People who have followed the saga of the Virginia Flaggers movement have noted that among their activists is Karen Cooper. She’s often present at various Flagging activities in Virginia. Recently Cooper was interviewed about why she’s interested in Flagging and in southern heritage … you’ll find the interview here.
I found what Cooper had to say to be very interesting and revealing. For example, when she declares that if she was a southerner in 1860, she would have supported secession, I wondered what sort of southerner she would have imagined herself to be in that year. She explicitly links her interest in a state rights interpretation of the coming of the Civil War with her interest in the Tea Party, suggesting that her interest in the past was shaped by present concerns. Of course, secessionists saw state rights as a means to an end, but on that issue Cooper’s silent. She’s also silent on evidence that white southerners were not always so interested in state rights when it came to protecting their own interests, especially slavery. Nor does she allude to the mixed record of the Confederacy when it came to state rights. Finally, she doesn’t seem to understand that “the South” did not speak with one voice … far from it. But she’s not alone in those beliefs.
Cooper also shares her understanding of what the Founders believed: “If I don’t like what is happening in my state, I must work to change it, or I vote with my feet by moving. This is what our Founders wanted us to do to keep our State Sovereignty.” This displays a curious understanding of the Founders. I know of no Founder who said that the way to defend state sovereignty was by moving out of state. Nor do I know which Founders she references. Surely Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams would not have embraced her explanation, and both Washington and Madison were Virginians. Nor does this explanation address the issue of secession. Oddly enough, I do know of an American who said that if white southerners did not like to stay in the United States, they could secede by moving elsewhere. That man was William T. Sherman.
In short, Cooper’s grasp of history is unsure and incomplete. She’s rather selective in her understanding of the past, picking (and warping) only that which supports her political philosophy.
Cooper is a proud southerner. “What I love about the Southern way of living is that we don’t care what you do up North, but you will not change how we do things down here. Things like God, family, our Statehood and capitalism.” I’m unaware of any efforts by northerners to change God or family in the South; if anything, while issues of family and religious values sometimes divide Americans, they do not do so along a neat North/South axis (I have no idea where the transMississippi West, Alaska, and Hawaii fit in this scheme). The term “statehood” remains undefined; “capitalism” is one of those words often invoked and rarely understood, and for years there was a vigorous debate over whether the Old South was capitalist, with that icon of southern heritage defenders, Eugene Genovese, arguing against that notion. Perhaps Cooper needs to take this up with Genovese. She clearly disagrees. “I don’t have much hope for the American people today – and that includes Southerner’s because of how reconstructed they have become,” she says (is that an attack on Rainbow Confederates?). “In order for Southerner’s to live peacefully together, they must understand the principles that the South fought for. Things like States Rights, Capitalism, Christianity and simply the Southern way of living.”
For more on what Cooper believes, you might want to view this video:
It’s a balky video, so be patient.
And for Cooper explaining her beliefs while flagging, see this:
Perhaps we now understand Karen Cooper a little better.
Crossroads 
“In order for Southerner’s to live peacefully together, they must understand the principles that the South fought for. Things like States Rights, Capitalism, Christianity and simply the Southern way of living.”
The “South” fought for Christianity? John Brown was a Christian. (Be he in heaven or hell I do not pretend to know.) Several Christian denominations among the Presbyterians and Baptists as well as others were publicaly anti-salvery. Are folks like Cooper going to assume papel robes and define “Christianity” and who is in and who is out for us? I suppose as an un-repentatnt Yankee I’m outside the fold? Since the Southern Baptists have apologized for thier historic support of salvery, are they outside of the fold now too? After all an American descendent of African heritge is now the SBC president…. Has the SBC ceased from being “Southern”? What about the anti-salvery Southern Quakers?
Well, that just goes to illustrate the point you made that she is rather selective with regard to the historical facts…. Indeed!
Bill, it’s important to keep in mind that the Confederate Heritage™ movement is as much or more bound up in modern political/culture wars issues as with anything that happened in the 1860s. Cooper’s explanation reflects this; it projects back onto those old Confederates (and before them, the Founders) the values, priorities, and beliefs that folks like her have today. It’s a very fanciful view of the past, but one that’s entirely self-affirming in that it provides faux historical validation for those folks’ current political, cultural and religious beliefs. That seems to me to be as good a way of defining “heritage” as practiced by these folks as any.
Most Northern demonstrations by the 1860s had made large steps away from the traditional American Christian theology, with Arminianism and Unitarianism. Those hold to a looser interpretation of the Bible. Like it or not, slavery is in the Old Testament, and is clearly commended. The more liberal Christianity of much of the north rejected this, and the more traditional Christianity of the south accepted it.
Some might quarrel with the word “clearly”. And while there are also references to it in the New Testament (primarily the Paulist letters), the message there was far more towards the notion of “equality”. Not much in either the Old or the New supports the forced separation of families, floggings, brutal working conditions, or the master’s extraction of sexual favors – all of which were part and parcel of the institution being protected by secession.
Mitchell Snay’s work is useful here. Many antebellum Southern clergymen saw a sizable gap between biblical slavery and nineteenth century Southern slavery, and urged political leaders to bring the two more in line by sanctioning marriage, legalizing literacy, and protecting families from division though sale. During the war, many attributed Confederate defeats to Richmond’s refusal to confront the problem. For example, Isaac Taylor Tichenor, later one of the great builders of the Southern Baptist Convention, lambasted the Alabama legislature to their faces for not addressing these issues, and predicted that God would not bring the Confederacy victory until they did.
John,
Your comments aimed at slaveholders in Antebellum America are also attributable to Northern labor practices re: poor immigrants and other members of the poorer element of Northern society in Antebellum America…and beyond. Families were separated, workers were harshly disciplined by beatings and floggings (even death), workers endured “brutal working conditions, ” or the boss’s “extraction of sexual favors – all of which were part and parcel of the institution” (wage slaves) protected by Northern business practices. You apparently choose to overlook the fact that the federal Constitution sanctioned and protected slavery in Antebellum America, and owning slaves was totally “legal.” Furthermore, the majority of Americans living in that timeperiod accepted the use of slave labor, as a legitimate labor source.
Secession came about as the result of the failure of All Americans to abide by the federal Constitution, and all of its requisites. Having some States (Southern) abiding by the federal Constitution, and having some (Northern) States ignoring their obligation to adhere to the federal Constitution, did not permit the Union to function effectively for All Americans. Thus, the only solution for those States wanting to live in a Union based on the “rule of law,” was to secede from the malfunctioning Union, and re-establish the limited constitutional government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. And this is precisely what the Southern States did, as was their right to do as sovereign States. Southerners invoked their God-given right to self-determination, which was the founding principle of the United States in the first place.
