1803--The Lousiana Purchase is finalized.
1812--Louisiana becomes the 18th State.
1945--Adolf Hitler commits suicide in Berlin.
1975--Saigon falls to the North Vietnamese, Vietnam war ends.
2008--The remains of the Tsarevich, Alexei Nikolaevich, are identified. He had been executed in 1919.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
April 29th in History
711 AD--Islamic armies land at Gibraltar and begin their conquest of Spain
1429--Joan of Arc arrives to lift the siege or Orleans
1861--Maryland's House of delegates votes to not secede from the Union.
1862--New Orleans, Lousiana falls to Union forces.
1945--Dachau Concentration Camp is liberated by the Allies.
1429--Joan of Arc arrives to lift the siege or Orleans
1861--Maryland's House of delegates votes to not secede from the Union.
1862--New Orleans, Lousiana falls to Union forces.
1945--Dachau Concentration Camp is liberated by the Allies.
Wjat the War Between the States Was Really About
The following article appeared in the Ohio Republic blog:
Thursday, April 29, 2010
What the War between the States was really about
Here is a concise explanation of why Mr. Lincoln's war was fought. It was not about slavery -- it was about secession, or "preserving the Union." It was written by Timothy Cotton in "How I See It", a feature in the Culpeper (Virginia) Star-Examiner.
The issue that brought about the Civil War was not the evils of slavery, but of secession. The moral question had long been acknowledged by all sides, and in fact Virginia was among the first of several states to outlaw the slave trade. The Confederate Constitution addressed it long before the Union one, and ironically it was Lincoln’s invasion that halted the debate on how to rightly abolish it. The issues that precipitated secession in 1861 were much the same as those which brought about a declaration of secession in 1776.
Secession was a result of the federal government overstepping the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Theses boundaries were established as a safeguard against those issues that led to the first secession.
In tracing the history of the argument, we need to look back at the debates of both the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. We can see that the “extension of slavery” into new states was an issue that highlighted the bigger one. Contrary to popular opinion, this did not mean more slaves in more states. The slave trade was already abolished, and debates were beginning on how best to abolish the institution entirely. The issue was whether slaves could be moved by those settling to the new states.
This discussion was cut short by war. Because that discussion was cut short and the war took place, full equality for the African-American was held back by Jim Crow and federal meddling. Consequently it took almost 150 years to accomplish what African-Europeans and African-Brazilians accomplished much sooner. And another result of that war was setting into motion the gradual federal dismantling of the Constitution, which we are seeing is nearly completed.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
What the War between the States was really about
Here is a concise explanation of why Mr. Lincoln's war was fought. It was not about slavery -- it was about secession, or "preserving the Union." It was written by Timothy Cotton in "How I See It", a feature in the Culpeper (Virginia) Star-Examiner.
The issue that brought about the Civil War was not the evils of slavery, but of secession. The moral question had long been acknowledged by all sides, and in fact Virginia was among the first of several states to outlaw the slave trade. The Confederate Constitution addressed it long before the Union one, and ironically it was Lincoln’s invasion that halted the debate on how to rightly abolish it. The issues that precipitated secession in 1861 were much the same as those which brought about a declaration of secession in 1776.
Secession was a result of the federal government overstepping the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Theses boundaries were established as a safeguard against those issues that led to the first secession.
In tracing the history of the argument, we need to look back at the debates of both the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. We can see that the “extension of slavery” into new states was an issue that highlighted the bigger one. Contrary to popular opinion, this did not mean more slaves in more states. The slave trade was already abolished, and debates were beginning on how best to abolish the institution entirely. The issue was whether slaves could be moved by those settling to the new states.
This discussion was cut short by war. Because that discussion was cut short and the war took place, full equality for the African-American was held back by Jim Crow and federal meddling. Consequently it took almost 150 years to accomplish what African-Europeans and African-Brazilians accomplished much sooner. And another result of that war was setting into motion the gradual federal dismantling of the Constitution, which we are seeing is nearly completed.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Confederate Memorial Day in Florida (Belated Note)
It was also Confederate Memorial Day in Florida on the 26th. This was the day that Joseph E. Johnston surrendered his forces in North Carolina. I had two great-great-great uncles who were with him when he surrendered.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Article on Reparations for Slavery
The following article appeared in the American Thinker Blog. The idea of reparations for slavery is obscene. The reparations for slavery have already been paid in the blood of over a half-million men who died deciding the issue of how slavery in the United States would be ended. Would reparations for decendents of slaves mean that I would get reparations due to my Native American ancestry (Creek, Cherokee, Algonquin, Shawnee, etc.)? How about other groups? And how far back do we go? How far do we have to go to assure that there is "justice" for everyone? Should the descendents of slaves be repatriated to their homelands after they receive payment? And how much is being a descendent of a slave worth to someone in the 21st Century? Do my European ancestors who were indentured servants count? Or would it be a percentage?
Anyway, here is the article:
April 25, 2010
Henry Louis Gates and reparations for slavery
Rick Moran
It should be said that unlike many advocates for reparations to the African American community for our slaver past, Professor Gates is a tad more realistic about who should be paying.
