Why restore artifacts of the Confederacy?

From: btzoumas@bellsouth.net

On Dec. 14, I opened The Inquirer to find a story "Painstaking rescue: Winterthur to help restore storm-battered treasures," about an effort by the Winterthur Museum to rescue so-called artwork from the Beauvoir, which was the final home of the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis. <<So, by the same token, we should set about destroying the so-called "Liberty Bell" and all other historical places in Philadelphia because the USA has now become a rogue nation among the nations of the world. At least in some peoples eyes.>>

<>Hello! At the same time as thousands of African American residents of New Orleans lost all their earthly possessions and are struggling to survive, the Winterthur Museum is engaged in a "painstaking rescue" of artifacts of the president of the Confederacy, who brutalized and enslaved their ancestors. Not only did Davis promote and defend the system of chattel slavery, he ran a government that ordered Confederate soldiers to murder about 350,000 soldiers in the U.S. Army. Why did Davis choose to promote the Civil War?<<Who promoted "civil war? was it not lincoln instead? "The Union, in any event, won’t be dissolved. We don’t want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won’t let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn’t do it…. We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not." ~ Lincoln, in a campaign speech in Galena, Illinois, Aug. 1 1856.

"A policy of violent opposition to secession is a policy of forced association. As with all forms of forced association, the stronger party will tend to exploit the weaker. Such is the case with the master-slave relationship. Such is the case when a state is forced to remain in the Union against its will. Both forms of forced association are immoral." ~ James Ostrowski ‘Was the Union Army’s Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President Lincoln’s Legal Arguments Against Secession’ in Secession, State, and Liberty.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865. The phrase ‘even if it should fail’ is a tip off to Lincoln’s real motivations.

"President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war." ~ The account of John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Lincoln’s trusted confidential secretaries.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a

[the Republican] party better than he loves his country…. [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

"With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

As the attorney and legal scholar, James Ostrowski commented, for Lincoln’s actions and his creative interpretation of the Constitution to have actually been legal, the Constitution would have had to state that: 1) No state may ever secede from the Union for any reason. 2) If any State attempts to secede, the Federal Government shall invade such State with sufficient military force to suppress the attempted secession. 3) The federal government may coerce all states to provide militias to suppress the seceding state. 4) After suppressing said secession, the Federal Government shall rule said State by martial law until such time as said State shall accept permanent federal supremacy. 5) After suppressing said secession, the Federal Government shall force said State to ratify a new constitutional amendment which gives the Federal Government the right to police the states whenever it believes those states are violating the rights of their citizens. 6) The President may, of his own authority, suspend the operation of the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus, in a seceding or loyal state, if in his sole judgement, such is necessary to preserve the Union.

Of course, if the Constitution actually said this, it would never have been approved by the legislatures of the sovereign States.

As Lincoln himself stated, as well as commentators at the time, taxation and secession were the issues, not slavery. And as many in the North realized, it was Abraham Lincoln who schemed to launch the most devastating war in American history.

He wanted the Confederate states to have the right to own slaves. <<So, by contrast, please examine what abraham lincoln had to say about "chattel slavery" : "… when they [slaveowners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives." ~ Lincoln, speaking in support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." ~ Lincoln, speaking in regards to slavery and in support of a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to explicitly guarantee slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." ~ Lincoln, Aug. 21, 1858, in remarks stating his belief that blacks were naturally inferior to whites, which was a nearly universal belief on the part of whites in both the North and South long before and long after the Civil War.

"Root, hog, or die" ~ Lincoln’s suggestion to illiterate and property less ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865.

"They had better be set to digging their subsistence out of the ground." ~ Lincoln in a War Department memo, April 16, 1863.

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land." ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States.

"[Lincoln] had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." ~ William Lloyd Garrison.

I happen to be Jewish and would find it personally offensive if a museum in this country did a "painstaking rescue" of the artifacts of Adolf Hitler’s family. Hitler ran a system of slave labor camps just as Jefferson Davis was willing to fight a war to defend slavery. The question is: Why are there a different attitudes toward Jefferson Davis and Adolf Hitler? Could it be that all of the presidents of the United Sates before Abraham Lincoln supported slavery in one way or another? <<What a behind-sider. You may never find a museum dedicated to Adolph Hitler here in the States. Maybe, someday, in Germany because, after all, he was German/Austrian. And, besides, what about all of those Jews who fought, and sided, with the Confederacy. I refer you to this website: http://www.jewish-history.com/civilwar/Default.htm. Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your ignorance.

A few years ago, there was a successful national movement to lower the Confederate flag from the Capitol of South Carolina. Why are they lowering the Confederate flag in South Carolina and doing a "painstaking rescue" of the artifacts of the president of the Confederacy’s in the Delaware Valley?

My personal opinion is that painstaking work needs to be done. This work will be to ensure that the descendents of the slaves that Jefferson Davis’ Confederacy routinely brutalized, receive compensation for the damage done from slavery and Jim Crow segregation.<< Let us examine the conduct of Negro slave owners. In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina’s largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters, A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison’s life. From Ellison’s birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state’s average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South’s slaveholders.

While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district’s worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

There it is, Mr. Halpern. Truth is true, even if no one believes it. Lies are lies, even if everyone believes them. And what sort of times do we live in when telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act? Can you say, "Big Brother"?

>From a proud Southerner and GreatGreatGrandson of Pvt.William B. Russom
24th Georgia Volunteer Infantry Company B
Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.
Palm Springs, Fla.
I invite your comments