[ the actual title of this page:]
http://Great-Liberal-Insights.Org/CivilRightsInsights.html [ 1 of 4 ]

( for ComputerIcon   or   SmartPhone-Icon )


Confederate Flag

Great Civil Rights
Insights ; Part 1

Pages :   [1] ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4


    There aren't many people who have the time to keep up with public affairs even in their own time and place, let alone what happened over the course of centuries in places far away from their own home towns and states. So it's pretty easy for propadandists without a conscience to tell people who can be persuaded to put their trust in them all kinds of lies about such things and to get away with it.
            For some three centuries, many of our European Christian ancestors believed that, if they had the might to enslave and brutalize felow human beings simply because they belonged to a darker race, their god gave them the right to do so.
            George Mason was one of the most important of the founding fathers. He is creditted with authoring the Constitution of Virginia, which inspired the U.S. Constitution. He refused to sign the original 1987 version of that document, however, because it did nothing to eliminate slavery or to guarantee individual rights vs. government authority. Thanks to the demands of the "Anti-Federalists" like Mason, however, the ten first ammendments (now known as "the Bill of Rights") were agreed to in 1791, and he signed that version.
            George Mason demonstrated in the quotes below that he saw more clearly than most how evil slavery was:
            "[Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers. . . .
            "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. [Slaves] bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities."
            And yet, it wasn't just the slave-owners of the deep south who were not ready to view black humans as the equal of white humans. George Mason owned more slaves than everybody but George Washington in his county of Fairfax, Virginia, and yet he didn't even free them when he was alive, nor even in his last will and testament, as George Washington did.
            Even if the awful Civil War was God's punishment for our nation's mistreatment of so many of its residents, that was not enough to persuade all of America's white people.

    And when others questioned that "right", many of them had been willing to fight to the death, with the blessing of many of their clergy to perpetuate that imagined right.

    ClergyinSupportofSlavery Klan-Jesus-Saves-photo.jpg

    With all of the immorality that has surrounded what some call America's "original sin" for so long, it is hardly surprising that there are still so many immoral consequences of that monstruous sin in our own times. This web page deals with at least four of those moral controversies, namely:

  1. Did the South engage in the Civil War to protect "states-rights"? or to perpetuate slavery?
  3. What happened to the parties of Abe Lincoln and of Jefferson Davis?
  5. Which party supported and which opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill ?
  7. Which is the better party for African-Americans?

1) Did the South engage in the Civil War
to protect states rights?  or to perpetuate slavery?

Being such "good Christians", Southerners swear on their Bible Belt that they love their "negra" neighbors and always have. Many of them deny that their ancestors waged a Civil War with the United States of America mainly to defend and perpetuate the enslavement of black people who had been captured in Africa and brought to our shores to work for nothing on their plantations.  Or they claim that few of their ancestors had anything to do with slavery, and that there was slavery in the North as well as the South at the time.
       There's no question that there were beneficiaries of the practice of slavery and slave-trading in the Northern states as well.  But were the people in the North willing to fight to the death to perpetuate slavery there?  Or did they see slavery as the evil that it was, ban it in most of their own states, and then fight to the death to end it in the rest of the United States of America?
        It's amazing that a careless moment could have brought down Senator Trent Lott, the powerful Republican Leader of the U.S. Senate in Dec., 2002, when he said at the celebration of the 100th birthday of Sen. Strom Thurmond, that America would have faired better in the latter half of the 20th century if, instead of electing the Democrat, Harry Truman, or the Republican, Tom Dewey, it had elected Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond President of the United States of America!  Most Americans outside of Dixie may only have a fuzzy idea of what supporting Strom Thurmond meant in 1948, but Southerners who know anything about their history know full well exactly what that meant.  For Southerners, fighting for "states rights" meant fighting for the right of the former Confederate States to perpetuate segregation and "Jim Crow laws" in the 20th century, just as fighting for "states rights" had meant fighting for the right of states to perpetuate the enslavement of black human beings in the 19th century,  When Southerners, Republicans and "Christian conservatives" try to deny that, show them that you have "the smoking gun", one of many documents that show what they know to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:

Since the vast majority of Southerners were too poor to actually own slaves personally, their betters, who did own the slaves, and who made all the important decisions for the community, including the one to wage a war of secession against the United States of America, didn't come right out and tell them "We want you to go to war and risk your life, to protect our right to own slaves."  In most cases, the vast majority of those who actually fight in wars stand to lose much more than they stand to gain, and it's necessary for the rich and powerful to fool the masses into risking their lives for the benefit of those pulling their strings.  The soldiers who fought heroically and/or lost their lives on the front lines may be honored because they believed that they were fighting for some noble cause, but the leaders of the Confederacy spelled out how important slavery was to their rebellion against the United States of America. 

Don't take my word for the real reason the South fought a war to create a separate confederacy of states.  Here's what the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, said about that when he addressed the Confederate Congress in the aftermath of the fall of Fort Sumter:

President Jefferson Davis'
Special Message to
the Confederate Congress


A fortnight after Fort Sumter fell, President Jefferson Davis in a special message to the Confederate Congress explained his view of the nature of the Union and of slavery, and how the threat to black slavery had impelled Southerners to secede and form a new government:

Gentlemen of the Congress. . .