Indeed, Gates points to the prominent role played by Africans themselves in the abomination - one of the few scholars to do so.
Gates in the New York Times:
How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.
Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in "Roots." The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike.
Now that we've congratulated Professor Gates for his recognition of history, let us descend upon him for his outrageous, ridiculous notion that 1) reparations from taxpayers whose ancestors played absolutely no role in slavery should be demanded; and 2) that for those whose ancestors were involved, the sins of the father should be passed on to the son.
Should we even worry that this unworkable, unfair, un-American idea of paying off Black Americans for slavery might actually become a reality some day?
With Barack Obama as president, anything is possible:
Given this remarkably messy history, the problem with reparations may not be so much whether they are a good idea or deciding who would get them; the larger question just might be from whom they would be extracted.
So how could President Obama untangle the knot? In David Remnick's new book "The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama," one of the president's former students at the University of Chicago comments on Mr. Obama's mixed feelings about the reparations movement: "He told us what he thought about reparations. He agreed entirely with the theory of reparations. But in practice he didn't think it was really workable."
About the practicalities, Professor Obama may have been more right than he knew. Fortunately, in President Obama , the child of an African and an American, we finally have a leader who is uniquely positioned to bridge the great reparations divide. He is uniquely placed to publicly attribute responsibility and culpability where they truly belong, to white people and black people, on both sides of the Atlantic, complicit alike in one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization. And reaching that understanding is a vital precursor to any just and lasting agreement on the divisive issue of slavery reparations.
"Extracting" reparations from the taxpayer as well as governments abroad would be an interesting exercise. Should the Gauls, the Celts, the Teutons, and most of the rest of Europe seek redress from the Italians for the millions of slaves owned by Romans? What's the difference? A couple of hundred years? If the issue is truly "one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization," why stop with America? Professor Gates is being hypocritical if we don't go all the way back to classical civilization in Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, and other ancient civilizations - all of whom bought and sold slaves in the normal course of empire. To single out Africans as victims is purely subjective and selfish, besides being wholly political.
And even here, the native Americans were sold into slavery as well. Do we exclude them because they didn't have to endure the Middle Passage? Why are the Indians in Mexico, Peru, and elsewhere not worthy of their own reparations regime?
It is not the "sin" of slavery that concerns the professor but his agitating for the "extraction" of wealth from those who have it to those who don't. Reparations will always be no more than an excuse to redistribute money from the many to the few while dishonestly, and piously attempting to base such notions in a moral framework.
And since President Obama only opposes reparations because they are "unworkable," the unsaid conclusion to that idea is if any way can be found to do it, the president will proceed.
Try telling the truth and running on that in 2012, Mr. President - if you dare.
Hat Tip: Larrey Anderson
Anyway, here is the article:
April 25, 2010
Henry Louis Gates and reparations for slavery
Rick Moran
It should be said that unlike many advocates for reparations to the African American community for our slaver past, Professor Gates is a tad more realistic about who should be paying.
Indeed, Gates points to the prominent role played by Africans themselves in the abomination - one of the few scholars to do so.
Gates in the New York Times:
How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.
Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in "Roots." The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike.
Now that we've congratulated Professor Gates for his recognition of history, let us descend upon him for his outrageous, ridiculous notion that 1) reparations from taxpayers whose ancestors played absolutely no role in slavery should be demanded; and 2) that for those whose ancestors were involved, the sins of the father should be passed on to the son.
Should we even worry that this unworkable, unfair, un-American idea of paying off Black Americans for slavery might actually become a reality some day?
With Barack Obama as president, anything is possible:
Given this remarkably messy history, the problem with reparations may not be so much whether they are a good idea or deciding who would get them; the larger question just might be from whom they would be extracted.
So how could President Obama untangle the knot? In David Remnick's new book "The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama," one of the president's former students at the University of Chicago comments on Mr. Obama's mixed feelings about the reparations movement: "He told us what he thought about reparations. He agreed entirely with the theory of reparations. But in practice he didn't think it was really workable."
About the practicalities, Professor Obama may have been more right than he knew. Fortunately, in President Obama , the child of an African and an American, we finally have a leader who is uniquely positioned to bridge the great reparations divide. He is uniquely placed to publicly attribute responsibility and culpability where they truly belong, to white people and black people, on both sides of the Atlantic, complicit alike in one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization. And reaching that understanding is a vital precursor to any just and lasting agreement on the divisive issue of slavery reparations.
"Extracting" reparations from the taxpayer as well as governments abroad would be an interesting exercise. Should the Gauls, the Celts, the Teutons, and most of the rest of Europe seek redress from the Italians for the millions of slaves owned by Romans? What's the difference? A couple of hundred years? If the issue is truly "one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization," why stop with America? Professor Gates is being hypocritical if we don't go all the way back to classical civilization in Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, and other ancient civilizations - all of whom bought and sold slaves in the normal course of empire. To single out Africans as victims is purely subjective and selfish, besides being wholly political.
And even here, the native Americans were sold into slavery as well. Do we exclude them because they didn't have to endure the Middle Passage? Why are the Indians in Mexico, Peru, and elsewhere not worthy of their own reparations regime?
