Posted on 09/22/2010 7:55:54 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Effective at yearend, all slaves in Confederate-controlled territory would be "forever free."
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Sorry pal, but facts are facts, and the fact is, the "Solid South" voted solidly for all all, not just some, of the great Liberal Progressive redistributionist socialist candidates for presidents -- from Wilson to Roosevelt to Stevenson and Carter.
Half the southern states even voted for Clinton in 1992 and one third of them voted for him again in 1996.
The striking exception was Goldwater over Johnson in 1964, for which the Deep South is to be hugely thanked and appreciated.
But with Southern redistributionists adding their political weight to our Northern socialists, the result was Northern conservatives got murdered politically, producing that disgusting creature we now call a RINO.
Naturally, every real conservative is delighted the South generally votes with us these days.
But don't try to josh us into thinking you were really for us, for that 100 years when you actually stood in fixed opposition.
Indeed from your tone of voice, sounds like you particularly are as opposed to us now as ever.
“By any standard of more modern warfare, both sides in the Civil War were absolute gentlemen, disciplined and well behaved, usually beyond reproach.”
Oh. Perhaps this was not taught to you?
The following does not sound like an “absolute gentlemen” but a psychotic killer;
“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”
“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.”
“Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of it’s roads, houses, and PEOPLE will cripple their military resources-.I can make the march, and make Georgia howl.” - Sherman
You end with:
“But if you study the first year, you’ll see it was entirely a “War of Southern Aggression” against the North.”
See above. And tell me please, in what northern cities was such savagery brought to bear?
Which northern cities were destroyed?
How many northern civilians died?
There were battles, not attempted Genocide and wanton slaughter and destruction.
I will close with that great northern warrior, Sherman;
“The young bloods of the South; sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will. War suits them. They are splendid riders, first rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace.”
He was of course making an observation about the KIA ratio of nearly 3 to 1 in the early going of the war. The north had twice the numbers, but until they worked their way down to the stick figures, old men and boys, didn’t even the numbers killed until the very end of the war.
No wonder he got so desperate. I doubt this would occur to anyone, but if the civil war was about ending slavery, and if it was so important to yankees, why on earth did they have to conscript so many, fight for so long, destroy so much and then leave us, to this very day, a deeply segregated population.
Especially in the north?
Let me guess. It was because of the South?
They were NORTHENERS."
In every election there is always one candidate offering more government and another offering at least somewhat less.
The bigger government candidate we call "liberal," and the smaller government candidate we call "conservative."
Now if you continuously voted for the ones offering bigger government, and never turn down the goodies they redistributed, how can you then blame those who'd offered less government for the results you don't like?
And in many past elections the South's solid vote for the more Liberal Progressive redistributionist Democrat candidates made the difference in their margins of victory.
By the way, some things to remember about Teddy Roosevelt -- our supposedly "Progressive Republican" President.
Teddy came to office in 1901 after his predecessor was assassinated.
Certainly by today's standards, TR was then a traditional small-government conservative.
As such, Roosevelt was reelected in 1904 by a landslide.
Roosevelt's later conversion to "Progressivism" happened after 1906 and was due somewhat to a series of big-business scandals.
As a "Progressive," Teddy advocated a progressive income-tax.
But he did not run for reelection in 1908, and when he did run again in 1912, he was defeated by the even more Progressive candidate, Woodrow Wilson -- who then got the progressive income-tax amendment enacted.
Progressive Wilson, of course, was solidly supported by the Solid South.
Point is: Teddy Roosevelt was never elected as a "Progressive", and when he ran as a Progressive he was defeated.
“Now if you continuously voted for the ones offering bigger government, and never turn down the goodies they redistributed, how can you then blame those who’d offered less government for the results you don’t like?”
Atlanta was shelled by Sherman for days after the Confederates evacuated the city and left it defenseless. Sherman ordered more and more artillery to be shipped to Atlanta, “with which we can pick out almost any house in the town,” he said. After the shelling stopped Sherman ordered the remaining surviving civilians to evacuate their homes just as winter approached and the land all around had been stripped of food by the army. The city was then burned. An “ocean of fire” covered the city, according to one Union officer, “leaving nothing but the smoldering ruins of this once beautiful city.”
“Point is: Teddy Roosevelt was never elected as a “Progressive”, and when he ran as a Progressive he was defeated.”
Funny. According to your earlier posts, Lincoln was not elected as a segregationist, but as an abolitionist.
