A Voice From the Confederate Past

by Jack

confederate_flag_wallpaper_by_magnaen-d38qwxtThe Lees were an old Southern family and most settled into the State of Virginia, but also North Carolina and South Carolina.   Many personal stories were passed on through the generations about the slave times and the Confederacy, and this is one of them.

In the early, formative years of this nation, my family were plantation owners and they raised primarily cotton.   The Lee plantations  were spread apart along the Rappahannock river, usually by one days ride on horseback.   This was deliberately planned so that in the event of a crisis, no plantation would be without support for more than two days.    In the early 1800’s the plantations were the only safe place to run in case of an Indian raid or bandits.

The Lee plantations were using slaves for field work along with a mix of whites, (a common practice in many parts of the world).  Share cropping was also employed and this helped many black families become free and independent.  This latter part was a sign of the changing times, as was improved farming methods, such as Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, invented in 1793, but not really developed until around 1803.   Once perfected, it was quickly adopted and made removing cotton seed much less labor intensive.  Also in the early 1800’s there were changing attitudes about slavery, not just in the North, but in the South as well.  The US Constitution provided for the end to slavery, but it was removed under great pressure by slave states.   This served notice to plantation owners and others that the days of slavery were not far off.

My grandfather believed that slaves would surely have been emancipated without the Civil War and likely before 1870.   There was just too much going against slavery, including the invention of the first mechanical cotton picker in 1850.   Had this invention been fully developed it would have replaced much of the need for low cost man power, too bad we didn’t spend more time and money developing this machine than posturing for war.

When Lincoln was elected President there was already a long standing rift between the South and the North, because of divergent economies, demographics and theirconfederate11476 goals and values that were taking separate paths.  In 1860 the North was experiencing a surge in economic progress just as the Southern economy began to slow due to falling cotton prices.   Lincoln inherited a dysfunctional union with its legacy of divergent political positions, not the least of which was issue of slavery!

In 1860, I was told by my family that the South was the intellectual brain-trust of the United States and the most refined and educated young ladies and gentlemen of great wealth came from the South, as evidence by the Southern writers, military leaders, famous lawyers and orators, not to mention the many visible mansions on vast plantations.   This biased opinion was not without some merit, although it may not have been quite so grand as Southerners would like to believe.

The North, although thriving, was still viewed as a blue collar society backed by a growing industrial power.  Thus there was competition and division on many levels between North and South, especially when it came to dominance in government.

Lincoln’s election was seen as another political loss for the South and worse, a threat to the Southern way of life.  History teaches us that Southern culture was a bit too prideful and arrogant for its own good.   Now the Southerners were closing ranks out of fear and anger over issues with tariffs and slavery.   Part of this fear came from Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion where slaves killed about 60 whites, the largest mass killing ever experienced in the South prior to the Civil War.   This was still fresh in the minds of Southerners when Lincoln took office.

Obviously the Southern Democrat States overreacted to Lincoln’s Republican election, but had they not and lets say they allowed a political resolution to the States Rights issues and slavery, it may have taken another decade, but these issues would have been worked out.  The South still had plenty of power in Washington, even with news states coming on board.   It’s too bad the South pressed for secession because over 620,000 men would eventually be killed in our greatest struggle to date.  This was our nations greatest loss of life in any war we fought up to present day.

Private_Edwin_Francis_JemisonThe Civil War was a great regret often expressed in my family that suffered more than most during this war.  My direct family line lost thousands of acres of prime ag land, crops were seized/destroyed, and most of the grand old plantation houses were looted and burned to the ground.  Even the family steamboat, loaded with cotton for export, was seized.  No indemnification was ever received, despite a written order that promised repayment after the war.   Congress approved repayment, but they never got around to appropriating the money.   Our line of the Lee family was absolutely decimated by this war.

After the Civil War a number of former slaves wanted to stay with our family, we would like to think this was a testament to how they had been treated and loved as part of the family.  (There’s a lot to this part of story that’s hard to understand today and one that I don’t have the time to explain)  My great-grandfather set out to North Carolina to rebuild.  He started the first lumber mill in Caswell County.  The need for a mill was desperate in this reconstruction period and he went from near broke to the single wealthiest man in the county according to the US census.

