I never said they were the only ones. And I hope you're not suggesting that 'everyone was doing it' is some kind of moral defense. The Southern states were stupid enough to put powder to the defense of the indefensible and they deserved all that they got and then some.
Apparently some people think 'The South' is a noble cause worth defending. I equate the lot of those proponents with barnyard animals, except that the animals are more intelligent and noble. Look around this thread and see the modern face of the slaveholder and the armchair rebel. What children! They are not men, they are not worthy of anything but scorn and derision. Cowards and reprobates relive battles their weakling ancestors couldn't justify or win in the moment.
This nonsense about 'states rights' is nothing but a fig leaf for white supremacy.
Bigots need to be called out and stamped out wherever they rear their heads. Let them wipe sarcastic tears from their eyes as they reveal themselves to be nothing but racist trolls.
I say this is a fact: if Sherman had been allowed to finish his work we wouldn't today have to endure the grotesque suggestions found elsewhere on this thread-- because such ideas would be rightfully and unequivocally extinct. Would that that were the case the world would be a better place.
I'd watch who you call a troll, ever read your own crap?
There is no moral high ground for either side. The degree of participation in slavery does not negate the fact of participation. Often overlooked are the states which chose to secede due to Lincoln's order for troops and refusal to participate in coercion, by force, to return already seceded states back into the Union. There is also the individual aspect of this, which is also often overlooked; the individuals, on both sides, who wanted no part of any war, but were helpless to stop manipulation by politicians.
Apparently some people think 'The South' is a noble cause worth defending. I equate the lot of those proponents with barnyard animals, except that the animals are more intelligent and noble. Look around this thread and see the modern face of the slaveholder and the armchair rebel. What children! They are not men, they are not worthy of anything but scorn and derision. Cowards and reprobates relive battles their weakling ancestors couldn't justify or win in the moment.
I respect your opinion in the above statement however, my opinion differs from yours. Aspects of my Southern heritage are ugly and, you are correct, slavery is indefensible. However, slavery is not the total of that heritage. To me, America's history of slavery is just that, America's history not solely a Southern legacy. I see no modern face of slaveholders on this thread. I see no defense of slavery on this thread. I see no sentiments expressed on this thread which are worthy of scorn and derision, much less men worthy of the same derogatory comments. Individuals expressing their views and opinions do not make them cowards nor reprobates. If the veterans, in the link below, could come together 50 years after the war with no such opinion of one another, who are we to judge? I don't believe any of these men viewed each other as weaklings nor in need of justification of their service.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100625-johnson-columnsamerica.html
This nonsense about 'states rights' is nothing but a fig leaf for white supremacy.
I do not see any indication of white supremacy in any statement on this thread. As ugly as the truth is, states rights included slavery in those days. Those were different times.
Bigots need to be called out and stamped out wherever they rear their heads. Let them wipe sarcastic tears from their eyes as they reveal themselves to be nothing but racist trolls.
big·ot Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot Date: 1660 : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. (Merriam-Webster)
Reviewing the definition of a bigot, I don't fit the definition of a bigot. I don't see anyone defending their Southern heritage, on this thread, that fits the definition either.
I say this is a fact: if Sherman had been allowed to finish his work we wouldn't today have to endure the grotesque suggestions found elsewhere on this thread-- because such ideas would be rightfully and unequivocally extinct. Would that that were the case the world would be a better place.
If I understand your point with this comment, Sherman's march would have had to begin in states west of Georgia and would have taken him to points north of the mason-dixon line. If I have misunderstood your point, well, things don't always compute like they should for me! At times it's kinda hard to tell intent absent the vocal inflection. But, we do the best we can with written (in our case typed) communication.
As I've stated, I respect your opinions, but mine differ. As a general rule, I don't discuss this topic from an emotional POV. I find it hinders communication instead of facilitating it.
Please don't be surprised if the link I included doesn't work. I can't figure out why these links don't work for me!
Nope, link didn’t work again!
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100625-johnson-columnsamerica.html