On the otherhand, Northerners failed to honor this God-given right of their Southern counterparts, even though they claimed it, and exercised it, for themselves. The ensuing war should never have happened, if Southerners had been permitted to peacefully exercise their God-given right to self-determination via electing to secede. Thus, the North actually destroyed the original “union by choice,” and eventually replaced it with the “union by force” with which we live today. The United States became “united” in the same manner as all previous “empires”…by force of arms. The “Great Experiment” in self-government, based on the Revolutionary Generation’s belief in Mankind’s God-given right to self-determination, was a failure, once All Americans lost their right to be governed via “the consent of the governed,” that beautiful and inspirational phrase from the “Declaration of Independence.” I hope this helps you to better understand what the Confederacy represented to its citizens…”consent of the governed,” the very founding principle that enabled their forefathers to establish a new and hopeful government in the United States.
God given my ass. That’s just neo-confederate BS which translates as we want it our way or else. Not a single right you brought up was God given. It was fought for in the War of American Independence by people from all thirteen colonies. What the secessionists were doing in 1860-61 was a gross violation of the US Constitution. They lost control of the federal government and rather than abide by the LAW of the United States, chose to attempt to leave the nation and then attacked it when the US decided not to allow their illegal and immoral secession attempt to take place.
Everything you referenced is a steaming pile of crap straight out of the Lost Cause handbook. What a lousy and ignorant post you made.
Jimmy,
Apparently you drank the “Kool-Aid” and have no concept of why the Southern States seceded. That’s really no surprise, and you’re not alone in your ignorance. First, our Founding Fathers’ belief in Mankind’s God-given right to self-determination was the “authority” they based their decision to seek a separation from Great Britain upon. Instead of accepting the centuries-old belief that some men were made to rule, and some men were made to be ruled, they adopted the Enlightenment’s political philosoply and its insistence that all men had the right to govern themselves. And guess what? That very belief was expressed in the Declaration of Independence i.e. “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute New Government.” Furthermore, the right to self-government is a right given to all men by God, and as such, this right cannot be given away by men, and cannot be taken away from men…it’s God-given! Second, Southern Americans chose to exercise this God-given right in 1860-61, and secede from the malfunctioning Union, and re-establish the limited constitutional government that had been the original plan of the Founding Fathers. This was most certainly not unconstitutional, since the federal Constitution itself, was based on the founding principle of “consent of the governed.” In other words, without the adoption of the belief in Mankind’s God-given right to self-determination, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the federal Constitution, and the establishment of the United States would not have happened. And remember that Americans did not lose this right to self-determination when they ratified the federal Constitution, since without this right of “consent of the governed” the federal Constitutional would not have been written. Thus, Americans still have this right to self-determination, and can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to defend it. Third, when Southern Americans had endured decades of unconstitutional actions and legislation, they had the right to make a change in their government…which they did. What was unconstitutional, was A.Lincoln’s decision to deny Southern Americans their God-given right to self-determination, by refusing to meet with the Peace Commission to negotiate the terms of separation between the Northern States and the Southern States. And we know the outcome of this gross injustice…the loss of over 750,000 American and foreign lives in a totally unnecessary war, not to mention the destruction of the Southern economy and culture. If A. Lincoln had respected Southern Americans’ right to self-determination, then the original “union by choice” would have survived with fewer member States. But since he failed to respect our founding principle, then the original “union by choice” was destroyed, and replaced with the “union by force” with which we live today. Just give some careful thought to what really happened in 1860-61, and you’ll better understand why there never should have been a war.
Go learn some real history and stop drinking the tea of stupidity. God given is dumb speak for can’t figure out why something happened. When you stop reading the trash stuff from the Lost Cause and start using it for toilet paper you’ll get smarter.
I’ve given a lot of thought to what happened in 1860-61 because unlike you I can read primary sources and understand context. That’s why I teach my students that the Lost Cause is a lie and anyone who believes in it is ignorant. All they have to do is go to the sources and find the truth. Too bad you can’t do that, but then that would destroy your belief system.
You misunderstand my point. I was addressing the statement that slavery is “clearly” commended in the Old Testament and, by extension, the use of biblical references in the early 19th century to justify slavery as practiced in the South. Your points may or may not have validity but they really don’t address my narrow point – especially that the unsavory “emoluments” of Southern slavery find no support in the Old Testament even read literally. If you re-read my post you’ll see that my comments were “aimed” only as described.
John,
I’m glad to know that you weren’t attempting to denigrate the South by making it sound like such practices involving slaves were somehow “relegated to slaveholders,” and avoiding the fact that such practices were used re: immigrant laborers as well. And the use of these practices with the immigrant community was possibly worse, because there were no campaigns to improve their plight at the hands of their “bosses.” We must keep issues in perspective, lest we leave the general public with the wrong impressions, that usually lead to an unfair interpretation of said issues.
Now that we’ve moved to this topic, which of the practices that I’m referring to were endemic to immigrant labor in the North? To be precise, we’re talking about rape, legally sanctioned whippings, legal denial of the right to become literate, and being subject to purchase and sale at auctions. Nobody need defend the awful urban working conditions of immigrant laborers in the 19th century in order to condemn the abuses which were part and parcel of Southern slavery. And please don’t insult the many decent Southerners by equating an attack on slavery with an attack on “the South”.
A rather crude interpretation to say the least
Well, if the civil War was a trial by combat,with God as Judge,clearly,he/she/it,favored the Union cause.I say Union,because most of my folk that fought in the war were from the south and most of them fought for the Union,though it seems I had a gguncle that served for a time with the notorious Confederate Moccasin Rangers,while his father and younger brother served in the 7th WVa.Cavalry.
Yes Bill, the South fought for Christianity, precisely because factions in the North had already begun framing the national debate in terms of secularism from a de-Christianized, yankee, Unitarian perspective against the traditional South and the basis of its culture: Christianity. John Brown may have been a Christian (I’ll look it up…) and he was precisely the kind of Christian prone to murder for his cause, the very definition of fanaticism media outlets routinely warn us about in our own day, and he was denounced for the fanatic he was even by Mr. Uber Yankee: President Lincoln. Just know that as an “unrepentant yankee” you are my sworn enemy. Till we meet some day….
