We will be moving to a new location hosted at
   

http://robt.shepherd.tripod.com/robert-e-lee.html

wish I was in the land of cotton
old times there are not forgotten
look away, look away, look away
dixie land


Strom Thurmond

Strom Thurmond
Republican, ex-segregationist

Confederate Flag

Confederate Battle Flag
Blacks served this flag, too

Robert E Lee

Virginia`s Robert E. Lee, General
the Grey Knight of the Confederacy

The South shall rise again

the honorable and noble side of The Old (white - male) South

White southerners have taken a bad rap in the eye of history. White southerners are seen as the villains in the drama, the slave owning and abusing bullies, even though only a small minority of white southerners ever owned slaves. White southerners are blamed for starting a war they then ultimately lost, even though it was just a few Charlestonian hot heads who attacked Fort Sumter, forcing its surrender. The North, hardly innocent, revels in its victory. Truth be told, it was a war that never needed to be fought. For more.

U.S. Grant winds up as president, yet Robert E. Lee retires to shame and obscurity, even though, in some respects, Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest men America has ever produced. Northern historians might point out Grants dogged tenacity, his humble origins and ultimate victory. Lee, who turned his back on the flag he loved, and his broken oath of loyalty as an officer, yet most historians concede that Lee was unmatched as a strategist. What people forget is that Lee was also a great Christian, too. After the war, a black man sought to join the Episcopal Church where Lee was a lay leader. No one would stand in the black man's behalf, but Lee did.

Slavery is the albatross which history has hung around the neck of the South. Yet slavery has existed from time immemorial. Andrea Dworkin says slavery is a natural outgrowth of male domination of 'his' female property. Serge Trifkovic notes that European enslavement of black Africans was started by Islamic Arab traffickers. It was from Arab slave dealers and traders that the Portuguese and Spanish first purchased black African slaves for their colonies in the Western hemisphere. The Arabic slave trade in black Africans began to flourish at the time of the Muslim expansion into Africa in the middle of the seventh century, and it still survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. [The Sword of Islam. pp 172-173]

The America of the civil war - our republic of suffering - has surely never endured such an immense and tragic baptism of wrenching pain as in that conflict to end human bondage. I would contend that "The Brother's War" between north and south was a war that didn't have to be fought. Northerners judge the white South for hardening their position during the days of abolitionist fervor, yet Northerners forget several things:

(1) The intensity of anti southern rhetoric had been rising exponentially in the North. How would you feel if you were heaped with vile calumny, were accused of every crime from cruelty to sexual madness and molestation and rape? The northern evangelical Charles G. Finney urged his fellow abolitionists to tone down their anti-southern rhetoric to a more responsible level, and avoid the extremes of accusation, particularly where the truth of the allegations was doubtful.

(2) The North was not alone in abolitionist sentiment, as numerous white Southerners, almost from the beginnings, had expressed reservations, and many hoped (or expected) to see the eventual end to slavery. There had been several mini-movements toward some form of emancipation in Southern churches, though each of those movements had ultimately been defeated.

(3) What northerners failed to see was that any form of immediate abolition would have been catastrophically disruptive not only socially and culturally but economically as well. I believe every single one of the numerous Southern white emancipationists from the days of the Founding, right on down to the days of Henry Clay and even Robert E. Lee, argued that ONLY a careful, considerate, responsible plan of gradual emancipation could work, if at all, and should include remuneration in value. If you are going to pay the workers for work performed, you must also compensate the owners for lost "property."

(4) If the gradual, compensated emancipation of the great Henry Clay had been tried, it very well may have worked, and at the very least would have averted Fort Sumter and its aftermath. But not only did white southern aristocrats shy away from the whole hot button issue, but white northerners reviled Clay as a contemptible slave owner. Robert E. Lee himself supported Henry Clay's compromise stance, both because Lee's natural inclinations were always pro-union and whiggish-leaning, in economics, but also because Lee saw that eventually, emancipation was necessary for the entire nation.

(5) The North was hardly innocent in the entire racial mess of human bondage, and its peremptory condescending tone so evident in much of the abolitionist rhetoric was hardly appropriate. Lincoln himself admitted the complicity of the north, economically, in the ongoing profits of slave-based southern agriculture. New York City profited immensely from the loans made to the South's King Cotton, and behind the scenes, northern business tended to be no less opposed to abolition than were white southerners. A few exceptions of course, existed (Lewis Tappan comes to mind).

(6) Few white Southerners these days are proud of the racist aspect of their tormented past. They just want a little fair treatment. Northern whites were hardly innocent on the issue of racial prejudice, as any glance should show. Lincoln as much as admitted the same, even owning up to his own prejudice and white supremacist inclinations. Irish and German Democrats in the North were notoriously copperhead in their prejudices. But as with anything difficult or tortuous, sometimes all we can do is hope for a change, seek and appeal for a better tomorrow. Martin Luther King Jr. (a Southern Christian and a patriot) reminded us that God can still wring good out of evil.

