Active Users:1122 Time:22/11/2024 04:19:12 PM
Stephens is also one man, and was not George Washingtons heir - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 09/07/2015 01:44:30 AM

Again, were the US a democracy, Robert E. Lee would have been our third king (or prince consort to our first queen, technically) so his pedigree as Lighthorse Harrys biological son and son-in-law of Washingtons adopted (and only) son is far more representative of the South in toto than Stephens. Hell, part of the land he inherited through his wife is Arlington National Cemetery! The Lees embodied the entire UNITED STATES more than anyone else in 1860, and certainly far more than Stephens.


View original postAlexander Stephens, however, did hold office in the Confederacy, and he had this to say on the subject:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution...

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."

-The Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861


Yes, but, as VP, Stephens was not among those who fought, bled, risked and in many cases LOST their lives and limbs for the Confederacy (i.e. the soldiers without whom those who voted for secession would have been no more than a few hundred traitors promptly strung up from the nearest gallows.) Lee not only was such a man, but led all of them, so his declaration he fought for the SOUTH and despite HATING slavery AND secession speaks more loudly for the Souths martial motives than any statement from any civilian, even at the highest levels of government.

Stephens disagreement with Lee on slavery is interesting BECAUSE of the differences in their station and ancestry: Stephens was born to poverty and more representatives of the countless Southerners then and since who sole consolation for illiterate incestuous impoverishment was the belief that "at least I'm better than a n----r!" Many may well have fought for that false belief, but imagining them willing to DIE for it is almost as difficult as imagining the millions of Southerners who did not and never COULD own a slave would die for a "right" already permanently denied them: What, exactly, could Abolition have "cost" such people? Remember, the going price for slaves was $50,000-$125,000 in 2015 dollars; how many sharecroppers would see that much money in their entire lives?



View original post
View original postSeriously, how can a fellow native Southerner even debate this? Should we get rid of Mardi Gras, jazz and blues because they are symbols of the South, and therefore slavery and rebellion?
Mardi Gras is a symbol of France. Jazz and Blues are traditionally African American art forms. It's hard to find "Southern" things more removed from the Confederacy.

Come now, Mardi Gras, Carnival and the broad FAMILY of pre-Lent festivals are symbols of Catholicism, but few even IN France think of any place but New Orleans when they think of Mardi Gras. And, yes, Jazz and Blues are traditionally African-American music: SOUTHERN syntheses of African and American folk music blended by imported African slaves assimilated into Southern society. One can hardly claim the Confederacy simultaneously PREDICATED on and DISTINCT from slavery. Slavery was far from the Confederacys sole or even primary basis, but was certainly and shamefully an integral one. Just as in the US itself, and if the US can purge itself of slaverys sins while retaining its own honor derived from more noble principles, surely the South can do likewise. Presuming the South and racism inseparable is a notion unworthy of any but Klansmen.


Return to message