Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[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?

[Nosterrex]

I looked at the title of this book and the comments by the author, who does not attempt to hide his biases, and if this is the sort of sources that you are using to form your views, you are never going to find the truth. I would also suggest that Tennessee, Kansas, and Missouri had their own internal wars going on. I am certain that many horrible things must have occurred, before, during, and after the Civil War. But compared to the Union's systemic destruction of the South, and its open warfare on civilians, such as we see in Sherman's march, the South is rather benevolent. We can all find books, articles, and “scholars” that will support whatever view we hold.

There are always going to be people that believe that the reason for the Civil War was slavery, and that the Union Army was on some Holy Crusade. Nothing that anyone is going to say is going to change their views. I am certain that others have a romanticized view of the South, too. Nothing anyone is going to say is going to change their minds.

The very people that are most interested in this subject are most likely the worse ones to trust. They tend to be emotionally involved and see things through their own spectacles.

[BroJoeK]

"I do not see any room for persuasion, only disagreement."

If you are in the business of telling lies about the Civil War, then count on me to disagree. ;-)

[Nosterrex]

That, my friend, is a two way street.

[Non-Sequitur]

Almost 80% of the changes made by the Confederate Constitution were for less taxes, less big government, and the elimination of pork and government subsidies.

And the end result was a Davis government that was none of that.

[Non-Sequitur]

The term annihilation may be too strong, but the Union declared war against civilians, raped, pillaged, looted, and burned its way across the South.

Hyperbole aside, can you point to a single example of a rebellion where the losing side suffered less and was incorporated back into the body politic faster than the Southern U.S. states?

[Nosterrex]

English Civil War for one.

[Non-Sequitur]

English Civil War for one.

Yeah, well Charles I might disagree with you on that one for a start. Loyalist leaders who were shot following the second civil war might register a complaint. The Irish might have a bone or two to pick with you on the 'suffered less' claim following the third civil war. In fact the wars were very bloody - the percentage of civilan dead from the three civil wars and the subsequent actions of Cromwell's government were far greater than the U.S. Civil War - and the repression especially following the third one was extreme.

[Nosterrex]

The problem is whether or not the American Civil War was a civil war? Only in the broadest definition could it be considered one. In that definition, the American Revolutionary War would be classified as a civil war. Usually in a civil war you have at the minimum one faction trying to overthrow the government, but the South never wanted to overthrow the Union. The South wanted independence from the Union and to be permitted to form its own government. This is why it is nearly impossible when we start trying to compare the American Civil War with civil war in other countries to find examples in history. It is not a good analogy.
A better analogy is to look at independence or secessionist movements rather than civil wars. But in regards to the English Civil War, which was a genuine civil war, Parliament overthrew the monarchy; however, as soon as Cromwell died, the monarchy was reinstalled. I do not see the conflicts with either Ireland and Scotland as civil wars. They are closer to independence or secessionist movements, much like the American Revolutionary war. I have absolutely no idea how many Irish were killed in those wars. But at least 600,000 Americans died in the 1860’s and I am not certain if Ireland even had a population of 600,000 in the 1500’s.
The South has still not recovered from the affects of the Civil War. Reconstructionist treated the South far worse than the US treated either Germany or Japan after WWII. If the South had gotten half the economic support that the US has given Iraq, the South would be far stronger today than it is.
I understand that from your point that being assimilated back into the Union is a good thing; however, the South did not want to be reassimilated back into the Union, it wanted its independence from the Union. They were Confederate by choice, and Union by force. It would be similar to the colonists being reassimilated under British rule if the American Revolution had failed.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I have absolutely no idea how many Irish were killed in those wars. But at least 600,000 Americans died in the 1860’s and I am not certain if Ireland even had a population of 600,000 in the 1500’s.

The Down Survey, conducted immediately after the Irish War, estimated 614,000 Irish dead, 40% of the total population. That doesn't count the 12,000 Irish sold into slavery in the West Indies.

For an example of how the British handled independence movements in the mid-19th Century, look at the Indian Mutiny and how that was put down. Mass executions, hundreds of thousands dead.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The South has still not recovered from the affects of the Civil War.

How? Other than your damaged psyches and self-inflicted wounds like the legacy of Jim Crow, in what quantifiable sense is the south still suffering from a war that ended 144 years ago?

[Nosterrex]

Sounds brutal. No doubt if the Brits had won the Revolutionary War, there would have been mass executions. I would raise at least one thought. Not that I support this view, but we tend to be less humane when we look at other races as inferior. I wonder how that may have influenced the Brits treatment of the Indians? I know that Cromwell hated Catholicism, and his treatment of the Irish was greatly influenced by this. He viewed this more as a religious war than merely an independence movement. The South, for all its faults, was still composed of Americans and predominately Protestant. It reminds me of Sir Edmund Burks’ comments in Parliament when it spoke about the war with the colonists, “My God, they are Englishmen!”

I was actually thinking of independence movements closer to the time of the American Civil War, such as the Boer Wars.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I was actually thinking of independence movements closer to the time of the American Civil War, such as the Boer Wars.

The Indian Mutiny was 1857. You don't get much closer. Maybe racism was involved, but that only makes Prime Minister Palmerston's outrage over Benjamin Butler's administration of New Orleans more hypocritical.

As for the Boer War, that's where the term "concentration camp" was invented, as the British rounded up Boer women and children, "concentrating" them in internment camps to deny support to the Boer men. 24,000 of them died, a number far greater than the military casualties to the Boers. The British also burned farms, salted fields, poisoned wells, and slaughtered livestock.

