Posted on 06/25/2010 4:31:27 PM PDT by central_va
Open Message to Mr. Beck (self proclaimed historian). Tonight on your TV show you said that you read the Confederate Constitution and I paraphrase "it had slavery written all over it, all about slavery blah blah blah". You are incorrect sir, I did a word search on the document and the word slavery appears "one" time. Everyone can try it for themselves at the link provided below.
Can never trust a Yankee, even a goofy entertaining one.
Your list of lame insults of Lincoln knows no bounds, but the one thing that all your name-calling will not change is the fact that Lincoln kicked your rebel asses. And that just bugs the hell out of you.
--------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America
Lincoln use of human sheilds
http://books.google.com/books?id=hdPExjrkizsC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=Lincoln+use+of+human+shields&source=bl&ots=6B23qrTam4&sig=NZ1riUM4hdS1PPGZD1SOfoCnBfI&hl=en&ei=BUorTIOpDo7qnQfVkMD0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=Lincoln%20use%20of%20human%20shields&f=false
I still don't understand your point. You get all bent out of shape about this, yet the fact that the confederate army usually shot black Union soldiers out of hand rather than let them surrender gets a giant yawn from you. Your outrage is, as usual, highly selective.
I agree that Glenn Beck made it sound like the true “name” of the CSA was “The Salveholding Confederate States of America.” In fact, I made that comment to my wife-that I had never heard that.
I consider myself a pretty educated guy—and a student of civil war history. So, as I did my research, I couldn’t find that. As he is often saying on his show(s) you shouldn’t take anyone’s word—but rather “look it up.”
That said, are there really people on this thread that think Slavery was OK? Really? I understand the whole states rights issues, and the economic impact of the slaves. But I cannot see how anyone can defend holding another person as a slave. That thought is just so abhorrent that anyone trying to defend that as a right cannot be taken seriously.
Please tell me that is not what you are defending.
There's nothing noble or laudable about your worldview. It's indefensible and embarrassingly backward.
RIght-thinking people believe in limited federal government, but not when it's wrapped around the obscene defense of slavery, as you and your comic-Rebel friends insist.
The South lost for good reason, and the loss continues as long as you keep trying to recast history.
But I'm glad you're vocal about it, so the rest of us can see you for what you are.
As far as I know, nobody is defending slavery. Most of the people that defend states rights use slavery as the spark, not the reason for scession. Others see it differently. IMHO The abrupt end to slavery caught whites and blacks off guard because it seems everyone in the 19th century was an extreme racist, Lincoln included, by our standards. Blacks weren't prepared with education and psychologically it must have been a shock. Nobody is saying slavery should not have ended, just how it ended leads to discussion.
To coin a phrase, “War is hell.”
Soldiers, in every war since Cain and Abel, people have done horrible things.
As I was taught by my brothers a long time ago: “if you find yourself in a fight for your life, there are no rules. Pick up the biggest thing you can lift, throw it at the guy, and go nuts. if you act more crazy and unpredictable than the other guy it will scare them into not fighting any more.”
Human shields, the March to the Sea, Pickets Charge, all of these things are horrible examples of how much war sucks.
Last summer I stopped at Antetiem with my daughters. Instead of the normal walking around, talking about what happened—I took them up the route of the soldiers: Up the hill with the canon to our right. I had them run a little bit in the sun, telling them they were getting shot at. That when they got to the top of the hill, they would take the canon and win the day.
When they got to the top of the hill—I told them to look toward the road. And i told them 3,000 troops would open fire on them—point blank. They were dead.
They got chills—and they understood it better than any book could have told them.
War sucks. And that is why we should avoid it whenever we can.
When we cannot avoid it, we need to prosecute it with all of our might using whatever tactics gives us the advantage. And destroy our enemies. And end it as quickly as possible.
A good lesson to apply today.
We’ve never discussed that topic. But, it doesn’t change the facts. Your *banana republic* would have sent dwarf’s if the slaves got used up. Let’s just call it ‘ethnic cleansing’ the Lincoln way.
The Union would have used whatever tools necessary to ensure victory over the Southern rebellion. If that meant legions of dwarfs doing battle against the defenders of slavery then so be it. At least the dwarfs would have been volunteers. The fact that the South viewed blacks as unworthy of being combat soldiers up until such time that their cause was already lost points to a major failure in your rebel leadership. Their contempt for blacks and their conviction of their inferiority was so great that they would rather see their cause go down in flames than compromise. And once the flames were licking at their heels, then and only then would the consent to sending slaves to do a free man's work. And of course had they won that slave would have gone back to bondage where he belonged. Such was the Southern mindset.
Calling the South - the aggressors is like calling Obama a U.S Citizen.
I. W. Hayne, letter to President Buchanan
You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and is held for the same purposes for which it has ever been held since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avowedly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is perhaps the highest insult which one government can offer to another? But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent fort, which was then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter into her own possession, only because of her misplaced confidence in a government which deceived her.
You're as confused as only a stone Lost Causer can be. What part of 'volunteer' is puzzling you?
"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." - William T. Sherman
What your major bone of contention seems to be is that when push came to shove, your Southern boys were not capable of winning the war that they themselves started. You choose to blame the victor for you problems instead of blaming your own ancestors for starting and then losing the war to begin with.
Sumter, was occupied by union forces - after - South C had left.
Sumter was the property of the federal government, and as commander of all army facilities in the Charleston area Major Anderson was well within his authority to move his men to any one of the forts he was responsible for. Especially in the face of rebel threats.
You mis-read my points (or I posted to the wrong party.) I agree with you. As a northerner and unionist—and a student of the military—I believe there is no such thing as a winnable limited war. Either you “is or you ain’t.”
If someone starts a war I am in favor of going “Mongol” on them.
What’s next? Quote from Stalin?
And since you rely on sources like "Gangs of New York" or "Outlaw Josey Wales" for your facts then it's easy to understand how you can post such confusing stuff.
Secession doesn't start a war. Only the party departed can start or not start a war with the seceding party. By default the seceding party wants disassociation, war is the opposite of their desires altough prudent to prepare for.
The way the south tried it, it most certainly did. It was in all the papers.
BTW,your murderous Generals couldn't carry Lee's jock !
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.