Posted on 07/07/2012 11:51:43 AM PDT by nickcarraway
At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."
Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.
In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."
Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Secession was prohibited by the nature of the Union and the logic of the constitution. Not to mention the words of the document itself: Article III, Section 3, paragraph 1 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and Comfort.
If the Cornfederates weren’t committing treason the word has no meaning whatsoever.
Only those who hate the United States and all it stands for don't recognize this. But they don't recognize much, their obsession with proving the Traitors who produced the Slaver Revolt justified makes them monomanic nutcases and only their similarly afflicted brothers cares about anything they claim.
Sure 9 and 10 are part of the Supreme Law of the Land but they don't mean what the legal whizzes of the Cornpone Brigade claims they mean. Also part of the Supreme Law of the Land is the definition of Treason.
Put it to music and I’ll see.
Non Sequitor was very effective in slapping the Cornpone Brigade around and I am honored to be LIED about by the likes of you. But regard for the truth (something totally absent in the Cornpone Brigade) forces me to deny the FALSEHOOD. I am not he and never was.
Yep! He was a legend in his own mind just like YOU and the followers of Marx who helped bring him to power, populated the general staff of his army, and those who covered up the malfeasance of all they had done after the fact!
I do have question for you.
Did you learn your history from Eric Foner?
So now those who speak the truth are “followers of Marx”? Of course, those who defend the Union and Constitution must be. Naturally, one mouth of the Cornpone Brigade yammers on about the Capitalism of the North and its inequities and the other that the “Marxists” fight for it.
Funny stuff, I might get mad if I thought you had the slightest knowledge of Marx. But to you he is just the latest incarnation of the Boogey Man and the accusation is thrown around against anyone who guts the Cornpone Brigade’s standard lies.
Although there is a modicum of truth in your charge since I am a huge Marxist -— GROUCHO Marx that is. He would have had a field day ridiculing the Cornpone Brigade’s follies.
Of course you have not denied that since it was never proven in the first place.
"IT is perfectly proper for duly authorized soldiers to defend a federal fortification."
Only if attacked. There was no evidence either before or after the event to establish any hostile actions by the local militia.
Now, you are really making it up and talking through your hat.
Why don’t you listen to the people who are telling you that your ideas are false, contrived, and irrational.
Now there's a case of the pot calling the kettle back LOL.
Those social costs were not an INTEGRAL part of the economic life in the North but unintended consequences. Slavery, ON THE OTHER HAND, was BASED upon the use of the whip and the lash. It could not exist without them because they were vital instruments in taking away human freedom.
So it's like the difference between the "basic model" and the "optional package", eh? Well, it's nice to know how needless the abuses really were, then.
The truth is that corporal punishment was commonplace in the nineteenth century workplace. Foremen very often threatened workers with truncheons and sailors were VERY often flogged. The average, nominally free sailor had seen many more whippings than had the average slave.
Must’nt think about the Cherokee now should you?
General Watie's people?
How does their treatment by the prewar United States compare to the treatment of other tribes by the postwar United States? How did the Sioux make out? How do you feel about Chivington's, Sherman's, and Sheridan's answer to "the Indian problem"? How did you expect this to help your argument?
1) In spite of all the polls of sailors I am sure were undertaken your rhetoric is unproven and silly. But it is typical of those trying to change the subject and deflect attention from the actions of the Land of the Whip and the Late;
2) My “argument” has nothing to do with the Indians that was a red herring you decided to throw into the melee as a distraction from discussion of the realities of the Land of the Whip and the Lash.
If you want to consider statements which are false, contrived, and irrational you should look at the claim that there was some sort of “tyrannical” federal government in 1860. The entire secession was based upon that monstrous LIE.
The only reason to even talk to these clowns is comic relief.
Every one of their lies have been repeatedly shot down.
You two should look back at 132, 134, 136, etc. for guidance.
"To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or SHE is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of Heaven were allowed a continuous existence in hell merely to swell their punishment. To such as would rebel against a Government so mild and just as ours was in peace, a punishment equal would not be unjustified."
"There is a class of people [in the South], men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." …..
"The Government of the United States has... any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war--to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything, because they cannot deny that war does exist there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact."
"Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and
rightfully too, and another year they may beg in vain for their lives.
"A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences."
"Many many people, with less pertinacity than the South,
have been wiped out of national existence.
To those who submit to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and
forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionist, why, death is
mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."
"Our enemies must be killed or transported to some other country."
"The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain…. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper."
"The Amount of burning, stealing and plundering done by our army makes me ashamed of it. I would rather quit the service if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the worst sort of vandalism....You and I and every commander must go through the war, justly charged with crimes at which we blush."
Federal Official Records ( O.R.) vol. XXIV, pt. III 574
I wasn't changing the subject. My point was that, in the nineteenth century, Earth was pretty much "the planet of the whip and the lash".
2) My “argument” has nothing to do with the Indians that was a red herring you decided to throw into the melee as a distraction from discussion of the realities of the Land of the Whip and the Lash.
Then let it be MY argument that no one championing the nineteenth century United States has the moral authority to challenge the nineteenth century Confederacy on the treatment of minority populations, given their comparative human rights records. It somehow always surprises me a little when someone proceeds as though US history of that period entitles them upbraid Southerners. Place the weight of the victims of both sections on the balance and the scale tips decidedly against the Union.
I named those generals precisely because they had just previously represented the Union cause on the field of battle and then immediately afterward turned those same armies - with the same banners, equipment, uniforms, and body of enlistment - against large numbers of people, supposedly under the rule of American law, on the basis of their race. Union heroes Sherman, Sheridan, and Chivington were genocidal nutcases who fought a real race war. They did it with the necessary support of a triumphant Union government flush with victory over "the land of the whip and the lash". Perhaps it sooths a nostalgic soul to think of these as two separate wars, with different actors from different times with different motives, allowing for divergent narratives. However, in retrospect, it was really two campaigns in a single war conducted by the same principals. The villain in Act II was a villain back in Act I.
Thanks, I had previusly viewed those examples of false, contrived, and irrational posts, but I’m always welcome to entertain additional ones.
1) No, it was not. Whether you admit it or not the United States was one of the islands of freedom scattered about the globe. That is an important factor in the desire of so many to come here, still is.
2) “Southerners” are not being upbraided by me. They were terribly afflicted by their ruling class’ insane policies. Non-slave owners in the South were enslaved by the requirements of slavery, not the least of which was being dragooned into Slave Patrols. Nor was it possible for whites to speak against the Slaver system without great danger to their lives and livelihoods.
There is no question that there was more freedom for blacks and whites outside the Land of the Whip and the Lash. It is not even a debatable point. Any freedom Southerners had was easily available to Northerners but not vice-versa.
Most of the elements of non-freedom were the results of enforcing such abominations as the Fugitive Slave laws enacted, of course, by the Slaver politicians North and South.
Union armies were mostly disbanded after the war other than those necessary to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the Freedmen. The small armies sent West mainly occupied posts.
It was the Republican administrations which mostly treated the Indian properly while the Democrats proceeded in a questionable fashion.
The Indian Wars were not related to the Civil War in any important fashion unless one is trying to hide the facts about the Slaver Revolt. Additionally, it is undeniable that the conflict between Indian and American was primarily the result of irreconcilable cultures and pretty much inevitable. It isn’t as though white people treated other white people all that well in the 19th century to start with.
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.