances and/or Declarations of Causes for Secession, (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL, VA, NC, TN, AR, MO and KY) only 4 of them cited slavery as a reason (SC, GA, MS and TX). Also, the Johnson-Crittenden Resolution passed by the US Congress in July 1861 expressly declared that the war was NOT being waged to end slavery and Lincoln had declared in his 1st Inaugural Address that slavery was safe in the Union and he had no intention or authority to interfere with it.

        • Eric C

          Let’s find out what a veteran of Hood’s brigade says:

          “With the results of the war and the experience of thirty years, we have facts and elements and experience before us not conceived or dreamed of by the fiery and sentimental statesmen and patriots of former days, and we are divested once and forever of the real bone of contention, to-wit: slavery, which, whatever may be said to the contrary, was the “apple of discord,” without which it is difficult if not impossible on any reasonable hypothesis to account for an overt act on either side; and while the preservation of the Union was the declared purpose of the invasion of the South and was the basis of a “war cry” which appealed effectually to patriots, south as well as north, yet the inner and germinal question of slavery was the real cancer which poisoned the entire blood and circulation of the body politic, and for years threatened final dissolution and was in fact the only subject of that “irrepressible conflict” which was beyond reason or agreement simply because with the South it resolved itself into the elemental question of the right to hold against the world property, the right of possession and ownership of which, had been legalized and had descended from father to son for more than two hundred years.”

          A Texan in Search of a Fight: Civil War Diary and Letters of a Soldier in Hood’s Texas Brigade by John C West

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Well apparently Mr West didn’t bother to read them either, so I guess you have that in common. In any case, there are innumerable opinions to the contrary, and the ultimate rebuke of the “It-was-all-about-slavery” shibboleth is that 150 years after the 13th amendment, we are still at each others throats, and many in the South would still prefer our independence. In the end, tariffs, slavery, internal improvements, constitutional interpretation, etc are just external expressions of a deeper underlying problem, i.e., we simply don’t like you people.

            ******************************************************
            We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination, we will have . . . Slavery never was an essential element. It was the only means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations .
            ~ President Jefferson Davis, July 1864

            “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of
            specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” – Charles Dickens.

            London Times 7 November 1861 – The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South..”

          • AronLump

            Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech says otherwise.

            And the CS Constitution’s specific references to also prove you a liar.

            Your traitorous side lost. You were lucky you didn’t all dance at the end of a rope.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Yet another half-wit who probably hasn’t bothered to read the documents.

            Stephen’s speech comprises about 26 paragraphs. He first talks about disputes over tariffs and inequities in distribution of internal improvements. He then highlights some features of the CSA Constitution. He devotes 4 – 5 paragraphs or about 20% of the text to the topic of slavery, then proceeds to talk about the physical size and resources of the Confederate States, prospects for the Border States seceding, future relations with the US and the nature of the “revolution”. At the time Stephens gave the speech, there were more slave States in the Union ( 8: VA, NC, TN, AR, MO, KY, MD, DL) than in the Confederacy (7: SC, GA, AL, FL, MS, LA, TX) Those 8 States certainly didn’t decide to secede over slavery; it was safe and secure in the Union and Lincoln promised it would continue to be and even supported the Corwin Amendment to ensure this permanently in the Constitution. So, I’m calling BS on your BS analysis of the “Cornerstone Speech”.

            As far as the CSA Constitution, it parallels the US Constitution almost exactly. Some notable differences are that it explicitly outlaws the slave trade (the US Const put a 20 year hiatus on this, even though Virginia strongly supported and immediate ban), it sets a single 6 year term for office of President, give him a line item veto and forbids the general govt from interfering with slavery (same situation as in the US Const). As noted above, shortly after the CSA Const was drawn up, the US Congress was debating and eventually passed the Corwin Amendment to make slavery permanent in the USA. So, for the second time I’m calling BS on your BS analysis.

