Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Not everybody can be the perfect speller and typist as you are. I plead indulgence for my imperfections. On the other hand, when typos are introduced into the debate it might just be that yet another reb has once again reached the familiar ground of Appomattox.

[x]

Isn't this ironic? All this focus on the bad boys. What's up with this? A love/hate relationship? Curiosity? The Union Army is boring? A secret love that must be disguised with criticism? Secretly rooting for the underdog?

I would love to be able to say that the history channel doesso much WWII programming because of people's love for Eisenhower, Patton, McArthur, Halsey and Nimitz, or our own fathers and grandfathers, but most of the shows on the channel seem to be about the other side.

I'm not comparing Confederates to Nazis, just pointing out that fascination doesn't always mean approval. Probably some of the people who subscribe to Civil War magazines do subscribe to secessionist views. Many more probably just want to honor their ancestors who fought for that side. But there's also a curiosity about anything different and about the "what might have beens" of history that goes beyond politics.

[stand watie]

i see. it's OK for DAMNyankees to make "typos" but NOT OK for me or any other "good 'ole rebs" to do so.

when i typed "its" in a post, instead of "it's" some time ago, several of your cohorts "chided me" for being "iliterite"(sic) = i thoought that it was FUNNY that he complained/made fun of me, about my "misspelling", but couldn't spell "illiterate".

fwiw, that's why we all think you DYs are a motley collection of BIGOTS,south-HATERS, FOOLS, nitwits,HYPOCRITES, anti-semites, racists & terminally STUPID.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

tell everyone, N-S: were the many brave/honorable BLACK VOLUNTEERS of the CSA too stupid to know what they were fighting FOR??? (a simple YES or NO answer,please. stripped of your usual bilge/HALF-truths/lies/propaganda/"changing the subject"/etc..)

Where's the book?

[Non-Sequitur]

If this is what actually happened, then a whole correspondence about the Republican campaign of 1856 remains to be discovered, examined or reexamined, and integrated.

Unless, of course, that's not what actually happened.

[stand watie]

fwiw, even suggesting that ANY northerner wasn't "pure as the new snow" may get you "ridden out of town on a rail" by the other DAMNyankees here. (didn't they tell you that EVERY DAMNyankee was "perfect in every way" & that the DAMNyankees were "always CORRECT"???)

laughing AT the members of "the coven".

free dixie,sw

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I don’t believe in pointing out typos. It tends to poison the atmosphere of goodwill characteristic of these discussions.

[Non-Sequitur]

How could this war have started over slavery if slavery was still legal when the states seceded and the northern slave states were allowed to keep their slaves?

Answer: Because the Southern states seceded to protect their institution of slavery from what they saw as the threat to it posed by Lincoln's election and the Republican Party's unswerving opposition to allowing slavery to expand into the territories. The confederacy then began the war to further their aims.

That's how.

[Non-Sequitur]

For instance, a much greater percentage of free blacks in the South owned slaves than did Southern whites.

What do you base that on?

[aruanan]

If I was a slave owner who had absolute property rights as Dred Scott ruled, I could sell my slave Mr. Jones to another man across the country and still keep Mrs. Jones on my plantation, breaking up the marriage.

That almost never happened. Marriages were encouraged. Infidelity was punished because of the turmoil it caused. Premarital chastity was carefully guarded by slave parents. As a result, the United States accounted for only about 6% of all slave imports into the new world. The lurid stories about slave breeding operations were just that, lurid stories concocted by abolitionists who, ironically, were almost uniformly about as racist as any cracker.

[aruanan]

What do you base that on?

Records of slave-owning free blacks in New Orleans as well as other, much larger plantation operations by free blacks.

[Non-Sequitur]

And what about the institution of marriage and the family within the American system of slavery?

There was none. Slave marriages were not recognized in any of the Southern slave-holding states.

[Nosterrex]

Friend, in times of war, such as the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and interment camps for Japanese, etc. all governments become despotic. That is the nature of the beast. The Union was not any better than the Confederacy. Civil rights and Constitutional protections always suffer during wars. This game of my father can beat up your father really serves no useful purpose. I have no illusions about human nature and the terrible things that people are capable of doing. I have had the unpleasant experience of fighting in two military conflicts, Viet Nam and Gulf War 1, and unless you have been there, you cannot even begin to imagine what horrible things people are capable of doing. Did bad things happen in Tennessee. I would be surprised it it didn't. Were Confederates morally superior to Unionist, I doubt it, nor do I believe that the Union was composed of saints. And to be honest about it, such incidents add nothing to the discussion one way or the other. Do we really want to go down the path of listing all the atrocities committed by American forces throughout the history of this nation? Did the fire bombing of civilians in Dresden tell us anything about the causes of WWII or the reasons for fighting it?
I have several books that record atrocities of Union soldiers in the South, and I have several books by authors that are so bias for the Confederacy that I find them amusing. I have found this adage to be true: people see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe.

[Non-Sequitur]

If the federal government and the Supreme Court had not violated states rights, perhaps things would have been different.

And how exactly did the federal government and the Supreme Court violate state's rights?

[aruanan]

And what about the institution of marriage and the family within the American system of slavery?

There was none. Slave marriages were not recognized in any of the Southern slave-holding states.

Wrong again. There's de facto and de jure. Slave marriages were not legally recognized by the states, but they were the norm and were encouraged by slave owners who helped arrange them as well as perform them.

[stand watie]

you don't have THE GUTS to answer my question YES or NO, do you, N-S??? (laughing AT your pitiful attempt to avoid telling the truth.)

if you answer "YES" you are "marked" as a RACIST;if you say "NO" you have to admit that they "stated reason" for the unionists prosecution of the war was a FRAUD & that "your side" were/are nothing but LIARS.

so instead of being HONEST about your dishonesty/prejudices, you try to "avoid the question" and/or "change the subject". this is TYPICAL of a DAMNyankee, a FOOL & a KNOWING LIAR.

since i've been gone from FR, i've not felt like even checking on the status of the ILL. (this flu that's going around is TERRIBLE.)

nonetheless, your "time of humiliation" is NEAR.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

"I don't believe in -----" = that's good, "Roo". otoh, it will NOT make you "popular" with the other DYs of FR.

doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, that you are "grouped with" that bunch of LYING, ignorant, sanctimonious BIGOTS, LOUTS & VULGAR-talking FOOLS??? (fwiw, you don't seem to be STUPID & completely UN-educated as most of the members of "the coven" are.)

free dixie,sw

[Diverdogz]

Very rich irony. You post that Non-Sequitur was “Wrong again”, then follow that with a your own non sequitur by admitting that Non-Sequitur, the freeper, was indeed right. Bizarre.

[Non-Sequitur]

Records of slave-owning free blacks in New Orleans as well as other, much larger plantation operations by free blacks.

Statistics please. Figures and dates.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wrong again. There's de facto and de jure. Slave marriages were not legally recognized by the states, but they were the norm and were encouraged by slave owners who helped arrange them as well as perform them.

OK, I say slave marriages were not recognized by the states. You say I'm wrong, and then go on to say the same thing I said - slave marriages were not recognized by the state. So where exactly am I wrong?

Whatever partnering up the slave owners arranged had to standing in the law. Slave couples could be broken up at will, and new partnerships mandated by the new owners and no legal issues about divorce or bigamy entered into the equation. In the eyes of the law, two slaves were no more married than a prize stallion and a mare were. Marriage was for people, slaves were property.