I’m an unrepentant Unionist, Lincolnite ,given that I live in hillybilly southern Ohio and my Southern heritage,I don’t consider myself a “yankee”. So I reckin Unionist will do…
Well, I guess she dispells the myth of the Black Confederate 😀
If Karen Cooper’s ancestors were in the South when the “Southern way of living” was in full flower, I feel sorry for them.
I would class southern planters as capitalist, but I would also class northern industrialist as capitalist. Hate to tell Ms Copper but capitalism was a serious problem in the US that created a massive disparity of wealth both in the north and the south.. It was not seriously dealt with until the early 1900’s by groups like the progressive party of 1912 and those like Eugene Debs. Getting to another point, I’ve never taken a poll but I would think there as many Christians in the north far as percentage as in the south. Then getting to the Tea Party, I’m sure the Tea Party in the north are just as clueless as their counter parts in the south.
I like Karen Cooper.
She can exchange places with Andy Hall or Rob Baker in an independent South. While racial and ethnic identity is important, I wouldn’t define the South exclusively in racial terms.
How does Karen Cooper differ from Connie Chastain?
Karen is a very intelligent woman, and I am proud to stand by her as a fellow Southerner. Your attempts to degrade and attack in order to support your own “cleansed” version of history are unfortunate – but to be expected through the efforts of Public School education and Marxist University Professors.
Pro-Federal Historians always shout “slavery” in regards to the War of Southern Independence, believing it will somehow stun their opponents into silence. But we all know that Lincoln only issued the emancipation proclamation in order to encourage the Southern Black population to revolt – which would have been horrific in the cost of lives to White and Black alike. And the Federal Government hypocritically did not amend the constitution to “outlaw” slavery until after the war. And even then, with the constitution as a virtually dead document 150 years later (utilized only when convenient) who believes we still aren’t slaves to the Fed today?
Frankly, it’s unbelievable that anyone would justify a brutal war that cost possibly 700,000 lives (maybe more), when England abolished slavery peacefully through a very long and frustrating process – but one that involved no bloodshed. And let’s not forget Ulysses S. Grant famous statement, where he noted that, ““If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side” Need more proof? Read American Slavery: 150 years of Constitutional Rejection at: http://missouritenth.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/americanslavery.pdf
As for the South being a distinct people group, with differing ideals from the egalitarian Federal super-state – I’m happy to let you know that Southerner’s continues to maintain their civilization today. If you have trouble believing this, then you should read “The South as it’s own Nation” at: http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/thesouthasitsownnation.shtml Additionally, the League of the South is one of the most influential political Secessionist movements active in the South. Again, read more at dixienet.org
As for leadership who advocated State Sovereignty and Nullification, try Thomas Jefferson, who stated the following, “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children and descendents as those of the Eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this: and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the Western interests as zealously as the Eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 1804 (Note: The opponents of the Louisiana purchase were, at this period, predicting dire disaster to the Union because of its acquisition.)
He also later stated, “I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution. I answer by asking if a single State of the Union would have agreed to the Constitution had it given all powers to the General Government? If the whole opposition to it did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of every State, of being subjected to the other States in matters merely its own? And if there is any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then, to acquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided?” – Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Johnson, 1823
Most of what you offer has nothing to do with Karen Cooper. If you think she’s correct in her understanding of southern history, so be it. Unfortunately, she’s not, as I’ve suggested (you don’t offer any evidence to the contrary). If you think that to disagree with someone and highlight where she’s wrong is to degrade her, that’s your problem. Your own understanding of American history is evidently flawed as well, so I think we should take that into consideration when we assess your evaluation of the matter (we’ve handled the bogus Grant quote before, but historical accuracy’s not your strong point). Thanks for contributing.
We’ll agree to disagree. Obviously those who agree with you view this page and high-five each other whenever they back each other up on a point. Yeah, intellectual honesty indeed. I, as well as hundreds of thousands of Southerners, obviously disagree with your views as well. So much for 150 years of progress, eh? And you’re doing nothing except deepening that divide.
If the only thing you suggest to my flawed “view of American history” is the supposedly “bogus Grant Quote”, and your attempts to belittle, then so be it. My aim was to defend Karen, which I did. I not overly concerned about convincing a brainwashed Yankee 😉
I guess those folks who see disagreement as belittlement or degrading have issues. They belittle and degrade themselves. And if that’s the best defense you can offer for Karen Cooper, well, she needs better defenders.
I’d just like to point out that your rejoinder to someone supposedly belittling you and deepening the divide is to call them a “brainwashed Yankee.”
a Spade is a Spade!
Only you would drop that particular phrase, in this particular thread.
Well, maybe Valerie Protopapas would, too, but you for sure.
“Pro-Federal Historians always shout “slavery” in regards to the War of Southern Independence,”
Seems to me,if you read the contemporary confederate documents,the secessionists were the ones,shouting,SLAVERY,loud and clear…
State rights, limited government Jeffersonian folks got their asses kicked by centralized federal power Hamiltonian folks in 1861-1865.
Seems to me there is a lesson in that.
The only lesson is how far the Federal Government was willing to go to subjugate a people. 700,000 lives, maybe more. Who calls such a blood-bath the progress of liberty?
Rousseau. Marx. Lenin. Pol Pot. Thaddeus Stevens.
“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”
“Who calls such a blood-bath the progress of liberty?”
The Union soldiers that fought and died for what they believed.You know, that about 2/3 of the 700,000 that died in the “bloodbath”,died from disease,no less a sacrifice..
The lesson is obviously that “might makes right”. That kind of thinking would have pleased Adolf Hitler, who did in fact look to Lincoln as a role model in how he dealt with those that dared challenge his “authority”. The shallowness of your intellect is the only thing noteworthy in your childish comment. Please refrain from engaging in an otherwise intellectual debate.
Ah, the good old “Hitler” analogy, which always gets tossed around when the tosser lacks any good arguments. “Hitler” fits the Cobfederate views of institutionalized racist subjugation equally well…I mean, poorly. This one’s no better than the ridiculous statement that American citizens today are treated by the Government in the same way that slave owners treated their “property”. In other words, it’s fallacious.
And how did the slaveholder deal with those that challenged their authority,that would have made Hitler proud indeed.The southern slaveholder kept 4 million+ in slavery based on might makes right.