            The founding principle of America was the peoples right to self determination, to alter or abolish govts and establish new ones when the time and cause required it. That is precisely what the South did in 1861. People who condemn Southern patriots, who fought in defense of their homes and families and land and sought nothing but to be left alone, as “traitors” are beneath contempt and are unworthy to call themselves American, and yes, I’m talking about you.

          • AronLump

            You keep bringing up Kentucky, but you always seem to forget about Leonidas Polk. Guess you idiots screwed up on that one.

            You are no American. You are traitorous scum. Stay in Texas, because you aren’t welcome anywhere else.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            No desire to leave Texas, or the South generally. Too many marxists douche-bags in the Blue States

          • AronLump

            Won’t it be fun when Texas turns blue!

            (And I notice you didn’t respond to my rebuke regarding LK Polk’s invasion of Kentucky.)

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            That’s because its off topic, irrelevant and probably won’t be any more profitable to exchange views on than correcting you on the causes of the war or culpability for Ft Sumter

          • AronLump

            That’s because you know you’re wrong.

          • AronLump

            (And that you know your arguments would never stand up before the Supreme Court.)

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Well, the Supreme (ly Useless) Court and the entire federal judiciary had their chance to disprove the secession argument by putting Jefferson Davis on trial. They decided not to pursue it because they knew they couldn’t make the case. Davis would have made a fool out anyone attempting to argue that secession was treason or unconstitutional. In any case, the Court is not the sole arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional for a State, at least according the Thos Jefferson and James Madison in the KY and VA Resolves of 1798

          • AronLump

            Except the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions are not the Law of the Land. And the Supremacy Clause renders it null and void. But keep digging, cupcake!

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Well, there you go. Some guy typing in a comment box just eviscerated the principle of State Sovereignty as declared by Thos. Jefferson and James Madison. Sound pretty conclusive; I guess they must have forgotten about that supremacy clause thing in 1798; I’m sure you could have set them straight and reminded them. It’s a shame you were born too late to have helped them out with founding the country.

            Also, for something that wasn’t the “Law of the Land” it sure was invoked in numerous occasions by States seeking to nullify federal laws, like New England States over the Embargo Act, like SC with the tariff in 1832 or various northern States over fugitive slave laws in the 1840’s and 50’s. I guess they didn’t have benefit of the internet back then so that experts like you could correct them.

          • AronLump

            Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Please argue that in front of TODAY’S Supreme Court. Clearly you are a Constitutional Scholar (except for the parts you dislike) who MUST have passed the Bar of the Supreme Court!

            You can think you’ve won, but my lack of response to you is my desire to actually make something of my life, and no longer listen to the blathering of a slavery-apologist kook down in Bumfück, Texas. Have fun pontificating to the mirror.

          • AronLump

            Frankly what you are is an apologist for slavery. Deep down you are ASHAMED of your ancestors. You just have too much stupid pride to admit it.

          • AronLump

            And just remember who fired the first shots: PGT Beauregard was no Federal.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            If you break into my house in the middle of the night and I shoot you first, the intruder is the one who committed the act of aggression and bears the guilt. Ditto the situation at Ft Sumter where Lincoln sent an armed naval squadron to invade Charleston harbor, even as his stooge Seward stalled and dissembled with the Confederate Peace Commissions who we sent to Wash DC to work a treaty to pay for the fort, along with other federal installations now in Confederate territory. Lincoln committed the act of war and bears the guilt for it.

          • AronLump

            No matter how you slice it, reinforcing a garrison is not an act of war. In any event, since you never LEGALLY seceded, only unilaterally, South Carolina was still part of the Union.

            And good luck trying to prove Castle Doctrine here in the Real World. You’ll end up in prison where you being, traitorous scum.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Utter BS. If the secession of SC and the other States was invalid, then so was the independence declared by the 13 Colonies in 1776. According to your analysis, you need to go an surrender your passport at Buckingham Palace. Lincoln’s act in sending an armed force into Charleston Harbor was considered an act of war by the standards of international law at the time, just as it would be today. At least in the “real world”

          • AronLump

            My ancestors who fought at Lexington were most assuredly breaking the law when they rebelled against the Crown.