One of his sons later moved to Oklahoma where he name his new estate Cotton Valley and he started raising cotton once again.   Cotton Valley was undeveloped land until Ferdinand Lee arrived.   He did well with cotton, however this didn’t last long because Cotton Valley sat on top of one of Oklahoma’s richest oil fields.  Soon after the discovery of oil, the federal government seized the land because of the need to secure a dependable source of oil for the new industrial economy.   The land was nationalized and Ferd and a few other family members were forced out of business once again by Yankees.   As the story goes Ferd wasn’t particularly adept at handling money and the money the federal government (minimal) was soon spent.

The last of the former slaves died on land willed to them by my great grandfather who died in Caswell County,  North Carolina.  We have this evidenced by a will that specifically called for the caring of one black family so they would not want for anything in their retired years.

Our family view of Southern history, State’s Rights and the issue of slavery seems to be fairly common among the places I’ve visited in the South.   It also seemed that most Southern folks were very open to discussing these issues and the changes since the Civil War.  A few seemed guarded with their answers because I was a stranger and from the North (California), but once they learned I was a decedent of the Lee family, all that changed.  To this day it is considered bad form to say anything critical of “Bobby” Lee, that would be a good way to get beat up.robert-e-lee

Our family sees the old rebel flag as a symbol heritage and history, not hate.   Others can see what they want, but for this old Southern family, well, all we see is what is in our hearts.  The Confederate flag is just another symbol from our past that helped shape who we are today.

The Civil War was a great tragedy, almost beyond measure, but the pride felt in being part of the South is still alive.   As to the issue of slavery, well, that was acknowledged as a wrong and so much has been done to improve race relations since those times.   Many Southerners knew it was in need of changing before the Civil War began, and my ancestors felt it was only going to be a matter of a few years and the end of slavery would have come about without the war.   The world was changing and there is no way it could have been otherwise, slavery was coming to a close.  But, lets not lose sight of the fact there were also slaves in the North and some free black farmers also owned slaves.  So, if a revisionist is looking to point blame there’s plenty to go around.

For more clarity on States Rights it’s helpful to read about the Articles of Confederation.  Another helpful site defines the reasons for the Civil War.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to A Voice From the Confederate Past

  1. Chris says:

    Interesting stuff, Jack.

    I have to admit I find it hard to understand why the Confederate flag still means so much to you when you acknowledge that the Confederacy was fighting primarily over the issue of slavery, and you seem to attribute most of the blame for the war to the South. I can see why you say it means “history and heritage,” but I’m not sure why you seem to have positive feelings about that history and heritage.

    It seems to me that one can acknowledge their history and even be proud of some aspects of their Confederate ancestors, without venerating the symbol of the Confederacy itself. But then, I have no personal connection to this symbol, so maybe this is just going over my head!

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris, it apparently must not mean too much to me, since I have never owned one or ever flew one. I can appreciate many things Southern that go with the old battle flag, historic battles, masterful leadership, struggling against long odds, but in the final analysis it’s really a no big deal. If people want to see this as pro-slavery flag, be my guest.

  2. Harold says:

    Lets just consider the Flag of the Confederacy as a symbol interposed between what was good and wrong with a developing nation.

    A tool if you will to refresh our memories and avoid the mistakes of the past, without overly dwelling on them or rewriting history to reflect ones prejudices.

    Your last statement in post 2 ‘If people want to see this as pro-slavery flag, be my guest.” reflects what I see wrong with other “essay” and that persons POV.

    Quite a interesting blood line, Thank You for sharing.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Thanks Harold. I just think some modern-day moralists want to hold American’s of the 1800’s to the same ethical standards we have today when it would be better served to view that chapter in the context of the times they were in. Sure, slavery was really, really, wrong and my family had a part in that, not going to run away from that. But, I had nothing to do with slavery, heck, we’d have to go back 4 generations to find the problem! Usually when people bring up slavery or the Confederacy I wouldn’t say anything about my roots because of all the hyper-sensitivity, i.e. politically correctness. Unfortunately, we ALL have hanging over all our heads thanks to our liberal pals. Maybe I should change the narrative and say, my family were big time democrats! Why, we go all the way back to when democrats demanded we keep slavery, then along came Republicans… think that would go over better? lol

  3. Chris says:

    Jack: “Thanks Harold. I just think some modern-day moralists want to hold American’s of the 1800’s to the same ethical standards we have today when it would be better served to view that chapter in the context of the times they were in.”