Oddly, Ms Cooper proves a point. The key to all this modern nonsense about the Civil War is forgetting slavery–what it really meant to be chattel. She likely does not realize that she would be no more a person than my cat or car, let alone be allowed any thoughts on founding father or anything else. She was NOT a Southerner in the mind of the generation of 1860 so speculating on what she would think as one is silly. Today, she can see her self that way if she likes. Her freedom, albeit to be a MORON, was bought with the blood of the men of the Union black and white.
Then if the blacks held as slaves in the old South were so routinely despised by their masters, why did so many of them willingly and without compulsion accompany their masters to the Confederate Army units to which they were assigned? Why did so many slaves simply stay on the plantations, unguarded by fence, ditch, or sentry, to continue the work they were accustomed to doing, and indeed kept the food production going and care of farm animals continuing until FORCED to vacate their homes by invading Union armies? Karen Cooper would be welcomed as a Southerner THEN AS NOW, and *precisely* because of the stand she takes.
My maternal 3rd Great Grandfather was a wealthy enough lawyer to afford a few household servants, and he maintained them and their family members. Thanks to those servants, whom you call chattel slaves, my grandfather’s wife and daughter were alerted to the presence of the 15th Pennsylvania Cavalry rampaging in north Alabama, and were able to get out of the house before it was looted and burned. Thanks to those slaves my kinfolk were saved. The 15th Pennsylvania also burned the town’s church along with numerous other residences. In any other war such actions are denounced as inhuman and uncivilized–except when northerners justify their wanton aggression against a Suth that insisted on constitutional government and self-rule.
Well, first, we’d have to note that being a slave is an attempt to negate one’s ability to choose. You folks seem to forget that all the time. But I’m amused by your notion that blacks enjoyed their enslavement until they were forced into freedom. Makes you wonder why there was a fugitive slave act.
I can find other accounts if you wish, for starters here is an account soon after Gettysburg.
July 9th.—Nothing of importance has occurred since the 7th
save an occasional picket fight and the loss of a few forage wagons.
The Yankee cavalry have worried us a little, and our pontoon
bridges at Falling Waters have been destroyed, whether by
the rise in the Potomac or the enemy I know not. So far General Lee has evinced no haste in crossing the river, and the hostile armies are cautiously watching the movements of each other.
A few of our negro cooks, .vho were with our wagon train when it was captured by the enemy, escaped and returned to camp today. Certainly they were the happiest fellows I ever saw and were greeted with loud cheers by our men. A chance at freedom they had, but they preferred life and slavery in Dixie to liberty at the North.
OOOOPs my source–
CARLTON McCarthy,
CONTRIBUTIONS
TO A
History of the Richmond Howitzer Battalion.
Page 213 !
Can’t wait to see more examples.
Hope the folks at the SHPG won’t be mad at you for posting here.
“When rations got short and were getting shorter, it became necessary to dismiss the darkey servants. Some, however, became company servants, instead of private institutions, and held out faithfully to the end, cooking the rations away in the rear, and at the risk of life carrying them to the line of battle to their young massahs”From Rappidian TO RICHMOND AND THE SPOTTSYLVANIA CAMPAIGN
A Sketch in Personal Narrative of the Scenes a Soldier Saw
By
WILLIAM MEADE DAME, D. D.
Private, First Company Richmond Howitzers
Ok this group of black men were not rifle carrying soldiers, but their dedication is deserving of recognition. Their courage and dedication shows where their loyalty was at.
No matter how you slice it they were “Black Confederates”. No one held them at gunpoint, all they had to do was walk away, but they didn’t. So were these men slaves when they could have walked away and didn’t? I guess they were, but something other than the Massahs whip kept them in camp! Loyalty! Honor! Courage! The same attributes we give to the confederate soldier who signed on the line and defended his country.
So It was not only the free man but the servants themselves who opposed the onslaught of the north.
Don’t fret about The folks at SHPG getting mad with me.
As always I do what I want to do!
Ok just for you—
“When rations got short and were getting shorter, it became necessary to dismiss the darkey servants. Some, however, became company servants, instead of private institutions, and held out faithfully to the end, cooking the rations away in the rear, and at the risk of life carrying them to the line of battle to their young massahs”From Rappidian TO RICHMOND AND THE SPOTTSYLVANIA CAMPAIGN
A Sketch in Personal Narrative of the Scenes a Soldier Saw
ByOk this group of black men were not rifle carrying soldiers, but their dedication is deserving of recognition. Their courage and dedication shows where their loyalty was at.
No matter how you slice it they were “Black Confederates”. No one held them at gunpoint, all they had to do was walk away, but they didn’t. So were these men slaves when they could have walked away and didn’t? I guess they were, but something other than the Massahs whip kept them in camp! Loyalty! Honor! Courage! The same attributes we give to the confederate soldier who signed on the line and defended his country.
So It was not only the free man but the servants themselves who opposed the onslaught of the north.
Hows That ?
Oh don’t fret about the folks at SHPG getting mad with me.
As always I do what I want!
WILLIAM MEADE DAME, D. D.
Private, First Company Richmond Howitzers
Source =
That’s not quite as good as the first one, David. If they were black Confederates, they would be subject to being shot for desertion, which would explain why they stayed. Apparently if “some” stayed, “many” left. Moreover, you don’t know their motivation. You just project what you need to believe upon them.
You don’t know their motivation either !
I never said I did, David. You did. Now you admit that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Fine by me.
However – It is stated “When rations got short and were getting shorter, it became necessary to dismiss the darkey servants. Some, however, became company servants, instead of private institutions, and held out faithfully to the end”
I don’t call that me projecting an opinion, If they were dismissed and stayed that says a lot about them, no fear of getting shot for desertion, after all they had been dismissed.
Brooks, sometimes ya gotta use common sense, and all the diplomas on earth ain’t gonna give ya that !
Who dismissed them? Think about it. Were they freed? Your source does not say that. But if they were “black Confederates,” to leave would be to be deserters. If they were simply servants and impressed workers, then they weren’t black Confederate soldiers. A contemporary source would have been far more compelling (as you gave in the retreat from Gettysburg case). Instead, as you admit you don’t know their motivation, then we can’t say what their decision to remain says about them, because we don’t know why they stayed. That’s common sense.
… And where were their families? Their families certainly weren’t with them. If they were ever to have a chance to see their families again, what would be their motivation?