            But you know what the difference between these two events is?

            My side won.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            “My side won.” – the perennial self serving moral justification of the atheist.

          • AronLump

            Sorry, are you trying to make a comment on the religious views of a person about which, and whom, you know nothing? Nice try, slavery apologist.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            The argument you put forth is that, in the case of American secession from the British Empire, it was morally justified because “My side won”. Whether you win or not may determine whether it is successful, but it tells us nothing about whether it was morally justifiable. The American secession of 1776 would have been justified even if Washington had lost. Likewise, Southern secession was justifiable, even though unsuccessful. Your attempt to link the legitimacy of an action to its material success is atheistic in nature, whether you claim to be Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian.

          • AronLump

            That’s called logical fallacy, dingdong. Do you regard the North Vietnamese insurgency in South Viet Nam to be legal? How about the North Korean insurgency in South Korea?

            You are simply a case of a man who thinks he knows infinitely more about a subject than he actually does. A slavery apologist who suffers from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            You’re not too good on following the logic here. You advanced an argument that essentially says, because the Colonist won, their cause was justified, and by implication, because the South lost, their cause was illegitimate. That’s just another way of saying “Might makes Right”, popularized an atheistic nut-job Friedrich Nietzsche. There is no relationship between the aggression of N Vietnam or N Korea and the case of the CSA. The secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905, of the various Soviet Republics from the USSR in the early 1990s, the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic are all example of relatively peaceful separations of political unions, and analogous to the Confederate secession, except for the fact that Gorbachev didn’t display the aggression that Lincoln did.

          • AronLump

            I never said any of those things. What I was pointing out is that history is written by the victors, and you sir, are a loser.

            But there is one major difference regarding those political separations that does not apply to the Civil War. Can you guess what it is?

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Obviously, in an age of self publishing and the internet, the “victors” no longer have a monopoly on historical interpretation.

          • AronLump

            IF IT’S ON THE INTERNET IT MUST BE TRUE!

            (Peer review: KNOW ABOUT IT.)

          • AronLump

            You also seem to forget that the Soviet Union was no longer either ‘Soviet’ nor a ‘Union’ after December 1991. It’s hard to belong to a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when said entity no longer exists!

            You also strike me as the kind of fool who actually believes the Poles attacked the radio station in Gleiwicz. And that Polish reinforcement on the German border was a valid cassus belli.

            Tell me, where did you study history in college? And under whom?

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            As we say down here, you’re just et’up with the dumb-a$$ aren’t you?. The USSR was an empire held together by force, until they could no longer enforce their will on the 15 or so constituent republics, who then declared their independence. The Soviet/Russian leadership at least had the forbearance to not resort to military invasion to force them back into the “union” , which is more than can be said for Lincoln.

          • AronLump

            You keep spouting ignorance, and I just keep laughing at you. Go get your GED. It’ll help you move on from flipping burgers.

          • AronLump

            The facts, as they stand, demonstrate that it was completely illegal for the state of South Carolina to order the Federal Government of the United States to vacate its own property, and thus the subsequent bombardment in order to confiscate said property was equally illegal.

            Theft is theft, Cletus.

          • Yehudah ben Shlomo

            “except for the fact that Gorbachev didn’t display the aggression that Lincoln did.”

            None of those secessionist states attacked Soviet garrisons.

          • AronLump
          • Oscar

            and surrender your passports to Mexico too while you’re at it after all Texas was Mexico

          • AronLump

            Sorry, what?

          • Yehudah ben Shlomo

            Big difference – the UK signed a treaty granting us independence.

            The treatment the CS got pales in comparison to how traitors are usually treated.