(7) The cruelties of slavery have been much flaunted (almost tabloid -style) by various muck-raking historians (who behave sometimes little better than unscrupulous journalists). Yet for all the hoopla, all the sentimentalism (and in essence, hypocrisy) over this issue, the fact remains that during the war years, when most white men were away fighting for their homes and families, and work on the plantations was left to a substantial extent to the women and the black slaves, there was not one known case of a slave taking advantage of this absence to commit insurrection or outrage or any major crime whatever. Not to say there were not run-aways, or the attendant pilfering of those who ran away. But as Ida B. Wells noted, there was neither mutiny, nor insurrection, nor outrage against white women during that period. It speaks well not only of the record of white southerners involved in the plantation system, as well as of the (essentially) loyal black folk who performed so much of the necessary work.

thanks to "Bob Shepherd"




May God rescue us from the folly of our own acts, save us from selfishness and teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Robert E. Lee


Disclaimer

I am not one to mourn the passing of the Stars and Bars (Confederate Battle Flag). All I am trying to defend is the positive motives of a great many of the heroes who fought under this flag, both white and yes, there were some blacks, too. (At the very end.) I certainly do not blame the hostility that non-white Patriots, as well as northern whites, may feel against this flag, particularly to the extent that it continues to represent the worst, the racist aspects of our history. For more on the anti-racist theme. A very large number of whites of our generation would concur, by and large. Speaking for myself, I do. But is there not a very legitimate aspect of honoring one's heritage, honoring one's predecessors and, while admitting the wrong, also earnestly contending for the valid and honorable side of our history?

Historians have commented how in some ways, racial hostility in the South increased during reconstruction (and in its aftermath), far worse than during actual slavery. There are reasons for this, and northern meddling and intervention must bear some responsibility. Military occupation is loathsome to any people, and northern hypocrisy had for years grated on the nerves of white southerners. "Try to walk a mile in our shoes." If northerners would read some of the comments of their own beloved President Lincoln. At times he seemed genuinely to try to put himself in the mind of the white South, and imagine their own torment at the impossible crux of circumstance, not of their making. For example see his letters to his southern friend Alexander Hamilton Stephens. But alas, Lincoln's own Christian faith is even still much in doubt.

It is true that to some extent, Reconstruction and the three Reconstruction amendments (13, 14, 15) benefitted poor whites in the South, more than they did the black freedmen. (Northern corporations highjacked the 14th amendment in the Courts.) In the South, poor whites had also been waiting in line, to be sure, for such perks and amenities of Democracy as the right to vote without hindrance (and enjoy full civic participation); and the right to basic free education in the early childhood years. Northerners had been by and large spoiled on these privileges and immunities. Ante-bellum attitudes were fearful of rampant "Democracy," which was hardly a positive concept in the Old South.

Even Jefferson, a proud Democrat of the Enlightenment variety, felt there was a natural aristocracy among men. He foresaw the emergence of popular government, but felt it best channelled through the hands of wise leaders. Poor white southerners may have been generally excluded from essential leadership (there were outstanding exceptions, like Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson), but they still had a place in the color-based rankings of the ante-bellum (and stratified) Southern society.

The Old South has been roundly villified by history, and not entirely justly. Even recent Southern "apologists" have come into the line of fire. At times, perhaps, deservedly. But I believe that some socalled Southern "apologists" -- including Richard N. Weaver and Willmoore Kendall -- though branded as defenders of the Old South, are actually precursors to a NEW South. I do not feel either of them excused or condoned the old racism, per se. They merely pleaded for a fairer perspective when you judge the South. "Walk a mile in our shoes."

My own hope is that, once outside meddling has decreased to the lowest level necessary, and a genuine brotherhood between races can again be nourished on its own soil, the prayer of both blacks and whites will be fulfilled, and the South shall indeed ....... rise again. And as the old gifted seers foretold, this time the rising will be ....... together.


Black rebels   -   A few good men: conservative Afr-Ams   -   Black warriors in Gray   -   no future without forgiveness   -   Dissent



A white southerner hails Martin Luther King

Robert Penn Warren asks:

Have we, in America, had a hero in our time -- that is, since World War II? I can think of only one with a serious claim, Martin Luther King. The theme was high, the occasion noble, the stage open to the world's eye, the courage clear and against odds. And martyrdom came to purge all dross away. King seems made for the folk consciousness, and the folk consciousness is the Valhalla of the true hero -- Robert Penn Warren, "A Dearth of Heroes," American Heritage, vol. 23 (October 1972), p. 99





Red and yellow, black and white

They are precious in his sight

Jesus loves the little children

Of the world.



Martin Luther King
a 'Hero for Our Time'
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1