You cannot impute that meaning to my statements. But I will counter with another situation: the slave trade consisted of two avenues out of Africa: the mid Atlantic passage by which west Africans were transported to the new world, of which roughly 4% were destined for the north American continent; the second primary route, and the older one, was the trans-Saharan route, over the desert, and operated by Arabs for the Ottoman Empire. Millions of west Africans were likewise captured in the customary manner (warring tribes, et al) and were led away across the desert sands, on foot. Those surviving worked in various places in the Ottoman Empire. They left no descendants. They were not allowed to have families. Contradistinctively, slaves utilized in the Christian west were allowed to have families and we enjoy the presence of their descendants to this very day. One cannot say that about the Ottoman Empire for slaves did not reproduce. One may argue that the presence of slavery in the Christian west is an eternal blight upon the religion and culture, even while many of those same respondents ignore or justify the practice of Islam, even while Islam allowed no slaves to leave descendants.
I am asserting that many southerners, most in fact, among the 4% of the population of slave-holding states identified in the 1860 census as being slave-owners, attempted to act honorably and humanely toward those under their care as slave masters. So be amused if you wish.I used an example from my family history to illustrate that the relationship between slave and slave owner was not so simple as being one solely of intense oppression as yankee propgandists imply. The reality was much more complex, and academics show they are more propagandists than purveyors of truth when that complexity is reduced to the banalities of American academe. I am more than willing to assert the complexity of slavery in the south was such that slaves were loyal to their masters, willing to fight for the Confederacy, willing, as the example I gave, to help save their masters from the liberating yankees even while still desiring to be free. You should likewise be willing, if you’re honest, to admit, if not assert, that the life of slaves was not one of grinding poverty, nor constant humiliation. The laws governing slavery in the South did not allow for that kind of treatment, the fiction of Uncle Tom’s Cabin notwithstanding.
I am sure you believe this.
Mr. Smith has stated his case exceedingly well, considering the limited venue applicable here. Your dismissive reply ought to be taken as an embarrassing admission that your own understanding lacks balance and is guided by the mythology that always accompanies the conquest of nations and peoples. Have you, for example, read the Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936-38? If not, perhaps that would be a good place to start. It might allow you to acknowledge some of the points that Mr. Smith took the time to try to help you understand, that is, if you approach the subject of history as a scholar, and not a blind partisan.
Leave it to a defender of the Confederacy to complain about the conquest of nations and peoples. Mr. Smith did a wonderful job of citing from the Confederate apologist playbook … and those points have been demolished before … which is why they are so readily dismissed. Try to keep up.
Then answer my central assertion! If the South was so bad, so evil, why do we have black African descendants to this very day in the South and the regions constituting the Ottoman Empire does not?
Your central assertion rests upon a bogus claim that anyone has argued that “the South” was (or is) evil. Now, that may allow you to play the outraged victim, but there’s no reason to debate with someone who wants to feel like a victim … especially when you do so well on your own.
As for your defense of slavery, I think it best to allow it to speak for itself. That you think that it is a debatable point as to whether slavery is evil suggests that perhaps you should try it as one of the enslaved. Tell me how that works for you.
Kenneth, like Brooks said, no one is trying to say that the South was evil. Slavery itself was evil, but to call an institution evil is not the same thing as applying that judgment to the region as a whole.
To say that slavery is evil smacks of religious fanaticism. Are you a religious fanatic Mark Thompson? Slavery had been a legal and constitutional institution prior to the illegally enacted 13th amendment, which required the application of the rule of law and the democratic process to eradicate in the US. It is the prerogative of sycophants to insist on the rule of law only after having enacted their tyranny.
Because certainly nothing sanctioned by the US Constitution could possibly be evil… Do you ever listen to yourself?
Also, if thinking of slavery as evil makes me a religious fanatic, then I guess I’m a religious fanatic. And you have the gall to say you aren’t defending slavery here… At least have the courage of your convictions, sir.
Defense of slavery? There is no way my reply can be construed as a defense of slavery, except by means of invidiousness.
You keep on telling yourself that.
Again, my reply was not a defense of slavery and it is invidious of you to say that it was.
So you say. Thanks.
After all, you said I hated the South. So it’s funny to see you complain that you’ve been misrepresented when you have no problem misrepresenting others.
Is it just me or is there an excess of use of the word of “invidious” here by the apologists?
“The laws governing slavery in the South did not allow for that kind of treatment, the fiction of Uncle Tom’s Cabin notwithstanding”
Not all the masters in Uncle Tom’s Cabin were bad,As I recall Stowe made the point in the book, it was the good master’s that covered over the bad ones,which was one of the evils of the clearly unique institution of southern slavery.If you believe there were no abuse in this institution,your delusional.
Then you will concede that not only am I not delusional, but that I in no way addressed your extension of the subject matter. Let us not move the goal posts, shall we?
This is no more than a modern version of the paternalistic argument made by slaveholding antebellum Southerners such as Robert E, Lee, who wrote before the war, “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.” He also wrote in 1865, “Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would depreciate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both.” The modern version tends towards duplicity by ignoring the fears of miscegenation and the views of blacks as mentally and morally inferior with clever terms such as “complexity.”
What you say about paternalism is certainly true. But my responses were in no way an advocacy of that brand of southern apologia. That it was inferred by you is most unfortunate. You cannot impute that meaning to my words.
I guess you’re doomed to being misunderstood … or at least to complaining that you are.
And by the way, speaking of “good” slave owners is like speaking of “good” concentration camp guards.
And would you not apply that same analysis to the prescriptions about slavery in the US Constitution?
Absolutely! I don’t spare anyone in my analysis, including the founding fathers. One of the reasons I personally (and many Southerners at the time) find secession to have been such a ludicrous solution is precisely because of those Constitutional protections. The reason Lincoln was such a moderate on slavery was precisely because of those Constitutional protections. In fact, without the war, I am not sure that slavery would have ended anytime soon. Economic historians have demonstrated that slavery was a highly profitable institution, and there is no indication that the South was ready to give it up (in fact the war demonstrates otherwise). Even the fugitive slave law found strong support in the Constutution. Yes, the founders made their “deal with the devil,” so to speak, in giving such strong support to slavery, and later generations paid for it. I think they probably imagined it was being put on the road to extinction, as indeed they could scarcely have imagined the cotton gin or its impact. Still, those Constitutional protections definitely helped create sectional conflict in the antebellum era. Slavery was an American institution. Even though gradual emancipation and industrialization helped create a free labor North that increasingly differed from the South, textile mills in strongly anti-slavery New England still depended on cotton grown and picked and ginned by black slaves.