          • AronLump

            And if they really intended peace, why couldn’t Beauregard stay his hand until the negotiations ended? Itchy trigger fingers cause wars, Cletus.

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            I’m not here to make up for your lack of familiarity of history of the events. There were no negotiations; Lincoln refused to meet with them and Seward stalled and misled them while Lincoln conspired to plunge a knife in their back at Charleston Harbor. Beauregard was ordered to fire by the Confederate govt when they realized Lincoln’s treachery and perfidy.

          • AronLump

            A knife in the back, eh? I know someone else who claimed to know a lot about history and went on and on about a knife in the back.

            You can claim Seward misled them and stalled, but then you’re also a slavery apologist and a traitor. Seward had absolutely no responsibility to negotiate with an illegitimate organization such as the CSA. You belong dancing a jig at the end of a short rope. No long drop for you.

            (And I knew there were no negotiations. I just loved stringing you along with the ‘Peace Delegation.’ What a fool you are!)

          • UnreconstructedRebel

            Actually, I think you’re just making it up as you go along. You simply make too many asinine comments to be feigning ignorance; I”m convinced it’s genuine ignorance.

            You clearly have no understanding of the founding principles of America, you evidence no comprehension of the concept of delegated powers and reserved rights in the Constitution as they relate to State Sovereignty, you don’t seem to know the particulars of the events leading up to Ft Sumter, and you think a group of patriots fighting in defense of their own territory are “traitors”. So, I’m convinced you’re just another blathering popinjay whose sole guiding principle about the WBTS is that “It-was-all-about-slavery”.

            If I could teach my African Gray parrot to say that, he would be equally edifying to listen to as you are.

          • AronLump

            You sure do seem to like seeing your comments on Disqus. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

            Might want to get that ego in check, slavery apologist.

          • AronLump

            There may have been smaller issues, but the overriding issue was that of human-chattel slavery. The biggest other issue was the fact that the South was so vastly jealous of the North’s material success. One need only look at logistics to see I am right.

            I also notice you haven’t said anything about West Virginia. Sore subject?

          • AronLump

            You also seem to be under the mistaken belief that the Articles of Confederation are still in force. How adorable!

          • Yehudah ben Shlomo

            Speaking of rewriting history, the attack on Ft Sumter started early on April 12, before any warships had arrived. There were just unarmed Union ships present when the bombardment began – and Beauregard’s orders were to reduce the fort before they arrived anyway.

            “Pickens consulted with Beauregard, the local Confederate commander. Soon Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard to repeat the demand for Sumter’s surrender, and if it did not, to reduce the fort before the relief expedition arrived.”

            “Ships from Fox’s relief expedition began to arrive on April 12. Although Fox himself arrived at 3 a.m. on his steamer Baltic, most of the rest of his fleet was delayed until 6 p.m., and one of the two warships, USS Powhatan, never did arrive. Unbeknownst to Fox, it had been ordered to the relief of Fort Pickens in Florida. As landing craft were sent toward the fort with supplies, the artillery fire deterred them and they pulled back. Fox decided to wait until after dark and for the arrival of his warships. The next day, heavy seas made it difficult to load the small boats with men and supplies and Fox was left with the hope that Anderson and his men could hold out until dark on April 13.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

          • Yehudah ben Shlomo

            Yeah, but in those few paragraphs he says the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy was built on slavery.

            “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

        • Yehudah ben Shlomo

          And the Confederate Constitution explicity ensured that slavery was protected.

          “Article I Section 9: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

    • Rez

      Sorry this isn’t PC stuff but involves real honest facts. Read an actual history book. Here is Alexander Stephens (later VP of the Confederacy) from March 21, 1861. He gave other speeches invoking the same principle

      “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

      There are many more statements by other Confederate politicians and secessionists. I can keep pulling them out for you! It’s stunning how much people have to deny reality to believe in their own fiction! Why can’t you just own it?