Turned out he was neither. He was a usurper who destroyed the union of the founders, murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians (most generally acknowledged figures range from 50 to 100+ thousand), including thousands of slaves and free blacks, while stealing tens of millions of dollars of their private possessions ... for the purpose of ending slavery? Huh.
That must have been pretty hard to recover from, doncha think? You are still talking about a period of history in which many of the survivors were still living and trying to recover. Tragic, when you consider that other countries on earth ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century.
Is there a point in here? The South was decimated and didn’t truly rebuild until (historically) relatively recently. Why? I duntno, but it sure was a good thing that we killed all those folks, destroyed most of a culture and adulterated our society for more than a hundred yeas to get it done on the northern timeline and save a couple of decades of anguish. Kind of reminds me of that Dylan song about “when she died all her money came to me ... I can’t help it if I’m lucky!”
Why did the South disappoint you so badly with their voting habits to try to get on their feet after all that brutality, theft and mayhem?
Shiftless, probably. You know how we are.
Can you cite reliable numbers on how many Southern civilians were murdered by Northern forces?
Was it hundreds of thousands? Or millions? Or tens of millions such as the Second World War?
No, the number was minuscule, so we are talking about a very different reality than 20th century warfare.
It's certainly true that Sherman's troops burned some barns and stole some pigs, but that was late in 1864, near the end of the war.
Southern forces also burned some barns and stole some pigs, when they went out and about.
Indeed, overall it must be that Southerners stole more pigs (and not just from Unionists) than Northerners because the South's logistics were far less effective or reliable than the North's.
Point is: Sherman's words, however harsh, did not correspond to a reality that in any way compared to typical 20th century warfare.
jessduntno: "No wonder he got so desperate. I doubt this would occur to anyone, but if the civil war was about ending slavery, and if it was so important to yankees, why on earth did they have to conscript so many, fight for so long, destroy so much and then leave us, to this very day, a deeply segregated population."
The Civil War was fought first and foremost because the South wanted it -- for two reasons:
The South therefore determined to provoke a war by attacking and seizing Federal property, the last straw being Fort Sumter in April 1861.
So the North fought first to preserve the legal Union, not to free any slaves.
But freedom for slaves soon became an issue when Northern commanders controlled slave-owners' property. What was to be done?
Well, by longstanding law such slaves could be freed, and this happened on a piecemeal basis until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam Battle in September 1862.
“By any standard of more modern warfare, both sides in the Civil War were absolute gentlemen, disciplined and well behaved, usually beyond reproach...But if you study the first year, you’ll see it was entirely a “War of Southern Aggression” against the North.”
Which northern cities were destroyed?
How many northern civilians died?
More or less than the estimated 50-100,000 Southern souls that were sent to their rewards at the hands of these northern “gentlemen?”
“It’s certainly true that Sherman’s troops burned some barns and stole some pigs, but that was late in 1864, near the end of the war.”
I’ll pretend you didn’t say this, for all of our benefit. This kind of nastiness is beneath contempt and certainly deserves no answer, Mike.
Cite a reliable source based on a serious study.
You say 50 to 100,000. I doubt if anyone can name more than 50 individual innocent civilians murdered by northern forces in the South.
Can you name even 50?
jessduntno: "I’ll pretend you didn’t say this, for all of our benefit. This kind of nastiness is beneath contempt and certainly deserves no answer, Mike.
The fact is that Southern forces also stole pigs and burned barns. They even on occasion burned down whole towns -- Chambersburg, Pennsylvania comes to mind.
Point is not that all those soldiers were either angels or devils, only that the civilian death and destruction they caused was far less than we saw in many 20th century wars.
You misunderstand -- I'm not "disappointed" the South voted for Liberal Progressive Democrats in many past elections.
I'm only a bit concerned that we not blindly accept some Southerners' claim now that they have always been "more conservative than thou."
Because it jess ain't so, pal.
No one here is criticizing you for the fact that Southerners often voted for Liberl Progressive redistributionist socialistic Democrats in the past.
We just don't like hearing a lot of nonsense about how the South has always been "more conservative than thou."
You're not, so cut it out.
Most informative posts BroJoeK, great work. ;-)
“I guess for a proper tally of Sherman’s victims we could organize a “let’s count civilian tombstones field trip”, to search for those dating from Uncle Billy’s neighborhood romps.”
I’ve seen as low as:
McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (1988)
* Northern: 360,000
* Confederacy: 260,000
* TOTAL: 620,000
* Civilians: 50,000
To as high as;
The 1860 U.S. population was 31,443,321.