    I disagree. The Confederacy didn’t justify their actions by saying that slavery was common or that everyone did it at the time. In fact, as shown in the Cornerstone Speech and the Declarations of Secession, Confederate leaders stressed that their government was unique in being founded on the principles of slavery and white dominance. They said that they were the only government in the world founded on these principles, and they were damn proud of it.

    The Confederacy didn’t excuse themselves based on what everyone else was doing, so why should we? Even judging them only by the standards of their own time period, their defense of slavery was aggressive and uncommon.

    If one were to argue that the American flag should be taken down because we used to have slavery, I think your objection would make more sense. But the Confederacy didn’t just tolerate slavery; slavery was the sole reason the Confederacy was formed.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris said, “slavery was the sole reason the Confederacy was formed.” I think there are a number of historians that would disagree with that one. -Jack

  4. Chris says:

    Jack: “Chris said, “slavery was the sole reason the Confederacy was formed.” I think there are a number of historians that would disagree with that one.”

    Well, then they should take it up with Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens and the writers of every single declaration of secession, then.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Re : “In 1860, the South was the intellectual brain-trust of the United States and the most refined and educated young ladies and gentlemen of great wealth came from the South”


    • Post Scripts says:

      Pie, I had hoped that I made it clear I was speaking from the observations of my ancestors, however bias that view may be.

      Now in defense of their assertions I did find some support. Perhaps you have heard of the term “Southern Gentry?”

      In the South education was heavily valued as a mark of refinement. There were many excellent private schools and academies constructed in the South prior to 1861 and they played a big role in turning out many fine young ladies and gentlemen. The book, titled “Intellectual Manhood” was a critical study of the Antebellum South, written by Timothy J. Williams. However, it gives a fair perspective of Southern culture and why Southerners felt separate from their Northern counterparts. “Essential reading for scholars of the antebellum South and the history of education, Intellectual Manhood is a deeply researched and thought-provoking study of gender, power, and Southern intellectual culture.”

      Quoting from a current textbook, “. . .the South seemed to have many things absent from the North–a leisurely pace of life, a clear social hierarchy, and an indifference to money.” And “By the fifth year of school, students were reading material at a level which is today considered college level. There were also academies which provided intensive educational experiences for boys and girls aged thirteen to twenty. The children of wealthy families might board at the academy, while children from the area were day students. These academies offered a variety of classes. John B. Cary’s Hampton, Virginia Male and Female Academy, for example, offered classes in Greek, Latin, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, as well as chemistry, natural philosophy, and astronomy. As at most academies, the boys and girls were kept separated at Hampton.” http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/on-the-homefront/culture/education.html

      “Pre-Civil War Americans regarded Southerners as a distinct people, who possessed their own values and ways of life. It was widely mistakenly believed, however, that the North and South had originally been settled by two distinct groups of immigrants, each with its own ethos. Northerners were said to be the descendants of 17th century English Puritans, while Southerners were the descendants of England’s country gentry.

      In the eyes of many pre-Civil War Americans this contributed to the evolution of two distinct kinds of Americans: the aggressive, individualistic, money-grubbing Yankee and the southern cavalier. According to the popular stereotype, the cavalier, unlike the Yankee, was violently sensitive to insult, indifferent to money, and preoccupied with honor.” And “Before the Civil War, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings, and furnished 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Cotton exports paid for a substantial share of the capital and technology that laid the basis for America’s industrial revolution.” http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3557

      Now, there is much more on this, but as you can see the story passed down through my family was not without some merit.

      Just one caveat, in the future I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using “colorful” language. We strive to keep this a family friendly site.

  6. Harold says:

    Jack #7 I agree with you, Slavery was not the sole reason the Confederacy was formed, nor the sole reason for the Civil war.