        The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country.  The occasion is indeed an extraordinary one.  It justifies me in a brief review of the relations heretofore existing between us and the States which now unite in warfare against us and in a succinct statement of the events which have resulted in this warfare, to the end that mankind may pass intelligent and impartial judgment on its motives and objects.  During the war waged against Great Britain by her colonies on this continent a common danger impelled them to a close alliance and to the formation of a Confederation, by the terms of which the colonies, styling themselves States, entered "severally into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. . .  In order to guard against any misconstruction of their compact, the several States made explicit declaration in a distinct article-that "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.''
        Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States.  An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression, has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs. . .  In addition to the long continued and deep­seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South, there has existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, involving interests of such transcendent magnitude as at all times to create the apprehension in the minds of many devoted lovers of the Union that its permanence was impossible.  When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the laboring population consisted of African slaves imported into the colonies by the mother country.  In twelve out of the thirteen States negro slavery existed, and the right of property in slaves was protected by law.  This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave. . .
        As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended.  A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. . .  Emboldened by success, the theatre of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress. . .  Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.  This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
        In the meantime, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000 at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000.  In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction.  Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave­holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000, in 1860; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three­fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man.  With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.  With this view the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history.  Here it may be proper to observe that from a period as early as 1798 there had existed in all of the States of the Union a party almost uninterruptedly in the majority based upon the creed that each State was, in the last resort, the sole judge as well of its wrongs as of the mode and measure of redress. . .
        . . . In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well established, and so necessary for self­preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions.  They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union.
        Having done this, they proceeded to form a new compact amongst themselves by new articles of confederation, which have been also ratified by the conventions of the several States with an approach to unanimity far exceeding that of the conventions which adopted the Constitution of 1787.  They have organized their new Government in all its departments; the functions of the executive, legislative, and judicial magistrates are performed in accordance with the will of the people, as displayed not merely in a cheerful acquiescence, but in the enthusiastic support of the Government thus established by themselves; and but for the interference of the Government of the United States in this legitimate exercise of the right of a people to self­government, peace, happiness, and prosperity would now smile on our land. . .
        Jefferson Davis.

I copied the above from www.templeofdemocracy.com/JeffDavisSpecialMessage.htm, but it was no longer there the last time I checked.

The "Cornerstone Speech" of
The Confederacy's Vice President
Alexander Stephens


"The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by the Confederacy's second most important leader, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861."

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

Each of the Confederate states succeeding from the Union had to make an
official proclamation called their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes
which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union
See how crucial the perpetuation of their exploitation
of African slavery was to them in the examples below:
[ from : http://www.civilwar.org/education/
history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html ]
South Carolina's (Dec. 24, 1860 ) Declaration :

The following is the climax of South Carolina's argument :
        "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of (Abraham Lincoln) a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
        This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, ( African-American) persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
        On the 4th day of March next, this (Republican) party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
        The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government ( i.e. the United States of America) will have become their enemy.
        Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
        We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions (to keep black people enslaved to white people), have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. "

Mississippi's (Jan. 9, 1861) Declaration :

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part ( i.e. the United States of America) , it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
        Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. "

Georgia's (Jan. 29, 1861) Declaration :

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation." (followed by a long declaration laying out Georgia's case for perpetuating slavery within its borders. )

Texas' (Feb.2, 1861) Declaration :

"And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men (mainly Abraham Lincoln) whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
        In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
        We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

LincolnLiberty.jpg If the "Republican Party" now in control of
all of the former "rebel" states really is
the same "Republican Party" that Lincoln led, then
let them show it by repudiating all of these
declarations of rebellion against the United States!

Since the original declarations were based on hatred of Abraham Lincoln and everything that he represented, and the party now in firm control of all of the former "Confederate" states claims to be "the Party of Lincoln", why haven't these proud members of Abe's party ever repudiated all of the official anti-Lincoln declarations of those Confederate states?
        They haven't, and they never will, because of the obvious fact that - contrary to their dishonest claim - they only gained control of the Old Confederacy by becoming the successor to the Party of Jefferson Davis - the mortal enemy of Abraham Lincoln, and of the original Republican Party.-

In 2007 a Georgetown University History professor named Chandra Manning published the results of an extensive study she had done of a multitude of letters written by lowly soldiers of both sides in the Civil War. The book, called "What This Cruel War Was Over", The most surprising outcome of her research was how high a priority the issue of slavery was for most of these soldiers, whether they came from the North, South, East or West and regardless of their economic or cultural background.
        Some in the South may have labored under the illusion that slavery was morally defensible, but not General Robert E. Lee, who spoke for many others, even in the South, when he said "There are few, I believe who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

It's not about "slavery";
it's about the South's "heritage" (of slavery)

Here are some interesting observations made by someone with actual experience of the South:
        "I have spent a lot of time in the South, and as the Civil War is an interest of mine, I spend a lot of time visiting the battlefields.  It always surprises me how little interest there is in the South in the history of the war.  It seems ironic to me that people display the battle flag and defend that by saying it is historical, but then have no interest in the actual history.  Visit any battlefield in the South and you will see 99 out of a 100 license plates are from the North.  Ask people in any town near a battle field for directions and see how many people drive by a battlefield everyday and have no clue what it is about.  Yet there are battle flags and decals all over town.
        The battle flag became popular during the civil-rights struggle and has been used as a symbol of resistance to integration and voting rights.  We can debate this or you can ask me for "proof" but that is a bunch of nonsense.  All one needs to do is to ask people who display the flag what their reasons are for displaying it.  They will tell you, providing they think it is safe to do so.  So why play games and pretend?  No white person can claim to be unaware of this.  So whom are we kidding?"

DixieHeritage The Flags of America's ENEMIES.png
    Pages : [1] ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4