As well as a flourishing slave trade industry involving Maine timber, and the communities which grew up around logging, Rhode Island and Massachusetts Rum distilling in order to provide the chief “currency” for which slaves were traded. It is invidious to focus on the locus of slavery in the South. The fundamental issue is the rule of law. The WBTS era demonstrated that “rule of law” is not part of the American experience except as the prerogative of tyrants.
Perhaps. And in both examples they were legal occupations. Unless one is advocating for mob rule which seeks to circumvent the rule of law by appeal to a higher law.
Is it just me or did you just argue that the Holocaust was legal?
Mr. Smith,
It’s refreshing to read your comments attempting to correct some of the ignorance re: Southern slavery that is held by, unfortunately, too many contemporary Americans. Slavery was not one of our “shining” moments as a country, but it must be understood in the context of our collective history as a country. For example, many Americans have no idea that much of the infrastructure of Northern cities was built by slave labor. Many Americans have no idea that it was a Northerner who was the largest slavetrader in the United States, and his enterprise operated well into the 19th century…even beyond the cut-off date of shipping slaves into the United States. Until Americans are taught the truth re: slavery and its role in the building of the United States, they will continue to blame the South for slavery and even racism…even though racism was more insidious outside of the South, in the form of de facto segregation.
Plenty of atrocities to go around.It was my gguncle in the Moccasin Rangers,that did the looting and burning of Unionists homes in Western Virginia (I don’t have any hard feeling about it,his father and younger brother were in the WVa 7th Cavalry,I’m sure they got pay back.. Are you really foolish enough to believe only yankees committed war crimes,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/
If black slaves (not servants — SLAVES) were as accepting of their conditions as you and your Lost Cause forebears believe, then why indeed was the Civil War so disruptive to the institution of slavery, primarily by the action of slaves? Wherever the Union Army went, even before the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation, they acted as an army of liberation, whether they wished to be or not (usually they did not). Slaves fled to their lines in increasing numbers throughout the war. Thus, Benjamin Butler coined the term “contraband” to legally justify not returning escaped slaves to their masters. Grant, during the Vicksburg campaign, complained of the burden of having to care for the many thousands of escaped slaves who had fled behind his lines. Sherman complained of the same during his March to the Sea. Even deep in the interior far from Union lines, wives and overseers complained of slaves growing more unruly. None of this is seriously contested by professional historians. Slaves typically hid their resentment and anger behind a mask of good-willed compliance. They “played dumb,” so to speak, as a survival technique, much in the same way that very few blacks ever openly voiced their resentment of Jim Crow (only the ones who didn’t mind risking their lives). Yes, some slaveholders, perhaps many, may have acted relatively “humanely” towards their chattel slaves, but it must be remembered that this is a relative judgment. Slavery itself is an inhumane institution by definition, so calling even certain slaveholders “humane” is akin to calling certain concentration camp guards “humane.” As for why your family’s particular slaves (yes, slaves — not servants) saved your family, who knows? Maybe they did have some affection, maybe they felt it was the right thing to do, or maybe they saw it as a chance to escape. However, this one piece of anecdotal evidence and others like it simply do not overturn the evidence of overwhelming numbers of black slaves expressing their disapproval of the institution in one way or another. Shame on you for defending an inherently inhumane and undefendable institution.
P.S. By the way, some of my ancestors owned slaves at this time as well, and I have deep roots in the South, in which I have lived my entire life, so don’t you dare accuse me of being anti-Southern. The difference between you and me is that I have the intellectual honesty to admit that they were slaves (not “servants”) and that they almost certainly hated every moment of it.
Whether they hated it or not is completely irrelevant. Northern factory workers are said, during this very same time period, to have “hated” their desultory, work-a-day lives. Is “hatred” for their occupations accounted for in the constitution? Does “hatred” for one’s predicament somehow nullify the laws of the land? Rush Limbaugh is completely correct in his analysis of liberals, that they respond emotionally in almost every case. You have certainly done so in the above.
Of course it is relevant. He argued that slaves loved their masters and cheerfully accepted their status, and I proved otherwise. Follow the argument or stay out.
And by the way, quoting Rush Limbaugh isn’t exactly the best way to make yourself look intelligent, especially when you’re trying to chide someone for “responding emotionally.” Because Rush never does that, does he? smh
And you really believe you’re not viewed as chattel by your Government today? Seriously, you think the Constitution is really still a functioning document? And I wouldn’t be so quick to disregard your cat as not having rights too – plenty of folks with the egalitarian mindset would argue for “equal” rights for your cat.
“And you really believe you’re not viewed as chattel by your Government today?”
I went to a government auction last year. As I recall, they sold some worn-out post office trucks, a couple of stripped-down police vehicles, and lots of shabby office furniture. I looked and looked and looked, but couldn’t find any good field hands or house servants.
Either I’m attending the wrong government auctions, friend, or you don’t understand the meaning of the word “chattel.”
I suspect these fellows don’t quite understand the implications of what they say. They say they are enslaved. Yet no one’s preventing them from leaving the United States. So why are they willing to stay enslaved? Perhaps they project their own willingness to stay enslaved upon African Americans, many of whom in fact did not make the same choice as they did.
Like HW and Carknow32, I also like Karen Cooper. And I think she represents her beliefs well. She’s also very courageous to do what she does.
Simple question: what’s the difference in your mind between Karen Cooper and Connie Chastain?
I don’t have an problem with Chastain, BS. I still link to her site on SNN. I do have a problem with some of her rhetoric of late and have told her this. But there is certainly room for disagreement within Southern circles. On a personal level, I get along with Chastain just fine.
That’s not what I asked. I asked you to define the differences (if any) between them on matters of importance to you. Whether you have a problem with either of them or whether you dislike or like them is not my concern. Chastain’s been attacked as a “Rainbow Confederate.” Would Cooper fall under that definition?
BS, I don’t believe I have ever said Chastian is a Rainbow. What I have said is that some of the things she has written on FB of late have sounded Rainbow. In fact, you have (I do believe) pointed this out as well. I remember recently agreeing with you and HW on an analysis of the Rainsbows, in fact. But I have no desire to define Chastian’s views. I’ll let her do that. I simply stated that I like Karen.