    “The right to own slaves was guaranteed by the USA constitution at Article I, Sections 2 and 9, Article IV, Section 2 and Amendments IV, V, IX and X. Slavery could be abolished only by state (think ‘nation-state’, as did the Framers) law or by constitutional amendment. In fact the Articles of the Confederacy eliminated the future importation of more African slaves..

    The civil war was not totally about slavery. It was at best a side issue. It was about individual states rights and taxation. The Southern States were quite right in their assertion that under the constitution they were allowed to secede.”

    Hence I will once more submit the Flag of the Confederacy, be it Battle or State, represents Southern beliefs of limited Federal intervention and the preservation of Individual States rights, it is not a symbol of hatred, unless you seek a single icon to support your POV on ancient articles of human rights.

    And as a side note, from many articles you will find Northern States made more money from slavery than any Southern State. Research will support this.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Thanks for weighing in on this touchy subject. Funny how much emotion it still evokes. The Civil War has been over for 150 years! However, our history ought to be preserved as it happened, good or bad and not re-written to fit someone’s current agenda. Slavery was a huge issue in the Civil War, nobody here is disputing that but it’s fair to say slavery was not the only reason.

      This quote is from History.com: “The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as states rights versus federal rights.’ This is exactly what I was saying in my article.

      Here’s more from History.com: “States’ Rights refers To the struggle between the federal government and individual states over political power. In the Civil War era, this struggle focused heavily on the institution of slavery and whether the federal government had the right to regulate or even abolish slavery within an individual state. The sides of this debate were largely drawn between northern and southern states, thus widened the growing divide within the nation.”

  7. Chris says:

    Harold, I’m curious–did you read the article I posted about the reasons for the formation of the Confederacy? If not, have you read any secessionist’s state’s declaration of secession? Have you read the Cornerstone Speech, in which Confederate Vice President says that slavery is the “cornerstone” and foundation of his new government? I can’t see anyone reading these primary source documents and concluding that slavery was a “side issue” to the Confederates.

    You write:

    “It was about individual states rights and taxation.”

    This is extremely vague. Individual states’ rights to do what? Again, if you read the primary source documents, you can see that they were concerned primarily with their right to own slaves. They also opposed the right of free states to handle the issue as they saw fit; in many of the declarations of secession, the Confederates complain about the North not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, and making blacks citizens.

    Do you have links to any primary source document in which a leader of the Confederacy claims they seceded primarily over taxation? Or are you relying on the words of historians after the fact?

    As I said in my article, the only way to settle this debate is to look at the words of the Confederates themselves. They were VERY clear that they were fighting to preserve slavery. I can’t find any reference to tariffs or taxation being their prime concern in any of the primary sources. All of those justifications came later, when open support for slavery was no longer considered politically correct.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris when you take a look at the Articles of Confederation you will see why the Southern States had issues with a strong central government and the imposing of taxes. There was a lot of information available about the various reasons for succession and you are focusing on just one. I totally understand where you are coming from and I acknowledge your evidence, however I am telling you straight up there was more to it and the issues were long standing. Please read my story for more information.

      • Post Scripts says:

        Chris this is a great learning opportunity. I’ve learned from the articles, the research and comments. This was the most important part in American history after we became a sovereign nation. I hope we can keep emotion out of it and just learn the facts.

    • Post Scripts says:

      “This is extremely vague. Individual states’ rights to do what?” Chris S.

      That’s obvious if you read the Articles of Confederation that established the US government for the first time. Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Revolt go a long way to explaining the issue with taxation. The seeds for the Civil War were sown long before 1861.

      History.org run by the Colonial Williamsburg Society who live history every day wrote this powerful and irrefutable passage:

      “The flowers of death and destruction germinated from slavery, unmistakably the chief cause of the Civil War—although economics, geography, culture, fear, and the constitutional ambiguities of states’ rights must be factored in. American slavery was a hybrid of seventeenth-century English mercantilism, colonial labor shortages, and what we call racism. It was an evil which, in the interests of revolutionary unity, the Second Continental Congress declined to eradicate in the Declaration of Independence, and which the Articles of Confederation left to blight the Constitution.”