During the 4 years of the Civil War (April 1861-April 1865), approximately 970,000 Americans died (620,000 military and 350,000 civilians) – or just over 3% of the 1860 population. - National Review
These, of course, will be dismissed as “not reputable sources” I am sure.
Good Lord, I hadn’t seen this. Knew it had to be high, but didn’t know if an actual estimate had been made. How horrible.
Thank you for posting this information.
“Actually no one will ever know the true numbers for like all criminals, Billy did his work in secret under the cloak of darkness, letting his bummers do his dirty work for him. What evidence he didn’t have burned, he destroyed it with lies.”
Well, the other problem is that there were so many unreported deaths that were caused by starvation, exposure, untreated beatings and rapes, internal bleeding gone untreated or diagnosed, illnesses untreated because of the lack of medical help, lack of medicine or bandages that it’s really hard to put a number on it. A relatively small or seemingly innocous “warning” from the invasion forces could have easily caused a delayed death.
I’m going to bet, though, it is in the middle range of that 100-300 thousand mark that has been published for some time. It stands to reason. The mass executions or family slaughters probably are rare, I am not of the opinion that they were chronic and happened at all points of the war, but I do believe it happened more frequently than most will admit and from the beginning and probably a small tip of a huge iceberg. What really gives away how big a number it is, is the non-reporting of it, because...
...if the actual numbers were as small as the invasion forces or as few as northern historians wanted you to believe, they would trumpet it. The Southern sources are discounted and only God knows what truly happened out there, but I suspect it lies somewhere in the middle, like I said.
But bless their pointy little heads, some of these northerners on here are still clinging to the notion of few deaths and gentlemanly behavior by the north. It has been most illuminating that adults could look at the carnage and believe in the “officers and Gentlemen” lie, but history is stubborn and more is revealed each day. Publish letters in Sherman’s own hand and the response is, “who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”
It’s pretty sad.
Sorry pal, but what you're posting is half truths and flat lies.
But with Southern redistributionists adding their political weight to our Northern socialists,
You're speaking of the black segment of the population, right? The segment that is loyal to their yankee masters?
Naturally, every real conservative is delighted the South generally votes with us these days.
That statement is just dripping with yankee arrogance. You damn fool, if it wasn't for the South you yankees would be full blown commies.
Try to answer this question honestly: Since the South is so bad and full of redistributionists and commies, wouldn't you rather just cut us loose?
But don't try to josh us into thinking you were really for us, for that 100 years when you actually stood in fixed opposition.
Do you mean the type of opposition where our Southern grandfathers, fathers, uncles, brothers signed up in the hundreds of thousands to go fight in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, etc?
Indeed from your tone of voice, sounds like you particularly are as opposed to us now as ever.
Indeed I am. And from the arrogant and elitist tone of your replies, in addition to the buffoonish attempt to misrepresent historical facts on this thread, it shouldn't be difficult to understand why.
Free Dixie!
"I’m going to bet, though, it is in the middle range of that 100-300 thousand mark that has been published for some time. It stands to reason.
The mass executions or family slaughters probably are rare,"
Remeber, my challenge was, name 50 innocent Southern civilians murdered by Northern troops.
And so far, you haven't named 50, you haven't even named one.
Did I make it too hard for you?
You might consider that in 1860, the Deep and Upper South's population was about 6 million free.
Then given an average longevity in those days of maybe 40 years, in any given year around 150,000 would die of more-or-less natural causes.
So over the four years from 1861 to 1865 around 600,000 Southerners, of all ages but mostly "elderly," would have died normally.
Did an extra 50,000 to 100,000 die early from disruptions and diseases of war?
Possibly -- if someone did a serious study, and arrived at valid supported conclusions to that effect, I would not be so surprised.
But I also know there is a strong tendency in wartime to exaggerate atrocities for political purposes.
Perhaps the classic example being the bombing of Dresden in WWII, where the actual count by Germans on the ground was circa 25,000 dead.
Since this number didn't suit the propaganda ministry, they added a zero, making it 250,000 and some people believe the 250,000 number to this day.
Of course I'm not claiming that Southerners would ever exaggerate anything for political purposes -- heaven forfend!
But the old Ronald Reagan policy of "trust but verify" would seem to apply here. ;-)
However, our issue is not how many additional died as a consequence of war, but rather, how many innocents did armies of the North and South murder and rape as they fought each other?
The real answer: hardly any to speak of.
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.