It is not the "sin" of slavery that concerns the professor but his agitating for the "extraction" of wealth from those who have it to those who don't. Reparations will always be no more than an excuse to redistribute money from the many to the few while dishonestly, and piously attempting to base such notions in a moral framework.
And since President Obama only opposes reparations because they are "unworkable," the unsaid conclusion to that idea is if any way can be found to do it, the president will proceed.
Try telling the truth and running on that in 2012, Mr. President - if you dare.
Hat Tip: Larrey Anderson
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Meaning of the Confederate Flag (from trainweb.org)
“We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms.”
President Jefferson Davis – 29 April 1861
What do you think of when you see the flag above? Racism? Slavery? Hatred? White supremacy?
Something worse?
Now, what do you see on the flag above? The color Red? White? Blue? Thirteen stars?
Is that all? See anything else?
Look closer and take some time to think about what you're actually seeing... examine every detail of the flag.
The design of this flag actually tells the story about what the flag stood for, and my friend...
... it says NOTHING about racism, slavery, hatred or white supremacy!
You could remove all the COLOR from this flag, leaving just the outline of the details, and the meaning could still be understood...
... if the mind of those who were looking upon it wasn't already clouded with the LIES, STUPIDITY and TOTAL IGNORANCE of those who taught them what they have chosen to think the flag stands for... which is generally the negative attributes listed above.
First of all, the flag above is NOT the "Confederate Flag." It is the "Battle Flag of Northern Virginia." This design, however, is the one most synonymous with the term, and the one used in various forms on other Confederate Flags. It is also the one most hated by those who have no clue what it stands for or the story its design tells.
So look again at the flag and answer this question : Do you see a big letter "X" on it anywhere? How about if I lay that "X" down on its side like this? : See it now? The X is the big, blue bands outlined with white trim that the thirteen stars are placed on.
And do you know what these thirteen stars represent? They represent the thirteen original colonies that formed the first united states of this country. Knowing this is the key to understanding the design of this flag and its TRUE meaning.
The thirteen stars on this flag appear to lie on the blue X... but in reality, the X lies on the starts.
Do you remember from your grade-school years how the teachers would ask you to circle the right answers or picture on a page, or to put an X on the wrong answer or picture? That is the same, basic concept here... the stars on this flag are laid out in the pattern of an X, and the blue bands on this flag were put on the thirteen stars (which represent the 13 original, "united" states) to show that the southern states no longer wanted to be "united" with the northern states. The southern states withdrew from that union in a movement called "secession," which led to the Civil War.
That's it. Its just that simple. If this flag represented slavery, hatred, white supremacy, or something worse, it would contain pictures of the faces of those whom it stood against, and there would be a big X on their faces.
But that is NOT what is on this flag.
And that is NOT what this flag represents.
If you believe otherwise, it is YOU who are the racist!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
President Jefferson Davis – 29 April 1861
What do you think of when you see the flag above? Racism? Slavery? Hatred? White supremacy?
Something worse?
Now, what do you see on the flag above? The color Red? White? Blue? Thirteen stars?
Is that all? See anything else?
Look closer and take some time to think about what you're actually seeing... examine every detail of the flag.
The design of this flag actually tells the story about what the flag stood for, and my friend...
... it says NOTHING about racism, slavery, hatred or white supremacy!
You could remove all the COLOR from this flag, leaving just the outline of the details, and the meaning could still be understood...
... if the mind of those who were looking upon it wasn't already clouded with the LIES, STUPIDITY and TOTAL IGNORANCE of those who taught them what they have chosen to think the flag stands for... which is generally the negative attributes listed above.
First of all, the flag above is NOT the "Confederate Flag." It is the "Battle Flag of Northern Virginia." This design, however, is the one most synonymous with the term, and the one used in various forms on other Confederate Flags. It is also the one most hated by those who have no clue what it stands for or the story its design tells.
So look again at the flag and answer this question : Do you see a big letter "X" on it anywhere? How about if I lay that "X" down on its side like this? : See it now? The X is the big, blue bands outlined with white trim that the thirteen stars are placed on.
And do you know what these thirteen stars represent? They represent the thirteen original colonies that formed the first united states of this country. Knowing this is the key to understanding the design of this flag and its TRUE meaning.
The thirteen stars on this flag appear to lie on the blue X... but in reality, the X lies on the starts.
Do you remember from your grade-school years how the teachers would ask you to circle the right answers or picture on a page, or to put an X on the wrong answer or picture? That is the same, basic concept here... the stars on this flag are laid out in the pattern of an X, and the blue bands on this flag were put on the thirteen stars (which represent the 13 original, "united" states) to show that the southern states no longer wanted to be "united" with the northern states. The southern states withdrew from that union in a movement called "secession," which led to the Civil War.
That's it. Its just that simple. If this flag represented slavery, hatred, white supremacy, or something worse, it would contain pictures of the faces of those whom it stood against, and there would be a big X on their faces.
But that is NOT what is on this flag.
And that is NOT what this flag represents.
If you believe otherwise, it is YOU who are the racist!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)