Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
They are among my favorites to read and to write about.
My apologies to the Lone Star State!
I believe that the preferred rebel term for the battle is Sharpsburg. Keep calling it Antietam and they'll drum you out.
BTW, I did not call you a big meanie. I just pointed that your hate was showing. (That you did not dispute).
You would have probably been better served to prove to the Mrs. that Grant was not the drunk she supposes him to be then attacking ignorance with hate. In fact, he was one heck of a good general. The third best general in the war behind Jackson and Lee (of course).
Generally, slavery dies out when it is no longer economically viable,
or when someone runs out of competing tribes;
here it went away along with some rather scratchy constitutional issues.
(But not because of the emancipation proclamation and not until after the war ended)
Learn what you will from history but recounting the fact that Jews were more prominent and better assimilated in the antebellum south is NOT 'divisive' and it is not suddenly wrong to relate people to events of 140 years ago.....we've had selected parts of that relationship rammed up our throats forever.
PS:Yes, slavery is a bad thing.
PPS: Also yes, as pogroms go, this one was pretty tame but it took place nonetheless.
That's my northern education showing.
At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 -- which saw brother against brother as well as Jew against Jew -- there were 150,000 Jews in the United States. Three thousand fought on the side of the Confederacy and 6,700 for the Union.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/text/jews_text.html
Miz Darla posts with equal parts ignorance AND hate. Tales of Grant and alcohol are widely embraced, especially among the southron supporters, and are just as widely exaggerated. I'm not sure why your side clings to it. If Grant were the slobbering drunk y'all portray him as then it's even more embarassing that he won so consistently and beat every southern general he came up against.
"Higher education was so much better most of the Southern ruling class sent their children to Northern colleges"
My third great grandfather was educated at a private, Masonic institute. He was instrumental in bringing public schooling to NC in 1839. He sent his sons to the University of North Carolina, the nation's first public university, founded in 1792. I'm the first college graduate in my family since before the Civil War, due to the privation brought on by the aftereffects of that conflict. So, don't preach to me about education. Especially since you are an unthinking ideologue, and wish to dictate your understanding of the history of my home, to me. You're rather dense, and quite offensive for having done so.
Tales of Grant and his drunkeness are embraced by everyone (North and South) because it is easy to believe the worst about people than the truth.
I am going to leave the rest of your post alone because I do not believe it is true and arguing about it will just be a waste of time.
Telling a few cotton traders to quit trading with the enemy is hardly the holocaust.
Dang Yankee Ping
Written like a true Yankee fanatic! The only difference between you and a terrorist is skin color, your way of thinking is exactly the same! Rubbish and myopic! Only those who can view things with an open mind (meaning both sides) can be considered a serious student of history.
Everything about your post is true about the quality of education in the old South. But I think you'll find that the University of Georgia is the nation's oldest state university and that Charleston College was founded in 1771.
Nothing that you claim disputes what I said. It is unfortunate that you cannot accept FACTS without claiming it is "preaching".
Since you are impervious to information regarding these matters check the census of 1860 it supports what I have said 100%.
I am the least ideological person you can find and it isn't the "unthinking" which gets you in an uproar but the THINKING which undermines your carefully cherised mythology about the IGnoble Cause.
On the other hand, I don't think it is healthy to gloss over that which makes us uncomfortable, such as the fact that it was legal to buy and sell slaves in some northern teritories even after the war and the emancipation proclemation didn't free slaves then under Northern control. Also, Lee freed his slaves at the war's outset, while Grant owned slaves throughout the war.
All who attack the United States are my enemy including any ancestors of mine OR yours. Too bad.
If my father were a Concentration Camp guard should I pretend he was correct and defend him?
Slavery was illegal in EVERY Northern state prior to the war some as long as 70 yrs. before. It was illegal NOWHERE after the War. Where did you come up with that.
There was nothing wrong with Lincoln freeing slaves within the rebelling states and not the loyal Border states. He never claimed to be fighting the war to free the slaves in any case and making the Proclamation posed a great danger to the South.
Grant owned no slaves. You need to forget the false claims of those trying to defend the RAT Rebellion which appears to provide the basis for most of the mistakes in your post. These people are liars.
The University of North Carolina was the first public university in the country to open its doors, and Old East is the oldest campus building, dating to1793.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill
"I am the least ideological person you can find"
That certainly appears to be true regarding political matters in the present day. However, when it comes down to this particular, historical conflict, you are as ideological and partisan as they come.
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.