      • chewinmule

        “U.S president Woodrow Wilson is quoted as saying “the role of slavery
        became the proclaimed cause of the Civil War because it was necessary to
        put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a
        war for Independence into a war waged for the maintenance and extension
        of slavery”. If slavery was all the Southern states wanted they could
        have kept it without a war or firing a shot. The North offered the South
        the Corwin Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in
        March 1861 that would have made slavery permanently legal in America if
        they would rejoin the union. The South refused and the Constitution of
        the Confederate States of America banned the international slave trade.
        Most educated Southerners were in favor of gradual orderly emancipation
        which would have prevented segregation and Jim Crow laws which were
        based on Northern black codes.”

      • James Bendy

        The so-called “quote” was from an 1830s Pennsylvania case presided over by US Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin. The lone reporter didn’t give the correct source for the quote. Stephens referred to that case, and many others, to show that the US had legalized and defended slavery in US courts for many decades. Pot can’t call the kettle black.

        In Johnson vs.
        Tompkins, 1 Bald., 597, Henry Baldwin says: “Slavery is the corner-stone of the
        Constitution; the foundations of the government are laid and rest on the right
        of property in slaves, and the whole structure must fall by disturbing the
        corner-stone.”

        Stephens’ own view was that slavery ought to be abolished. Read about it in Stephens’ memoirs, which are reprinted today.

  • Ian Overton

    As the great, great grandson of a Texas Confederate Veteran: The Union, forever! Hurrah boys, hurrah! Down with the traitors, up with the stars!

    • UnreconstructedRebel

      You sir, are a living disgrace to your grandfather’s grandfather. Do him a favor and legally change your name.

      • Ian Overton

        Read it and weep, dinosaur!

      • Yehudah ben Shlomo

        I don’t think his relations with his family are any of your business.

        I’d argue that you’re a living disgrace to the United States of America. Do us all a favor and renounce your citizenship.

  • gkiller

    Oh Southern revisionists, you guys are so cute with your “it wasn’t about slavery” excuse for your ancestors treason. If you really believe it was about some kind of states rights thing or my favorite “Northern Aggression”, you clearly are deluding yourselves of actual historical facts.

    Fact 1 – The Civil War was entirely about slavery. The south wanted to not only keep the slaves they had but expand it westward. If you want to use the “states rights” argument, then ask yourself what they wanted the right to do…yep…own slaves.

    Fact 2 – The states are not sovereign. They were under The Articles of Confederation, but when the founding fathers saw how badly states governed themselves, not to mention how weak it made the nation, they scrapped the AoC and called the Constitutional Convention where things like the Supremacy Clause among others assured that the nation came first, and the states a distant second. The moment the Constitution was ratified, the states lost sovereignty and the right to secede. The South committed treason, and rightfully paid for it.

    Fact 3 – The South fired first. It’s called Ft. Sumter.

    In the end the fact is that the South lost, big time, and you revisionists can’t seem to accept that. Deal with it, grow up and get over yourselves. Your ancestors wanted to own other human beings for their own benefit, that’s who you are celebrating.

    • Ronald E Armstrong

      Every State had the right to secede, it was taught at West Point, along
      with the proper way to go about doing so. Until it effected the U.S. pocket
      books. Study and research history and documents…… Federal U.S.
      documents.

    • Rusty Reeves

      The war was primary due to the fact the south was paying 75% of the taxes. Massa Leeculm when asked why fight, he said, who is going to pay all those tariffs the south now pays? Its was all about economics. If the North had bought the slaves, like The Queen of England did for her country, the South would have gave up slaves. Why did not Leeculm free the slaves in the North first?

      • Alex

        Here are some quotes from the Texas Ordinance of Secession, 1861:

        “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color–a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

        “For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

        By consolidating their strength, they hare placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

        They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a “higher law” than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

        They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.”

        “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

        That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.”

        So why don’t you just shut your racist, uneducated, pale ass up??

