The Red and Black

Issue date: 3/22/07 Section: Opinions

Mr. Braun,

Northerners' religious fervor over the immorality of slavery?

In his March 4, 1861, inaugural address, President Lincoln made it clear that he was not about to provoke a war over slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." But in the same speech, Lincoln made it very clear what would provoke war: "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

The Corwin Amendment(introduced by Congressman Thomas Corwin of Ohio and endorsed by Senator William Seward of New York in the Senate) passed the House 133 to 65 in February 1861 and the Senate 24 to 12 on March 2, 1861. It stated: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic intstitution thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by laws of said state." By this time most southerners had already left Washington. Lincoln, in his inaugural address, told Congess that he would support efforts to ratify the Corwin Amendment as the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Northerners were obviously trying their best to keep the South in the Union.

You are right Mr. Braun, Northerners held the highest moral and religious convictions.

Defender of the Great Lost Cause,
Andrew Samples



If only I had known that there were going to be giant ads for the next installment of the Saw series at the Tate Center, I might have walked a different way. On guy held up a sign saying "Today is a beautiful day. So why do we have to look at this?" Personally, I don't think the pro-life folks did enough. They should have had megaphones and people throwing blood on pro-choicers screaming "Babykillers!" The good thing is, I don't have to waste my money to see the next Saw flick when I can go see it at Tate.

Scott Hirons
Freshman, Sociology
Marietta



I, like the majority of the students at the University, was appalled and disgusted by the pro-life display on campus Wednesday. I was not offended by the group's message, but I was offended by the way in which the demonstrators presented their beliefs. I should not be subjected to such graphic and disturbing images as I walk to class on my campus.
What I fail to understand is why this group is even allowed to show such images. Yes, I am aware of free speech and the First Amendment, but I think there is some sort of double standard on campus. If students, such as the Chi Phi's, are reprimanded for passing around porn on campus why should these graphic and disturbing images be allowed to be on display?
I am not trying to say that porn and images of dead fetuses share the same level of atrocity, I am merely pointing out that no one wants to be forced to view any type of graphic image against their will. (And yes, when you create a massive billboard in the middle of Tate Plaza you are forcing people to look. That's the whole point, isn't it?)
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the whole situation was the Campus Tours bus stopped at the Tate bus stop. I can only imagine the horrified parents and students on the bus as they witnessed the display. What a warm welcome to our University.

Kelsey Blair
Junior, Magazines
Watkinsville



With regards to the anti-abortion demonstration at Tate Plaza the past two days, what is most disappointing about these protesters and others is their complete lack of desire to attempt to see how other people reason on this issue. No one *likes* abortion. Though I am technically "pro-choice," I still believe that everything should be done to educate couples about what an abortion will mean physically and emotionally; it is not something that should be taken lightly or
undergone with nonchalance. That being said, telling a woman she cannot decide what to do with her body or the life that grows inside of it is not something I could ever feel comfortable doing. I respect the protesters' right to express their beliefs, but I do wish they had taken greater care to consider why an alternative point of view exists.

Chris Rodriguez
Grad. Student, College Student Affairs Administration
Atlanta



I was born in South Georgia and can say for sure that the Southern way of life is not some non-existent Gone with the Wind fantasy. The South truly is heaven on earth to many people. For this reason, I feel the need to defend the principles of decent Southern living from the imperfections of Sen. Jeff Mullis's actions and the ensuing attacks from Dale Hackler. The fact is that those pushing for the Confederate History and Heritage Month are attempting to link the truly great Southern values that they were brought up to cherish (pride, honor, family, steadfastness, freedom, and piety) with the Old South of the Confederacy. Linking these two causes a problem because it throws into our list of current Southern values all of the values of the rebels in the Civil War, namely, the ideology that slavery was acceptable. This is not one of our cherished Southern values today, but when Mullis attempts to honor our present values by attaching them to Confederate values, he is opening the door for people like Dale Hackler to attack the contradiction of principles. Southerners today are not the Southerners of the Confederacy. We do hold many values that have been around for a very long time and in many instances overlap with the "Old South's" values, but acceptance of slavery is not one of them.
Southerners today are not the Southerners of the Confederacy, and therefore cannot apologize for enslaving Africans any more than a native born Canadian can. I only wish that Senator Mullis would lay out what values he, as a Southerner, holds dear and honor those value, instead of honoring someone else's values from long ago.
The Civil War still stands as a dark period of our nation's history, and as with any war, those Americans who fought and died, whether rebels or loyalist, need to be honored and remembered. I can only ask of Dale Hackler that he refrain from stomping on the graves of the dead and stereotyping Southerners (his jokes about drinking and poor grammar are as distasteful as racism itself), and I can only ask of our state legislators that they promote the remembrance of History in practical ways and in practical places, the most obvious location being our public schools. If politicians wish for heritage to be honored and understood, then they should spend less time trying to divide History into twelve different sections, one for each month, and spend more time enhancing the level of education provided through the public school system.


Wes Young

The advancement of the Confederate Heritage Month proposal is troubling, to say the least. Anyone with two eyes can see the timing of this announcement as appalling, rubbing the noses of those that desire an apology for slavery in the mess created by those that supported the practice. Commemorating some actions of our ancestors while refusing to apologize for others is hypocrisy in its purest form. It makes little sense to find pride in one's place of origin, let alone the heinous occurrences of the past, with foundations set not only in brutal racism, but also economic greed. Adding the misogyny of the stereotypical Southern Belle image, I'm left empty-handed with reasons why the state legislature should champion the past, rather than leave it in its rightful history book. This proposal is not only an insult to the African-American community, but also to any progressively thinking citizen of this state.


Nick Helfrick
Freshman, Winder
Political Science

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools