The South is Rising

The South is Rising

There has been no formal secession of any States from the Union, no legal or official assertion of Southern independence, nor any call to arms, but make no mistake the South is Rising. Her rise may not be any of those things mentioned above, and hopefully (with sufficient reform to the federal government as we now know it) none of those measures will ever again become necessary. Still, the underlying principles, the political climate, and the Constitutional basis that led to the South’s withdrawal from the compact between the States again loom like dark clouds on the horizon of America’s modern political, social, and cultural landscape.

President Davis waxed prophetic when he declared

The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.

That time is now. How it will play out is not yet entirely known, but the first stand-offs are taking place. The form at current consists largely of organized movements on the grass-roots level seeking to change the political climate, to reassert the Constitutional limits of the federal government, and to enjoy the blessings of liberty and self determination.

Some of the more prominent manifestations of today’s awakening populace can be seen in the “tea parties” and “town-hall meetings“, in the efforts of groups like the “tenth amendment center“, and in the formation of a new and potentially viable third party aligned with the restorative desires and demands aforementioned — the Constitution Party.

The most magnanimous form of  this reassertion is the successful passage of legislation by several States, officially reaffirming their sovereignty & the tenth amendment of the Constitution, as well as pending legislation of the same in numerous other states.

The Left's opinion of the founding fathers!

The cause is just, and this time cannot be tarnished with the moral arguments, however just or unjust they may be, surrounding slavery or racism.  They are now removed from the equation, so that the sovereignty of the States, the constitutionally imposed limitations on the federal government, and the premise of government by the consent of the governed, may be effectively heralded across the nation — enlightening and enlisting the masses of patriotic, red-blooded Americans who desire the principles and Republic which the founding fathers bequeathed to us via the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

God, in His providence, has vindicated the Confederacy simply by permitting  the very reassertion of “the cause”. Let us trust that He will vindicate us as we seek to take up that cross today.

Deo Vindice

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

5 Responses to “The South is Rising”

  1. Here’s a link to an article very similar to the one above that I came across this morning over at the Confederate Digest.

    A good read. Check it out!

  2. Jacob says:

    Watch “The Birth of a Nation” and you will know the truth of the tyranny of the Radical Liberals and what they intend for you today. Read “The South was Right” if you are interested in truth and wish to free your mind from decades of Propoganda.

  3. Bradley says:

    The first modern war of America, also know as the Civil War, was caused by several different factors. Mainly because the South viewed the Northerners as the problem because the North was prospering from the Industrial Revolution while they were suffering. The South was less influenced by the Industrial revolution; therefore, they were further distancing themselves from the advancement of technology and society. When newly acquired states such as Texas, Oregon, and California were obtained it begged the question whether or not slavery was going to be permitted.
    The Compromise of 1850 was established to resolve these tensions. But, it only led to furthering the South’s resentment of the North. The South believed their Southern Liberty was now threatened because of the price of slaves. With the increase in prices it was hard for small farmers to prosper. Economic hierarchy was achieved by owning slaves and a plantation.
    Pre election of 1860 the rise of Southern Nationalism began. The South demanded that the Democratic Party had a platform that protected slavery. This lead to the breakup of the Democratic Party. No Northerner agreed to allow the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Thus, the goal of the Republican Party was to prevent further expansion of slavery into any newly acquired states. Two elections were then held, one in the South and one in the North. Abraham Lincoln was not included on the Southern ballot. Lincoln was elected President in 1860. Immediately, seven states succeeded from the Union. Meanwhile, Jefferson Davis was elected the head of the Confederacy.
    Lincoln just thrust himself into a country of turmoil. The great truth of “the Confederacy” was the Negro was not equal to the white man. To appease the South he had to give the Confederacy every possible chance to come back to the Union on its own. Lincoln denied any intention of interfering with slavery or the retaking of forts and arsenals seized by the Confederacy. He promised that in the outbreak of war it would be the Confederacy that fired the first shot. Indeed it was. On April 12, 1861 the Union controlled fort, Fort Sumter was fired on by Confederate troops. Originally Lincoln had planned to replenish the southern food supply at this fort. However, the forces under Jefferson Davis were ordered to fire. This was the beginning of the Civil War. By 1862 after the battle of Antietam, Lincoln promised if the Confederacy surrendered by the end of the year, they could rejoin the Union and keep slavery. The Southerners blatantly ignored this proposal. Soon after, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in Confederacy.
    According to the Union, “the war’s purpose was to preserve the American nation “the beacon light of liberty and freedom to the human race.” However, when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation he shifted the war aim. He convinced northerners the only way to preserve the Union was to universally abolish slavery. In opposition the Confederacy viewed slavery as their king and divine right. Overall, the South’s inabilities to change their means of production lead to the outbreak of Civil War. They were reluctant to shift their views and believed the only way to achieve economic prosperity was through the annihilation of another man.