I will say that I have a lot more respect for Karen than I do the Rainbows (and here I’m not referring to Chastian) such (not all) of the folks on SHPG FB page. She doesn’t play their games and hide behind fronts. To my knowledge she has never asserted that the traditional South was an egalitarian, multicultural society based on equality and universalism. The Rainbows spend all their time trying to ‘prove’ they are not ‘racists’ (which is impossible to do since ‘racist’ is just a slur, nothing more) by digging for non-White Confederates all the time, greatly exaggerating their numbers and then imposing their own bizarre values upon the Old South. If I thought the traditional South were about egalitarianism, democracy and multiculturalism I would not promote Southern nationalism – I would want nothing to do with the Southern movement. What appeals to me about the traditional South (besides the fact that I am Southern) is precisely the opposite – the rejection of egalitarianism, the opposition to democracy and the genuinely national identity and essence of the South. In other words, the South as a classical (not Progressive) civilisation appeals to me, as it appeals to many others – Karen included, I do believe.
I have no idea how Karen Cooper would respond to what you outline.
I don’t either. But she has never rejected these values to me and I openly promote them. In speaking to her (we have talked several times) and reading her writings and so forth I do believe that our views are not incompatible. I don’t expect everyone in the Southern movement to agree with me on everything. As long as they are more or less in line with traditional Southern values and identity (and Karen does) I’m certainly willing to work with them.
Fair enough.
I don’t know Karen Cooper very well, but she lacks the mendacity and disingenuousness of Connie Chastain and doesn’t seem to thrive on quarreling with people, and she is also a street level activist, which means that she values our heritage more than, say, Rob Baker or Andy Hall.
Fair enough on the former; on the latter, since Andy and Rob disagree with you about such matters, I’m not surprised that you would say that Karen Cooper is in closer agreement with you when it comes to defining the heritage that you both defend.
Why don’t you come down to the blvd when she is out there flagging and ask her in person? Unlike what the coward Brooks did by sending someone else. You guys sit back behind your computer monitors and your opinions. Don’t bother us a bit. We will be on the blvd changing hearts and minds like we always do! ..and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Like many of his fellow Flaggers, Mr. Lewis seems determined to manufacture controversy where there is none in a desperate attempt to gain support for his fledging movement. I’ve never “sent” anyone to a Flagging event. But this tell us a lot about the mindset of Flaggers … they just make things up. All these brave folks seeking to speak on Karen Cooper’s behalf … but not one notes that I let her speak for herself. Why is that? And why have her “defenders” failed to wrestle with my objections?
Frankly, nothing Karen Cooper said strikes me as exceptional. We’ve heard the same arguments before. So one wonders why members of the SHPG are so upset. They haven’t defended what she said on its merits.
Further along the lines conflating supposed Confederate history with modern conservative, Tea Party-style politics and rhetoric, this description of a birthday party for Nathan Bedford Forrest, from the SHNV blog:
Confederate Heritage™, it seems, has very little to do with events of 1861-65.
I’ve read through the comments on this page and find it amazing that some still push, pull, and prod at the slavery issue. It is silly to think that the North and especially the soldiers of the North fought to free the poor black slaves of the South. In a North were blacks were discriminated against and forced into ghettos. The North which had a larger membership in the KKK than the South during the early 1900’s. It is delusional to think that Northerners invaded the South to free the poor black man. I will throw this into the mix when I ask about the Free Blacks who owned slaves not to mention those Free Blacks who fought for the South.
I note that you offer no evidence in support of your claims of what commentators believe. Surely if such evidence existed you would have highlighted specific statements made by others. So we’re left to speculate as to why you feel the need to invent a strawman. It’s even more amusing when you refer to the KKK of the 1920s as a way to explain motivation in the 1860s (although I note you hurried past the Reconstruction KKK). Seems you’re the one dancing around the slavery issue … and pray explain what your reply has to do with Karen Cooper.
The same as your replies above that have to do with Karen Cooper. It seems that your verion of revisionist history is in error. I need not invent a straw man when facts speak for themselves. The attitudes towards blacks were not unique to the South. Abe Lincoln was no friend of the blacks. I point to the fact that W. VA was allowed to keep their slaves. Why? You seem to think yourself an expert historian, and I’m sure you can come up with a colorful answer. The problem with revisionist history is that it is like fairy tales. It has to have a hero and a villian. The trouble with fairy tales is that they often come to the conclusions of the author.
Your last sentence makes no sense. It is in keeping with the rest of your comment. So what we see is that you are as confused as Ms. Cooper when it comes to history. Thanks for the demonstration. Take care.
What if the Current president had been elected by less than 40% of the popular vote?
What if he shut down all news media opposed to his agenda and jailed the editors and producers…
What if he signed an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
What if he arrested the majority of one states legislature because there was a chance those legislators may oppose him?
What if he deported his most vocal critic in Congress?
What if he declared Marshal law and suspended Habeas Corpus, so that anyone could be arrested without being charged and held indefinitely?
What if he violated the 2nd Amendment by disarming the states of his choosing?
What if, after only one month in office and without congressional approval, he unleashed the full might of the military on any state that refused to pay federal taxes.
What if he initiated these actions against the almost unanimous advice of his military and cabinet advisors?
What if the military, while carrying out his orders, killed thousands of civilians, burned down homes, destroyed property and torched countless cities; while robbing and raping citizens?
And what if he created new states formed out of existing states simply for political expediency?
And what if he was so wildly unpopular that just months before the election he was almost certain that he would not be re-elected to a second term?
What if he stationed armed guards at polling places to intimidate voters and help insure his re-election?
What if, after the president’s death, the government told us that this was all done for the good of the country and to ensure that all races would be free and equal?
What if, BECAUSE OF ALL HIS GROSS VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH HE WAS SWORN TO UPHOLD, WE BUILT HIM A HUGH MONUMENT IN WASHINGTON DC AND CALLED HIM OUR GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER…?