        • James Bendy

          As it has been explained to you a hundred times or more, the ‘secession documents’ were aimed at abolitionists and were not any kind of defense of slavery. Abolitionists wanted all slaves immediately freed, but they gave no thought to how the people could feed, house and clothe themselves. We saw what happened with that after the war, hundreds of thousands of former slaves starved, died of disease or turned to crime because they could not support themselves. Many owners in the South worked for decades to educate them and teach them a trade. Read “The Barber Of Natchez”, and also read about Thomas Jackson’s Sunday school. Between 1850 and 1860, records show that about eleven million dollars’ worth of slaves were freed in the South by their former owners, after educating them and teaching them a trade. None of the owners were compensated by the government, they did it because it was right. No Northerners did that. Lincoln could have bought the freedom of all the remaining slaves in the north and the South for far less than the War cost, and no one would have died. Lincoln was wrong for not doing that, and he was wrong for starting an unnecessary war, since slavery would have disappeared within ten years or less.
          Today there are still millions of slaves worldwide, some in labor, some in sex trade, but all are slaves. They call it “human trafficking” now, but it’s still slavery. Instead of harping on 150-year-old history. how about doing something about freeing people who are slaves right now?.

      • gkiller

        If the South had all the money, how did the North outspend them in the process of defeating them? The South would have never allowed the purchase of their slaves from the federal government because they never wanted to give up the free labor which was making the top tier of plantation owners wealthy. The south seceded because Lincoln was elected, who had vowed to stop slavery expanding to the west. The south thought they had some god given right to own Africans. You are defending people who believed that certain human beings should be owned by others and treated like property. Yes, there were slaves in the North, but there were virtually none by the outbreak of the war. The vast majority of blacks living in the north were free, and many educated. The South was and always will be the villains in this, deal with it.

        • chewinmule

          Horse Shit!

          • AronLump

            An eloquent, well-researched reply.

          • chewinmule

            You damn skippy, sport. Typical from a pusillanimous product of bourgeois sheltered life.

          • AronLump

            I think somebody’s just jealous.

          • chewinmule

            Ya broke the code. Dammit, I’ve been outed.

          • Yehudah ben Shlomo

            Bourgeois? You mean like the plantation owners who had the slaves and sent your (and my) ancestors off to fight their war?

          • chewinmule

            Au contraire, mon ami! Those were the ones leading the charge.

          • chewinmule

            Yes, that is in line with the thinking of Thaddeus Stevens, Lincoln’s general of the Congress.

  • SoUnderwhelmed

    I think the sons of Confederate veterans should be allowed to have license plates with Confederate flags on them. But I don’t actually think they should be driving because they must be at least 120 years old by now.

  • ““So many things (about the Confederacy) have been taught wrong or with a poor skew,” he said. As examples, he said the Civil War was not fought over slavery ”

    From the Texas Ordinance of Secession

    “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”

    “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color–a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

    • chewinmule

      The Confederate flag is the last flag to represent the concept of
      local control of ones’ life in America. In a larger sense it represents
      the same values and principles as the original U.S. Betsy Ross Flag:
      Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to
      Tyranny, and Christian Principles and Values. Thus it represents
      “government of the people, by the people, and for the people with the
      consent of the governed”.

      The Confederate flag is an internationally recognized symbol of
      resistance to tyranny. That is why it was flying over the Berlin Wall
      when it was being torn down in 1989 and has been flown by numerous
      countries or provinces seeking independence.

      It reminds knowledgeable Americans that government is to be held
      accountable for its actions, and if those actions are viewed as not
      being in the best interest of the people, there is a price to be paid
      for it. This fact has not been lost upon the Socialist, Communist,
      liberal left and that is why they have spent inordinate amounts of money
      and energy trying to suppress this powerful symbol of freedom. The
      Confederate battle flag is a Christian symbol and that is why proponents
      of Secular Humanism (the belief that there is no God and man, science,
      and government can solve all problems) oppose it.