[Non-Sequitur]

The problem is whether or not the American Civil War was a civil war? Only in the broadest definition could it be considered one.

Civil war is generally considered to be a conflict between two parts of the same country. In that respect then civil war would be correct in 1861 and not in 1776 because the colonists were not strictly speaking a part of England.

Usually in a civil war you have at the minimum one faction trying to overthrow the government, but the South never wanted to overthrow the Union. The South wanted independence from the Union and to be permitted to form its own government.

Then rebellion would be accurate. Originally the conflict was originally titled the War of the Rebellion or War of Southern Rebellion. Civil war was actually a compromise that became popular around the turn of the century.

A better analogy is to look at independence or secessionist movements rather than civil wars.

Then by all means pick an independence or secessionist movement of the period and show me one where the losing side got off as easy as the South did.

I do not see the conflicts with either Ireland and Scotland as civil wars. They are closer to independence or secessionist movements, much like the American Revolutionary war. I have absolutely no idea how many Irish were killed in those wars. But at least 600,000 Americans died in the 1860’s and I am not certain if Ireland even had a population of 600,000 in the 1500’s.

OK, then if the Irish conflict of that period was something akin the the Southern rebellion then upwards of 40% of the population of Ireland died as a result of their secessionist movement. How does the South's losses compare to that?

The South has still not recovered from the affects of the Civil War.

Oh please!

Reconstructionist treated the South far worse than the US treated either Germany or Japan after WWII.

Now who's comparing apples and oranges?

I understand that from your point that being assimilated back into the Union is a good thing; however, the South did not want to be reassimilated back into the Union, it wanted its independence from the Union. They were Confederate by choice, and Union by force. It would be similar to the colonists being reassimilated under British rule if the American Revolution had failed.

And had the American Revolution failed, what do you suppose would have happened to the American leaders? Would John Adams lived to a peaceful old age in retirement? Would George Washington been a college president? Or would they and dozens of others wound up at the end of a rope?

[Nosterrex]

Do you live in the South? Have you ever been to the South? You seem to know more about the affects of reconstruction and its affects on the South than I do.

I made the point that those that signed the Declaration of Independence would be executed by the Brits. If a civil war has to do with a geographical location, then Ireland, India, and Africa would not apply. It would have to do with the Civil War within the boundaries of England. The monarchy was reestablished immediately after Cromwell's death. Reconstruction ,on the other hand, prohibited many confederates from holding political office and placed Negroes into political offices. Lands were confiscated and carpet baggers took advantage of political opportunities. Martial law was declared and Union troops intimidated the Southern population. Cities, such as Atlanta and Richmond were devastated.

To say that the South got off easy is your opinion and not one shared by people that actually endured the affects of the war. Your opinion reveals much about your presuppositions. Again, let me say, the South did not want to be part of the Union. Being part of the Union is punishment, not reward. The South is not a member of the Union by choice, it is solely by force. There is a significant and growing number of people that would gladly secede from the United States if it were not for military force.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you live in the South?

Hell no.

Have you ever been to the South?

Yes.

You seem to know more about the affects of reconstruction and its affects on the South than I do.

Apparently.

. Lands were confiscated and carpet baggers took advantage of political opportunities. Martial law was declared and Union troops intimidated the Southern population.

That still happening today? I mean, you're still feeling the effects of Reconstruction and all. Over 132 years after it ended.

Cities, such as Atlanta and Richmond were devastated.

I will point out that Richmond was burned by the confederacy, not the Union.

To say that the South got off easy is your opinion and not one shared by people that actually endured the affects of the war.

Look at what happened to the losing side in India and China just prior to the Southern rebellion. Look at the rebellions in South and Central America. Then tell me how the South suffered. You wallow in the past, blame your misfortune on everyone but yourself, and then claim that it's still keeping you down. Truly pathetic.

Again, let me say, the South did not want to be part of the Union. Being part of the Union is punishment, not reward.

Then next time you chose to start a war I suggest you win it.

There is a significant and growing number of people that would gladly secede from the United States if it were not for military force.

So in other words you're not willing to fight for your independence, much less fight and win.

[Nosterrex]

I knew that this conversation would eventually end with the might makes right argument. It is the same argument used by all tyrants. You have made my point.

[Non-Sequitur]

I knew that this conversation would eventually end with the might makes right argument. It is the same argument used by all tyrants. You have made my point.

Not at all. The confederate cause would have been wrong even had you won. Winning and losing have nothing to do with being right or being wrong.

[rockrr]

Well, I might not say "Winning and losing have nothing to do with being right or being wrong" but I would say that right/wrong is incidental to win/loss. Otherwise how would one explain Obamination?!

[stand watie]

sadly, you are correct. lincoln's reputation (due to the hero worship of LEFTIST academia) is that of a saint.

the TRUTH is however that he was a "clay-footed, plaster saint", who was ANYTHING but decent/moral/honest. PLUS he was by the standards of ANY era, a stone racist & anti-semite.

in point of fact, he was about the same variety of POTUS as "wee willie klintoon" was. EITHER would say and/or do anything (no matter how immoral/dishonest) to GET AHEAD. ANYTHING!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

i'm sorry, but your argument (such as it is) is easily/accurately summed up in a single word: BILGE.

did you enjoy the LEFTIST/DAMNyankee kool aide???

free dixie,sw