Yeah, makes perfect sense to me
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
What Mr. Simpson, and others who support his revisionist concepts, fail to address, is the basic fact that Southern Americans were denied their God-given right to self-determination…the major tenet upon which the Revolutionary War was fought. These folks also conveniently choose to overlook the fact that A. Lincoln made little, if any, effort to meet with the Peace Commission(s) sent from the Confederacy, for the purpose of discussing the peaceful transition of former federal properties to the Confederacy, for instance. These folks also fail to accept the fact that African-Americans were treated as “non-entities” in the Northern States, and were not permitted to remain in some Northern States after certain hours, or not permitted to even settle in some Northern States. These folks overlook the fact that many Northerners didn’t even want African-
Americans in the United States…period…they wanted to deport them to Africa, or somewhere in the Carribean area, since the United States was founded, in their opinion, for white people…only. These folks overlook the fact that the Southern States did nothing wrong when they attempted to exercise their God-given right to self-determination, but the Northern States did everything wrong when they invaded the Confederacy, and basically decimated the Southern economy…not to mention Southern culture. No, might does not make right…ever, and the claim that Northerners freed the slaves is a pathetic excuse to hide behind, in the attempt to gloss-over the immense injustice inflicted upon the Southern people. Of course, Northerners continue to ignore the fact that the slaves were not the only segment of the population to suffer in the category known as “chattel”…each and every female was considered, and treated, as “chattel”, and had no basic recognition as a part of society, until they finally acquired the right to vote in 1920. (Yes, many women were beaten, chained-up, thrown-out of their homes, and had their children taken-away from them…just as happened to slaves). Thus, Northerners have absolutely no right to claim to have done the “right thing” when they invaded the Southland, and caused the deaths of over 750,000 people, and millions of dollars worth of damage to private property. What was the reason again? To preserve the Union, when it was some Northern States that destroyed the Union, by failing to adhere to the federal Constitution in the first place? To free the slaves? Free the slaves for what purpose? To give them the opportunity to move North and either be ignored, or treated as less than human, because they weren’t wanted? Of course, they could claim to be “free” to work themselves to death…to see their families struggle to exist as a family unit…to see their young men denied decent-paying jobs…to see their young women subjected to illicit career paths, etc., because no one wanted them there. Yeh, sounds like a great trade-off…slavery in the South for wage-slavery in the North. No wonder so many former slaves returned to their former homes in the South, and decided to work side-by-side with some of their former “masters”, instead of slaving-away in the North…where they weren’t wanted. No, the North cannot claim any “moral high ground” by “preserving” the Union, or by “freeing” the slaves. Instead, the North replaced the original “union by choice” with a “union by force”, which was never the plan of the Founding Fathers, and which was totally against the basic tenet of the God-given right to self-determination. (Interestingly enough, many of our young men and women in uniform are currently fighting, in other parts of the world, for other people to have the God-given right to self-determination. What happened to that respect for self-determination back in the 1860’s? Just sayin’).
I hope you feel better now that you have gotten that off your chest. Somehow the irony in invoking the principle of self-determination for an experiment in nation-making based on the negation of self-determination to enslaved blacks and southern white unionists is lost on such folks. But the desire to invoke the rights of women while overlooking how those rights were violated by slavery is a new twist on an old theme.
looks like Mr Shonk has definitely buggered Mr Simpsons pet goat…bless his heart…his arguments are shallow with a foundation rooted in his own bias/prejudice…Not worthy to be taken seriously Deo Vindice
So, you’re saying that Mr. Shonk has “relations” with goats? How exactly would you know?
My, oh my, this has become quite amusing … and revealing.
WHAT is this flaggerite lunacy? Learn from the past – stop reliving some romanticized view of this brutal era. Get yourselves under control – sweet Moses! We are in the 21st century – there is not going to be a southern secession or a southern nation – we are the United States – love it or leave it.
Actually, that’s what Cooper says one should do … leave it. “If I don’t like what is happening in my state, I must work to change it, or I vote with my feet by moving.”
Perhaps they should act on that advice.
I’ll pay for her ticket to a country in Africa – of my choice.
Not appropriate, lenastorheim — that’s the sort of nasty talk the white nationalist embrace.
Let’s not let our anger get the best of us. What Karen Cooper says speaks for itself.
Sometimes our anger regarding this ignorance does get the best of us – we’re human. That is extremely mild concerning my views of white supremacists. To know me, you would better understand my comment. For this column, maybe not appropriate, but for my life experiences that I’ve had to endure with loved ones – appropriate. I think that it would be in Cooper’s best interest to experience the land where her ancestors are from – and not in a posh hotel. If you are on FB Andy, I’d be most happy to friend you – I enjoy intelligent conversation, Brooks can vouch for that. https://www.facebook.com/RVAFreeSpeech?ref=hl
Jimmy,
You have made-up your mind to believe that the United States was not founded on the principle of “consent of the governed,” and that’s your decision. However, you are totally incorrect with that belief, and are part of the problem the United States is facing in the 21st century…the people are no longer in control of their government, and the federal government is now in control of the people. Our Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves, if they knew what had happened to the limited constitutional government they had established under the auspices of Mankind’s God-given right to self-determination. The fact that you do not recognize our founding principle is proof enough that you should not be teaching anyone, anything. You would probably be more content to live in a country where the people are not the source of the power to govern, and that way you could follow the dictates of the ruler/dictator/king of said country, and not worry about whether or not the government is performing as it should, since that would not be your concern. Actually, I think that you realize the horrific mistake that A.Lincoln and his cronies made, in 1861, when they chose to ignore Southern Americans’ God-given right to self-determination (the same right they enjoyed for themselves), and decided to go to war, and kill over 750,000 Americans and foreigners, and destroy millions of dollars worth of property throughout the South. And the “cherry on top” of their handiwork was the destruction of the original “union by choice,” and the replacement of it with the “union by force” with which we live today. You are embarrassed when you realize that A.Lincoln did not “save the union,” but actually destroyed it, inspite of all the claims otherwise. Yes, Jimmy, it is difficult to face our country’s failures, and it takes very special people to “own-up” to those failures, and to take steps to correct them, if possible, or to find ways to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. But, you wouldn’t know anything about taking responsibility for mistakes, since you are incapable of recognizing them in the first place. I’ll have to remember you in my prayers.
Once again, you need to wipe your butt with the Lost Cause stuff because it is incorrect. Jefferson buried the limited government idea once and for all with Madison’s help when he bought the Louisiana Purchase.
You’re just repeating the lies that make your modern politics so useless. You’re endangering your soul by lying.
The founding principle of this country is no taxation without representation.
It wasn’t God-given. People fought for the right. The South and the slaveowners denied that right to millions of people both black and white along with a host of other rights.
The only real failure we have is idiots like you who believe in the Lost Cause lie.
Start using your real name. Only cowards hide behind anonymous names on the Internet. You’ve completely mangled history to present your warped ideas which are obviously garbage.
Karen Cooper… marching with a white supremacist – I’m sure that this is one of her proudest moments. What a messed up group of people.
It will be just a little harder for silent Susan Hathaway to pretend she doesn’t know Matthew Heimbach, regardless of what cacklin’ Connie has to say. ear down the rag and put up the flag? How does this racists think that is Heritage and not Hate?
This is what they stand for. HATE. They dont honor the flag nor America.