      • gkiller

        The level of stupidity in every single thing you just said is so profound it almost defy’s belief. First of all, you just proved why so many people hate the flag beyond it’s symbolism of treason. I’ll just speak to one notion you have…A Christian symbol? Really? So if you are on the side of loyalty to the nation you’re a bad Christian? If you believe man, science and government can be of service to one another that makes you a bad American? Just how ignorant are you of what it means to be an American? Are you really that under-informed of what the Founding Fathers believed? This nation was built to accept all, including non-Christians. It was built to better ourselves not through some bronze age biblical dogma but through the genius of man, which means things like science and government. No one religion should or will ever control this nation. It is meant to progress and evolve. If you can’t handle that I suggest you leave as soon as possible, because we’ll happily leave you behind.

        • UnreconstructedRebel

          This nation was “built to accept all”? Probably the stupidest comment in this entire thread, and that’s saying something. Founder John Jay, writing Federalist No. 2 must not have gotten your memo when he wrote,

          “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united
          people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,”

          Jay was writing at time when Americans were exclusively white, Europeans, mainly British with a few Germans and Dutch, all speaking English and neary all Protestant Christians. Perhaps he was just stupid?

          • chewinmule

            Well, professor, they are all free so now what’s the big problem!
            Answer me this. Why don’t the Japanese continually “howl” about FDR and his “camps”? Why don’t the Japanese have the problems we have with immigration and terrorists in their country?

        • chewinmule

          How’s that genius of man working out for you so far?

          “By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

          In 1939, a comrade of Keynes and Strachey named Bertrand Russell came to America to push their obscenitarian socialism and was (he says in his Autobiography) legally charged as “lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber.” His aborted object had been to permeate the College of the City of New York with the corruption of the British Fabians. Immediately, John Dewey and other American Fabians organized to cry that “Academic Freedom” was under attack. The National Education Association (NEA) and the whole Leftist educational complex began to percolate pervasive degeneracies as being “Liberal” and “progressive.”

          The works of Keynes, Lytton Strachey, and Bertrand Russell have been, and are today, required reading in almost every college and university in the United States and Canada. Don’t let’s forget Herbert Marcuse, Havelock Ellis, and good old Sigmund and Kinsey.

      • You did not respond to one word in the quoted Ordinance, I must assume, then, that further discussion would be as productive as nailing Jello to a tree. Good day sir.

        • chewinmule

          How very colloquial and quaint ;”nailing Jello to a tree”.
          Sounds like knowledge empirically gained, what?
          As a mature adult, I’ve never thought to demonstrate the futility of said exercise.

      • Yehudah ben Shlomo

        “The Confederate flag is the last flag to represent the concept of
        local control of ones’ life in America.”

        How about a state flag? You know, “states’ rights” and all that.

        “The Confederate flag is an internationally recognized symbol of
        resistance to tyranny.”

        What is more tyrannical than keeping people as property with no civil rights?

        • chewinmule

          Ask the Arabs if you dare. They are still at it…….. let my people go …… you remember that fellow ….. eh?

        • chewinmule

          Oh, I don’t know. Let’s ask Peter Faneuil, the wealthiest “businessman” in Boston at the time.

  • borgerboy

    think of all the problems that could have been avoided if only we had picked our own cotton….

  • MDER

  • Llh

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  • Guy Hebert

    texas’ own declaration of succession…

    http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

    “[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”

    • chewinmule

      Texas seceded once from Mexico(Spain), which was just fine with Senator Lincoln. Then Texas seceded from Lincoln’s Empire and of course that was altogether different ’cause that struck his gubmint in the ass pocket.

  • James Bendy

    Great monument!

  • UnreconstructedRebel

    The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Sumter (and after 1862 CSS Alabama) occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting.

    Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme’s contention that the people of the South were “defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats”, and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes’ assessment of Yankee motives – the creation of “Empire”!

    Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under
    their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law”

    Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me”, replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question”.

    Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at
    length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it”.

    “It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence”.

  • UnreconstructedRebel

    I read posts on this topic frequently and you can just about compile a list of Confederate FAQ’s along these lines.

    1. For all the half-wits who think Gen. Lee, President Davis, the Confederate soldier, et
    al, were traitors or committed treason, please just go urinate on the Washington or Jefferson monuments; you are effectively doing the same thing when you tar our Confederate Founding Fathers (who represented 13 Colonies seeking independence, of whom all 13 had legally recognized slavery in 1776) with obloquoy for declaring and fighting for their right to self determination as did our Colonial Founding Fathers. The New England States considered secession in 1803, 1807 and 1814, at a time when some of the Founding Fathers were still alive, notably Jefferson and Madison, both of which affirmed the right of secession.

    2. Come up with an acronym for the tired old shibboleth “It-was-all-about-slavery” (IWAAS). It will save us a lot of time in spotting that rubbish argument. The alternative would be to actually read some original source documents from the period or something by Thomas DiLorenzo explaining it was really all about the South paying 70 – 80% of the federal tax burden with only 30% of the representation in congress. Otherwise,try something the slightly more learned half-wits do, quote extracts from Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech or the Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession to “prove” IWAAS. You might also try reading the Johnson-Crittenden Declaration passed by the US Congress in July 1861 that expressly declared the purpose of the war was to force the Southern States back into the Union and NOT to interfere with the institution of slavery.

    3. Do you think the prevalance of slavery in the South justified the invasion, murder and
    pillage by the northern armies? Really? Well, then I’m sure you’ll agree that since many of us view the acceptance of “Gay Marriage” in certain NE states as an outrage against human dignity and morality, you wouldn’t mind if we get the chance one day to invade New England, murder 1/4 of the young men there and carry off as much plunder as possible, then impose military occupation and steal the land title as well, will you? After all, we can brush aside all your remonstrances with “Well, you just fought to preserve sodomy rights”

    4 Do you think the fact that 4 of the 13 States that issued Secession Ordinances and/or Declarations of Causes for Secession made reference to slavery somehow invalidates the right to independence or self-govt? Well then please explain the legitimacy of the Declaration of Independence, issued by 13 Colonies, every one of which had legally established slavery in 1776, and which contains a protest against the Crown’s attempt to stir up “domestic insurrections” amongst the slave population in the Colonies.

    5. There is always some vile piece of dog excrement that argues that Confederates were
    moral equivalents to the Nazis. In addition to being inanely stupid, this is odiously offensive, not least to the people who actually suffered under the nazis. Obviously, people who express this view are of limited intellect and rather loosely educated, so I’ll spell out the difference, avoiding any large words. Nazis were neo-pagan totalitarians who waged offensive wars of invasion against their neighbors and persecuted/exterminated minority groups. Confederates were orthodox Christians, waging a just war of defense against a brutal and barbaric invading force who sought nothing more than to be let alone and fired only when invaded, after the Confederate Peace Commissioners, sent to Washington, were lied to and rebuffed. If there is a “Nazi” parallel to be drawn here, it is between the Total War policy and crimes against civilians common to both Lincoln and Hitler (the latter, an admirer of the former, BTW).

    Confederate Veterans are officially, by Act of Congress, American Veterans. They still receive veteran benefits, primarily in the form of grave markers. There is a reason we have Forts Hood, Polk, Lee and Benning, but NOT a Fort Rommel or von Rundstedt. Got that?

    • AronLump

      Methinks the lady doth protest too much…

  • GladBreitbartsDead

    Yeeeeeee-HAAAAWWWWWW. Hang them nigras HIGH! Wooooo dogggie! Pew! Pew! Pew! All about the PRIDE SON! 卐卐卐!

  • thoomfoote

    Texas- domum stultae