Posted on 12/02/2008 6:57:32 AM PST by prplhze2000
Surely there is some point you would draw the line at? Murder, rape, pillage?
Oh, forgot about Sherman, nvm.
When they probably only deserved 60 to 66. That's still a disproportionate level of representation. Don't believe me look up 'disproportionate' in the dictionary.
All states have the right to secede. None of them have the right to secede without the consent of all the impacted parties.
And just how was unfair advantage being taken of the Southern states?
Why? Based on what rule of law? The property belonged to the United States government. It was, if you want, the property of all the states not just the Southern ones.
The financial side could have been handled via negotiation, claims, counter-claims, etc.
Ok, let's do it your way. Give me your house, your car, and your investment portfolio. Sign them over to me, give me title free and clear. Once you have done that then we'll talk about my paying for it. I'll give you fair value, I promise. Is it a deal?
This is the very reason why the idea of unilateral secession is ridiculous. Walking out and taking anything not nailed down is guaranteed to leave acrimony and bitter feelings and is a sure road to conflict. But that's what the confederates wanted all along.
It did not have to be war. BTW, the national debt at the time was relatively small. The Civil War caused the first big increase.
No it didn't. But war was what the South wanted.
Where do you draw the line at Southron myth?
Oh, forgot about Sherman, nvm.
"War is cruelty, and you can not qualify it, and those who brought war in our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour on. War is the remedy our enemy's have chosen. They dared us to war, and you remember how tauntingly they defied us to the contest. We have accepted the issue and it must be fought out. You might as well reason with a thunderstorm. I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we are whipped or they are."
That was Sherman's eloquent way of saying don't start something that you aren't prepared to see through.
“That was Sherman’s eloquent way of saying don’t start something that you aren’t prepared to see through.”
I find nothing eloquent about stating one’s intention to commit war crimes against what you insist would have been his own civilian population. I’m sure he’s in a nice warm place now, where the propaganda no longer has any effect.
“Ok, let’s do it your way. Give me your house, your car, and your investment portfolio. Sign them over to me, give me title free and clear. Once you have done that then we’ll talk about my paying for it. I’ll give you fair value, I promise. Is it a deal?”
Let’s use a more accurate example:
You and I decide to form our own neighborhood watch group, and sign a mutual defense treaty. We pool some funds, and build watchtowers on each property. A few neighbors like what we have done, and ask to join. We vote them in.
We each are strong-willed, and have our own ideas for how things should be done. Up until now, each has accepted the other doing things their own way. With new members, politics rears its ugly head. I have some that side with me, but you manage to get more thinking your way, and you wish to force your views on all of us. You are elected Supreme Leader.
At this point I, and those who agree with me, leave the neighborhood watch group to form our own. There is no fighting at this point, but instead of parting in a civilized manner, you make a point of keeping your people in the tower on MY property, even claiming that it has become neighborhood watch group property. I, of course, kick their butts out of my tower, and reclaim my property.
At this point, would you declare war on my group? Would you seek out some whack-job to murder, rape, pillage, and burn down the homes in our ‘rebel’ neighborhood?
Or would you take the more sane route, and maybe seek recovery of any real losses (not just to ego) in small claims court?
BTW, Merry Christmas! :)
What you forget, of course, is the "we" part. We provided money, probably a majority of the money. We helped build the towers. We maintained them and provided the people to man them. And when you get in a snit and walk out, the "we" part of ownership suddenly becomes "your's". As in, you take it without discussion and without compensation. What rule of law provides for that? In 1860 what rule of law magically transformed ownership of government property to the state without compensation and without discussion?
At this point, would you declare war on my group?
Considering your group seized the tower by shooting at it for over 24 hours and trying to kill every person in it then yes, opposition to your actions is warranted.
Would you seek out some whack-job to murder, rape, pillage, and burn down the homes in our ‘rebel’ neighborhood?
Now you're just getting silly again.
You are awfully free at tossing out 'war crimes' without giving any support for your claims. The South launched a rebellion. That war, which was their choice, came back to haunt then. Nothing that happened would have happened had the South not chosen war. They have nobody to blame for but themselves.
"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." - William T. Sherman, 1864
Except that what you term 'Union propaganda' has a basis in fact. Not so Southron myth.
Damn, Non. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked, to find you on a WBTS thread continuing your war against all things Southern.
Merry Christmas!
Not all things southern. Just the nonsense.
There is an old characterization of Yankees in the Congressional Globe from March 2, 1861, by Texas Senator Louis Trezevant Wigfall, who incidentally was the person who accepted Anderson's surrender of Fort Sumter in April 1861:
That the people of the North shall consider themselves as more blessed than we, more civilized, and happier, is not a matter at which we would complain at all, if they would only content themselves with believing that to be the fact; but when they come and attempt to propagandize, and insist that we shall be as perfect as they imagine themselves to be, then it is that their good opinion of themselves becomes offensive to us. Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, "you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed," then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door. If New England would only be content with the blessings which she imagines she has, we would not disturb her in her happiness.
By the way, the Southern share of northern forts and territory west of the Mississippi that remained under Northern control after secession more than paid for the Northern share of forts, armories, mints, etc., that became Southern property upon secession. To not acknowledge that Southern blood and money went to purchase those Northern forts and territories and government buildings is like arguing that all that I have is mine and half of what you have is mine too.
Excelent post! :)
“You are awfully free at tossing out ‘war crimes’ without giving any support for your claims. The South launched a rebellion. That war, which was their choice, came back to haunt then. Nothing that happened would have happened had the South not chosen war. They have nobody to blame for but themselves.”
So, by your standards, anything done to the people is fine, as long as you can say it was their fault for starting it (whether that is true or not)?
“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.” - William T. Sherman, 1864
It appears WTS freely admits to his ‘barbarity and cruelty,’ and even takes pride in it. Do you?
The WTS quote reminds me of the one from the Patriot movie:
Colonel William Tavington: Would you like a lesson, sir, in the rules of war? Or perhaps your children would?
Am I to feel sorry for the Germans because of the Dresden fire bombing? Do we owe the Japanese an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I don't think so. The civilian population paid a penalty for the folly of their leadership's misguided decision to launch a war. So if I'm not going to feel any qualms about the Germans and the Japanese then why should I feel sympathy for the rebel civilians? What is so special about them?
It appears WTS freely admits to his ‘barbarity and cruelty,’ and even takes pride in it. Do you?
I think he was engaging in hyperbole, much the same as when Patton talked about wanting to personally rip out the guts of the German soldiers and grease the treads of his tanks with them. What befell the Southern population during the rebellion was nothing compared to what happened to other people during other insurrections in Europe and Asia.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Just curious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.