      Causes of the Civil War:

      1. Slavery
      2. Economics
      3. Taxation/tariffs
      4. Culture
      5. Confusion over States Rights per Articles of Confederation v Constitution
      6. Racism

      Chris, I will not be pursuing this further with anyone, this is how it was, it has been carved in stone and I will not settle for less than the whole truth. I’ve learned a lot from this discussion and I hope you have too. To go any further with it seems to be rehashing and pointless.

      Harold you were absolutely right, thank you for saying it here.

  8. Chris says:

    Jack, you seem to agree that slavery was the number one cause of the war, so you’re right that we have little left to debate about. Harold said slavery was a “side issue,” which is what I was objecting to.

    The Articles of Confederation may be interesting to see how these issues began, but what is most relevant in determining the motives of the Confederacy is reading what the Confederates said themselves.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris, I don’t know the whole South felt this way, but obviously a few of them sure did and they were leading the charge for war.

  9. Mary says:

    I am enjoying this thread very much. Thank you. Very easy to read. Chris S. did a good report as well.

    I always enjoyed Tina Grazier. I read that she has been ill and I hope she is feeling better and will write more. You are all quite interesting.

  10. Tina says:

    Mary thank you for the good wishes and encouragement! I am doing much better and will post more as I improve. Our family also had a HS graduation, a birthday, and a wedding last month so I’ve been challenged, energy wise.

    Glad to know you are out there reading PS and hope you take the plunge and join us in our conversations often!

  11. Chris says:

    Thanks, Mary!

    Tina has been commenting more frequently lately, and while I can’t speak to her health, her writing is as confident and provocative as ever, which gives me hope for her condition. Despite our HUGE disagreements, I admire her strength, and I too hope she is feeling better.

  12. Harold says:

    Ref Chris #17
    With reference to Stevens and his cornerstone speech, much like todays politicians (of either party) he tried to retract his speech to and put a spin on it to reflect more of the populous view, which suggests to me he was wrong to begin with to even orate publicly that the war was SOLELY based on slavery, instead given the times (as wrong as it was and is) the war was in part influenced by the rights of Property, which included slavery and ones ability to keep it.

    Meaning that the war was more deeply rooted in economical and constitutional differences, of which were outlined in States Rights:

    If you want something set in stone, go to Stone Mountain and wonder at its creation

    REF: those States’ Rights
    “To insure the rights of the individual states would take precedence over the power of the central government, the Confederate government could not levy protective tariffs; direct and capitation taxes and taxes on exports were restricted. The ability to make internal improvements was limited to matters regarding ports and harbors, lighthouses, and dredging rivers. The government of the Confederacy could not overrule the decisions of state courts.
    The states were permitted to maintain their own armies. They were given greater ability to amend the national constitution.”

    It is pretty clear that individual rights of property and the economics of the time period were a major cause of the war, slavery was not THE issue solely as some would have us believe. there were at the time many deeply rooted resentments of the North and it over reaching central government. The North was more inclined toward having the federal government pay all or part of the costs of internal improvements such as infrastructure, canals, railroads, and lighthouses.
    The South remained primarily agrarian and its large farms, or plantations, depended predominately on slave labor. It opposed federal money being spent for internal improvements because at the time heavy tariffs (cotton) were the primary source of federal income.

    What caused the separation was from the fear of a lopsided central government that favored one regions economics over another’s.

    I’ll reiterate that it is my view the Confederacy flag(which started this discussion to begin with) is no more an icon of hate than that of the Stars and Stripes Flag of America,as both North and South(given the time period) were deeply rooted in the profits of Slavery.

    So we disagree, what so new about that,I prefer a form of Government that limits its intrusion into my affairs, and one that encourages people to be more self-reliant

    My impression of you is that you seem to support one that appreciates what an ever expanding Government will do to enlarge a more controlling form of Governing and how it rewards its voting base with entitlements in exchange for their ability to stay in power.

    Some even think America could be on the circular path of 1860 once more, if so, then who do we blame, a flag, a lame politician or President, maybe if we were honest it would be ourselves for electing those who govern Americas needs so poorly.

  13. Tina says:

    Thanks Harold for representing the whole truth!

    Ownership of another human being is flat out wrong! The injustice of this practice was bound to come to a head in time under the provisions of our founding documents. The civil war era brought this evil injustice into perspective, something that was long overdue and sorely needed. Having said that, for some Southerners the issue of cheap labor was not based on hatred of the black man or a sense of superiority as it was for those who would eventually form the KKK. These land owners were being oppressed by high tariffs and felt justified in exerting themselves based on states rights power and, most likely, The Declaration of Independence. It was a matter of survival for both the white slave owner and his slaves!

    Unfortunately the history of these people, who valued their slaves and treated them as family, is lost. Many of these set their slaves free at the end of the war and some slaves were quite reluctant to go. To those sympathetic to the states/individual rights and the fight against Northern oppression, the flag represents survival and freedom. Southerners were not all candidates for the KKK.

    For the record my grandfather fought for the North and in Kansas spoke out to expose the KKK and their evil acts.

    It’s also important to remember, in today’s PC historical/absolutist/revisionist era, that it was people of color who captured and sold blacks into slavery. The story that only whites, and “white privilege,” carry the burden of slavery is just false.

    It’s important when looking at history to include the whole truth, lest we accept without question the distorted views of propagandists.

    See the history of the Democrat Party by Bill Whittle posted by Peggy in comments on today’s top of the page post. It speaks volumes about the Southerners who would go on to form the KKK and the Democrat Party.

  14. Tina says:

    Thank you Chris.

  15. Chris says:

    Tina: “These land owners were being oppressed by high tariffs and felt justified in exerting themselves based on states rights power and, most likely, The Declaration of Independence. It was a matter of survival for both the white slave owner and his slaves!”

    As I pointed out in the comments in my article, by the time of secession the nation was operating under a tariff law written by the South. There is very little evidence that any Confederate felt oppressed by high tariffs at the time of secession.

  16. Tina says:

    Chris your limited capacity for broad thinking regarding history is quite obvious. Only the race factor fits so all else id dismissed. Why? Are you afraid to learn something other than the liberal line.

    Economics was a factor that had been brewing for some time. The South favored low tariffs while the North favored high tariffs. Read:

    History Central

    …and learn! It’s okay to know the whole truth, it doesn’t diminish the injustice of human beings being owned and oppressed by some Southerners.

    Interesting stats from the paper:

    Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters. Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves. Of the four million slaves working in the South in 1860, about one million worked in homes or in industry, construction, mining, lumbering or transportation. The remaining three million worked in agriculture, two million of whom worked in cotton.

    The picture that’s been painted is inaccurate. My purpose is not to whitewash or diminish the slave issue but to expand our knowledge and understanding of the civil war era.

  17. Chris says:

    Tina: “Economics was a factor that had been brewing for some time. The South favored low tariffs while the North favored high tariffs.”


    But again:

    At the time of secession, the United States was operating under a very low tariff written by Southerners.

    The Morrill tariff was going to change that, but the South had the votes to stop it from passing. They seceded anyway, before it could even be voted on.

    Why did they do this?

    Your own article provides an answer:

    “What did the Confederacy hope to accomplish by seceding from the Union? The clearest goal was to defend and preserve the right of Southern Whites, including the right to own slaves. While the concept of owning another human being would obviously be a moral and criminal issue today; many slaveowners either ignored or tried to justify their way out of that dimension, focusing on the economic aspects of slavery. They held that the right to own people was a property right, just like owning land or buildings. Thus, when Northern politicians tried to ensure that new states admitted to the Union were “free-soil” (i.e., that no slavery was allowed), slaveowners felt that their right to settle in the West with their “property,” including slaves, was being infringed. In addition, in the minds of secessionists, the threat of national abolition not only had the potential of reducing the wealth of many prominent Southerners, but also interfered with the “property” rights of Southern Whites. Thus, secession seemed to be the only way of preserving those rights.

    In addition, some secessionists were interested in preserving the “Southern way of life.” While the image of the large plantations and elegant Scarlet O’Hara-esque Southern belles sipping mint juleps was applicable to only a small minority of southern farms, the gentility and clearly-defined class system was something of a comfort, even for those Southerners who did not live in that world. In addition, some accepted the myth of the happy, subservient slave, who was not quite a human being and would benefit from the civilizing influence of Southern gentility. At the foundation of the “Southern way of life,” however, was its oppressive economic system. In addition to reducing millions of Americans to the status of chattel, it made it very difficult for non-landed, unskilled Whites to succeeded in the face of labor competition from slaves.”


    I’ve already acknowledged that tariffs played a small role in secession.

    I don’t see what that has to do with the debate over the Confederate flag, which still represents a government that was created for the primary purpose of preserving slavery.

  18. Chris says:


    Yesterday, convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza circulated a fake photo of a young Hilary Clinton with a Confederate flag photoshopped behind her.

    When the photo was proven to be a fake, instead of apologizing or admitting error, Dinesh moved on to rank sexism, writing:

    “Even if the ‪#‎ConfederateFlag‬ was edited into this Hillary photo, WHAT is going on with those glasses and that hairdo?”


    What a nasty individual.

  19. Tina says:

    Chris commented on what he called a photoshopped picture of Hillary with the Confederate Flag behind her.

    I don’t know anything about the photo but I submit Chris doesn’t know everything about the Clinton record:

    No matter what Clinton says about the flag, it will be weird, because she has quite an interesting history with the rebel flag.

    As it turns out, her husband, former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, signed a law which designated a portion of the state flag to commemorate the Confederate States of America. “The blue star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of America,” Clinton’s law reads. (Posted document)

    …Try, just for a moment, to imagine how the press would react if they discovered campaign paraphernalia for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan that included a rebel flag and the phrase “Dixie Loves Romney“: (See political paraphernalia)

    Try to imagine if the press discovered Romney-Ryan campaign buttons featuring nothing but their names atop the Dixie flag.

    The media would immediately demand answers. Their questions would never stop. “Are you racist? Why are you racist? What does it feel like to be racist? Is everyone in your party a racist, or just you?”

    See Hillary Clinton campaign buttons from the 2008 presidential race, featuring the flag, here.

    Principles mean nothing to the Clintons, the radical leadership of the Democrat Party, or it’s base. They have made an art of pointing fingers at the opposition while ignoring egregious duplicitous and immoral tactics of the party they serve.

    Chris, you have zero credibility when speaking of D’Souza given you continue to support and defend the left’s radical, lawbreaking, deceitful leadership. One primary example is using the law to crush opponents! Under this administration the power of government to crush American citizens who hold opposing opinions is one of the more despicable examples.

    New emails have surfaced since that report.

    Special comment for Dewey: These tactics are indicative of fascist and Marxist governments. Newsflash: He’s only popular with the radicals who share his fascist/Marxist views!

    Every freedom loving American should be very, very angry about this.

  20. Chris says:

    Tina: “Chris commented on what he called a photoshopped picture of Hillary with the Confederate Flag behind her.”

    Please don’t mislead or hide behind weasel words. It WAS photoshopped, and that is a proven fact. You can look it up yourself.

    Your argument about Clinton’s alleged hypocrisy in this case is exceptionally weak. Hilary and Bill are not the same person, and she is not responsible for his positions or actions. There is also no evidence that she was aware of those campaign buttons in 2008. According to your Breitbart article, she spoke against the flag in 2007, so it’s unlikely she supported the use of those buttons.

    “Chris, you have zero credibility when speaking of D’Souza given you continue to support and defend the left’s radical, lawbreaking, deceitful leadership.”

    I want you to think about what you’re saying here. You are literally saying that no Democrat may ever justifiably criticize any conservative, for anything, and be taken seriously by you. That is a ridiculous, extreme partisan position to hold. I would never say the same about you or any other Republican.

    Why would any liberal commenter here believe that you would ever be able to engage fruitfully or honestly with them on any matter, given your above statement? You just admitted that you will automatically dismiss any possible argument of theirs, simply on the basis of their political party, and that you will excuse any Republican’s actions on the basis that the left is worse. You complained about sexist attacks on Republican women in another thread but you say nothing about D’Souza’s sexism against Hilary here. That’s because you don’t care about sexism, or any other principle really (see your flip flop on “democracy”), you just care about Republican’s “winning” some imaginary “war” as you recently described it.


Comments are closed.