  4. Adriana says:

    I followed with faiacnitson, the discussion of how and why the Emancipation Proclamation was not made applicable to the states of Kentucky and Maryland. I look forward to listening for more Backstories from the History Guys. I have some questions of my own for which there could be an interesting “backstory.”Today the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), describes certain anxiety and behavioral symptoms that many soldiers who have witnessed the trauma/s of war manifest in someway or another. All too often this is negative behavior that is damaging to the individual, his family, and his ability to become a productive member of the society that he returns to.Did combatants from the Civil War suffer something like this disorder? If so, did it have a name back then and how prevalent was it? Do we know anything of its consequence on families and society, north and south, trying to pick up after the War? Moreover, as a Viet Nam War veteran, I have particular interest in knowing how Confederate war veterans managed after the Civil War.From Ken Burns’ great epic, we saw the tragedy and trauma of the Civil War projected through the eyes of frontline soldiers in the open, loving and genuine lines of letters home. While all soldiers in all wars share some things in common, I recall having a powerful epiphany during one episode , , at how uniquely close the feelings of the Confederate soldier, having lost his war, must have been to those of us who lost our war, in Viet Nam. Has there been any study or serious scholarship done on the possible similarity of feelings (noble cause thought to be fighting for at start; anger at human loss expended in vain for a wrong cause that was lost) unique to these two wars?Ed Tick has written extensively about PTSD and uses a term, Soldier’s Heart, which was first coined in the Civil War to describe a condition described then as wartime anxiety disorder that manifested in symptoms that appeared to mimic heart disease but showed no physical change to the physical heart. Jacob Mendes Da Costa began writing about the condition during the Civil War,noticing anxiety disorders and dramatic behaviors in soldiers who came off the Civil War battlefields. Named after him, it was called Da Costa’s Syndrome, colloquially known as Soldier’s Heart. Judith Pizarro, M.A., (along with Drs. Roxane C. Silver and JoAnn Prause), wrote a paper on Soldier’s Heart in 2006: “Physical and mental health costs of traumatic war experiences among Civil War veterans,” published in the Archives of General Psychiatry (Feb 2006, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 193-200). Their research determined that nearly two in five Civil War veterans later developed both mental and physical ailments such as heart disease and gastrointestinal problems and that soldiers who enlisted between the ages of 9 and 17 were nearly twice as likely to suffer. Numbers rose for those who witnessed death, handled dead bodies, and for those who lost comrades. In describing her interest in this subject, Judith Pizarro responded: “My great-grandfathers on both sides were both Union Veterans. My mother’s grandfather was in a Confederate prison camp and my father’s grandfather was a 17-year old soldier who participated in Sherman’s march to the sea. My mother’s grandfather was an alcoholic and set off three generations (so far) of alcoholism in that branch of the family. My father’s grandfather deserted my great-grandmother as a result of his PTSD from Sherman’s march. She was left to raise my grandmother and her sister on her own. She was very angry, and constantly told my grandmother how worthless her father was, and how untrustworthy men were in general. That whole experience brought about severe anxiety and migraine headaches in my grandmother, which affected all the children in the family, but most of all, my father.”In my own research, I have read a number of letters describing soldiers experiencing nightmares and one journal in which a wife pleads for help because her husband has returned home and is no longer recognizable as the same person. His nightmares are violent and extend into the day. He threatens the children and must be tied to the bed so that he does not damage himself or members of the family.I suspect one would find similar stories throughout written history.

  5. Iasmin says:

    something about defending their homes agsniat Northern invasion and way of life . However, they weren’t stupid. Their way of life their economy, their system of property, their control over their wives and kids under the law, their place within the social order did depend on slavery. I believe that Glen is right in that they saw their fight as an extension of the American Revolution, insofar as they believed that the Revolution had carried within it an elevation of the rights of white men (no matter how poor) over everyone else. They also believed in the right of states to move freely in and out of the Union. Finally, I’d say the same kinds of manliness pressures that affected Union soldiers (wanting to be seen as brave by their womenfolk, love of their comrades in arms) also kept them in the field, though a historian like Drew Faust argues that as women’s morale eroded, the women pressured men to reconceive where their duty really was. By the end of the war, desertion was a huge problem for the Confederacy, huge enough that the Confederate government seriously entertained using black soldiers.4) Good lord. This is too big a question. I think that we’re still unwilling to discuss or do anything about structural inequality not just racial inequality, but the poor integration of the rural south as a whole into the national economy (thinking here of Appalachia in general). I think that there’s a lot of painful regional stereotypes that feed hate and they aren’t very far under the surface, especially not in mainstream media representations of the South. As a nation, we’ve been unwilling to be honest about the very complex nature of the war’s causes, cast of characters, and consequences, as though it couldn’t be about a whole lot of things and involve a tremendous number of different stories simultaneously. And then there’s the stuff about trying to use the symbols of the past (like the battleflag) to make enduring statements about a region’s politics (which are necessarily statements about race, given the symbol the activists have chosen to use) it again is trying to divorce the issue of political capital/declarations of independence from racial privilege. But man what a huge question .Hope this helps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *