Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
And since you asked, Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and the confederacy were all one-party states who's leaders ran unopposed in 'free' elections. Thre's one similarity right off the bat.
Now that you mention it, no. And considering the confederate congress was in session and the decision to bombard Sumter into surrender was made several days before the actual attack then there is no reason why the Davis regime couldn't have gotten the approval of congress in the form of a declaration of war before leading the nation into the abyss. But abiding by constitutional restrictions or requirements was never a confederate strongpoint.
Yes, I thought you would need some help on that one, and glad to see someone out there has sympathy for you.
The historians and researchers examined the original census sheets which you do not include in your descriptions.
Neither you or your “higher authority” address the fact that some of the census takers not only listed slaves by headcount and household, but also by name. It is from this data that the researchers established data on marriages.
Go ahead and spend some more time on this.
And while you are at it, make the assertion again that records on plantations and in churches were not kept.
And by the way, have you gotten to the point where Burton tells you about his research. Yes, I thought you had and you do not want to mention it, now do you.
The help was unsolicited, but appreciated. We both wondered how you'd respond.
The historians and researchers examined the original census sheets which you do not include in your descriptions.
No, just the statement from the Census bureau itself stating that slave 'marriages' were not tallied and that no substantial information on such 'marriages' exist. Yet you say they're lying.
Go ahead and spend some more time on this.
In a vain attempt to find something that supports your unsubstantiated claims?
And while you are at it, make the assertion again that records on plantations and in churches were not kept.
I'm sure some were, especially at the plantation level. But your claim that the census counted them is, of course, bullshit.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been away. Sigh, since you can't deny the truth of my point, you try to change the subject with allegations of an unrelated point. That's called surrender, my friend.
Once again, you have to change the subject since you can't deny the original point. BTW, how could I "gloss over" something that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the original point at hand? I also "glossed over" the fact that bananas are a good source of potassium. My gawd! What THAT must prove in your "mind".
Not at all, mein freund. That's absolutely no comparison at all, and the fact that you can't or don't realise that, speaks volumes. My point was that the glorious union heroes went west after the Civil War not just to fight Native Americans and take their land, BUT to exterminate them. Big difference.
Certainly no comparison with Hitler's treatment of Jews and Slavs who fell under his control.
That's simply laughable. Oh wait, maybe it's not. Hitler was far more organized and technical in his campaign of racial extermination that Sherman et al, so I guess there is that difference. But, a campaign of racial extermination, not domination, is just that, genocide.
Dude, that's just weak, please keep exposing how you don't have a position. It's without question that those who died on the Trail of Tears were victims of a racist government program, but it would hardly qualify as "genocide". Perhaps you just don't understand what the word means. You certainly haven't read Sherman's letters about his Indian campaigns and strategies. I mentioned the buffalo because Sherman BRAGGED that by exterminating the buffalo they could exterminate the Plains Indians who relied on them as a food source. It was easier for your post-war union heroes to shoot buffalo than Native American warriors (who could shoot back). Although it didn't stop them from staging raid after raid upon villages of women and children, whom they would often mutilate and then parade with the body parts of their "foes". How brave they were!
By today's moral standards, of course, none of these actions would be acceptable. But neither do they correspond to the millions and tens of millions who died under Nazi and Communist tyrannies.
There weren't that many Native Americans for them to eliminate, otherwise it would. Racial extermination is racial extermination, deal with it.
Wow, you're either deliberately misrepresenting the truth, or you're completely ignorant because all you know is the biased accountings of those of just one side that tried to justify their actions. It's not that your statements are completely false, it's that they completely deny the rest of the truth...that Native Americans took sides with each side of the settling Europeans...for the ones that sided with the French and did those things (notice that you admit the French were BUYING the slaves and creating the market for them), there were those that sided with the British and committed the exact same crimes or worse, as each was prompted by their European "allies" to do so (you paint a worse picture of the Europeans, in case you didn't realise it). Each did what they did at the bidding and prompting of their European allies. Look up "complicity" in the dictionary and you'll find the source of those things you mentioned.
Is that why Confederates feel such sympathy for them and blame Yankees? Maybe so...
Absolutely not. The South was subjected to the sociopathic and demonic actions of the union criminals just prior to their ultimate genocidal disgrace of Old Glory against the Plains Indians. That's a common bond we share with those Native Americans. And, the fact that nearly all Southerners have Native American ancestry (yes, we're multi-racial) only makes that bond stronger.
War b’tween the States ping
OK, I'm sure you've been hit with this one before, but I haven't seen it and I must admit I'm curious as to your response: If the Confederate States never left the union, how is West Virginia a State? Do you support the idea that it shouldn't be recognized as a State?...if not, then you are admiting that Virginia was no longer a part of the US when it was "formed", and therefore you are recognizing the CSA...
You see since VA was a state at the time, and hadn't left the Union, it is/was Ok for a state to subdivide. That's normal.
Hi, central_va! Hopefully he'll try better than that, NS is (I hope he's not reading this) one of the "smarter" (it's a relative term when dealing with Clairmont Institue inspired revisionists) pro-Lincoln misinformationsts. I would have to point him to Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
If the Legislature of Virginia, a Confederate State and the home of the capitol of the CSA, voted for such a thing, I'm sure I would have read about it.
Non-Squirter has mistaken memorizing the Constitution with knowledge.
Yeah, it's been explained before but I don't mind going over it again. To begin with, I'm sure you understand that a state can partition itself with consent of Congress and the state's legislature.
When the Virginia Secession Commission voted to submit a secession bill to the people of the commonwealth, the delegates from the western counties marched out of the Secession Convention in protest and vowed to form a state government loyal to the Union. These delegates gathered in Clarksburg on April 22, calling for a pro-Union convention, which met in Wheeling from May 13 to 15. On May 23, Virginia voters approved the Ordinance of Secession.
Following the Union victory at the Battle of Philippi, a Second Wheeling Convention met between June 11 and June 25, 1861. Delegates formed the Restored, or Reorganized, Government of Virginia, and chose Francis H. Pierpont as governor. The U.S. Congress then recognized the Restored Government as the only legitimate government of Virginia. John Carlile and Waitman T. Willey became United States Senators and Jacob B. Blair, William G. Brown, and Kellian V. Whaley became Congressmen representing pro-Union Virginia.
On October 24, 1861, residents of thirty-nine counties in western Virginia approved the formation of a new Unionist state. At the Constitutional Convention in Wheeling, which met from November 1861 to February 1862, delegates selected fifty counties for inclusion in the new state of West Virginia. Some of the counties that did not support statehood were included for political, economic, and military purposes. One of the more controversial decisions involved the Eastern Panhandle counties, which supported the Confederacy. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which ran through the Eastern Panhandle, was extremely important for the economy and troop movements. Inclusion of these counties removed all of the railroad from the Confederacy.
Since the Restored Government was considered the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862 to partition and to form the state of West Virginia.
The United States Senate on July 14, 1862, approved statehood for West Virginia. On December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives passed the enabling act as well and on December 31, President Lincoln signed the bill into law, approving the creation of West Virginia as a state loyal to the Union. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the fifty counties approved the statehood bill and on June 20, the state of West Virginia was officially created.
The legality of these actions was later recognized by the Supreme Court when it agreed to hear the case of Virginia v. West Virginia.
Wow, to be so deliberatly ignorant of what I told you without even knowing the full details...You must be a redneck!
Many history books of the pre-civil war period were very kind to the Indians, and spoke well of their culture while being honest about how they treated us and how we treated them.
You’re not one of those fools who thinks that all Indian tribes lived in harmony until white men came along, are you?
Why is it that whenever you get a point refuted you accuse the person smarter than you as being dishonest?
What is this problem with the truth that you have, anyways??
free dixie,sw
stripped of "the slavery was all" (RADICAL REVISIONIST/LEFTIST) position, there is NO "grand crusade" to use as an EXCUSE for the slaughter of a MILLION Americans, except of course that "DIShonest abe" simply was not willing to let the south go free.
fwiw, unlike most here (including N-S, i suspect) i HAVE read the book & know what Dr Blackerby stated.
furthermore, either N-S lied about having read BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY (and therefore does NOT know what the book states) and/or he lied about what the author said.= there is NO middle ground between what Blackerby did & did NOT state concerning the number of Black CSA service members. the numbers "in question" is IN his book, for any reader to see.
further, N-S & the rest of "the DAMNyankee coven" are either too DISHONEST and/or too ignorant of the FACTS to refute anyone (NOT just me) on any subject. (Race, the FACT is that "you've thrown in with" a pack of LOSERS, bigots, nitwits & KNOWING liars, if you've taken their side. NOTE: the ones with the most disgusting/VULGAR/hate-FILLED comments toward the southerners on FR are the REAL idiots/BIGOTS.)
free dixie,sw
stripped of "the slavery was all" (RADICAL REVISIONIST/LEFTIST) position, there is NO "grand crusade" to use as an EXCUSE for the slaughter of a MILLION Americans, except of course that "DIShonest abe" simply was not willing to let the south go free.
fwiw, unlike most here (including N-S, i suspect) i HAVE read the book & know what Dr Blackerby stated.
furthermore, either N-S lied about having read BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY (and therefore does NOT know what the book states) and/or he lied about what the author said.= there is NO middle ground between what Blackerby did & did NOT state concerning the number of Black CSA service members. the numbers "in question" is IN his book, for any reader to see.
further, N-S & the rest of "the DAMNyankee coven" are either too DISHONEST and/or too ignorant of the FACTS to refute anyone (NOT just me) on any subject. (Race, the FACT is that "you've thrown in with" a pack of LOSERS, bigots, nitwits & KNOWING liars, if you've taken their side. NOTE: the ones with the most disgusting/VULGAR/hate-FILLED comments toward the southerners on FR are the REAL idiots/BIGOTS.)
free dixie,sw
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.