Posted on 01/09/2016 7:35:03 AM PST by soakncider
TRUE HISTORY OF THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE IN THIS AGE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS there has never been a greater need and greater opportunity to refresh our understanding of what happened in America in the years 1861-1865 and start defending our Southern forebears as strongly as they ought to be defended. There is plenty of true history available to us. It is our job to make it known. All the institutions of American society, including nearly all Southern institutions and leaders, are now doing their best to separate the Confederacy off from the rest of American history and push it into one dark little corner labelled "Slavery and Treason". Being taught at every level of the educational system is the official party line that everything good that we or anyone believe about our Confederate ancestors is a myth, and by myth they mean a pack of lies that Southerners thought up to excuse their evil deeds and defeat....
(Excerpt) Read more at shotwellpublishing.com ...
Ah yes, Stephens “Cornerstone Speech”. What a piece of .....er, work he was. A must read.
As far as he was concerned (only a few months after Lincoln’s Inaugural) the Confederacy had successfully separated, with not a drop of blood shed, a done deal, and a new nation created.
Then too we have his buddy Jeff Davis. Many years later of course, Jeff came around to the notion of “preserving the Union”. Funny thing, when he tried to justify his first strike at Sumter, he used the analogy of having a gun pointed at him, and of course he struck the arm down. Little did he know, and I don’t think he ever figured it out, the gun wasn’t loaded. The far greater intellect of Lincoln had “suckered” him.
Leftists are against states’ and individual rights. Leftists are for an all powerful federal government.
Because the North (at least the majority) didn’t care about slavery either- certainly not enough to go to war over it.
Let’s look at what the North did fight against - viciously. They absolutely fought against the expansion of slavery into the western states as much as they could get away with. Great, but why fight hard on that but not the other issues? Because it would act as a voting block against Northern interests when it came to other economic issues.
Finally, I think many were also concerned with what Lincoln would do. Lincoln was not above pulling some nasty political tricks to get his way. Instead of waiting and seeing, they acted rashly and seceded without adequate preparation. But don’t judge them too harshly. They and theirs paid a very high price for their mistake. And they could have turned to guerrilla warfare at the end, but didn’t.
States are governments. States are collectives. So being for "states rights" doesn't necessarily mean being for individual rights.
That abolition would have happened in due time - I'm convinced. The American people are always on route to the moral thing - when government steps in, it retards it, twists it, sometimes destroys it, and then claims credit for the idea of it.
Charles Murray shows a bunch of trend line comparisons of where blacks were before Civil Rights (by that I mean legislated civil rights, and not talking about the right to vote,) during, and after, in terms of poverty rates, education, income etc. When you look at those lines you see almost zero change (for better or worse,) sometimes a change for the worse. What we got out of government trying to push and control that natural process a lot of resentment and an excuse for an entire portion of a culture to fail and get paid to fail.
There is zero reason for blacks in the US to be in the shape they are. That culture left to develop on its own without the intervention of government, including had the end of slavery been allowed to occur in natural course, would probably be totally integrated, with no need for handouts, and not consistently re-enforcing whatever ideas today's bigots might have.
Their oppression would be seen just as any other oppression in the history of man, endured by whites and blacks and browns throughout, whenever the other side was stronger, but just most recently not whites ... as part of what man did throughout history to each other ... under the delusion that they were doing it to a separate species.
As Steyn says ... 'farce followed by farce followed by tragedy' ... that is man's history where governments are involved. What other philosophy is reasonable other than 'keep the damn thing as small as humanly possible and watch it like it's a rapist on parole on an all-nude teenage girl's beach.'
True, but leftists generally support the collective, or the hive, or the union, to the detriment of all else. They falsely believe they are doing good for individuals, but they are only repressing the many to enrich the few...i.e. slavery on steroids.
“The Southron revisionists are strongly Marxist in their analysis.”
Well, Non-Sequitur, you are banned once for your bigotry. Headed for it again.
Brilliant!
Your point is a good one, however federalism (real federalism, not what we have) with states rights allows people to vote with their feet.
I’m going to steal that Steyn quote! One issue is that on some things bigger is just better, eg armed forces. The benefit about a federal system (again a real federal system, not what we have) is that you can have a collective for things like defense, and keep the government that is more involved in local affairs at a smaller level. Even the military should be divided between states or regions where practical, but under one command when in a foreign war.
She’s nothing if not a drama queen.
Federalism, properly regarded and restrained, definitely has its merits.
My point wasn’t that the soldiers fought for money, but that nations and governments wage ware for economic interests.
"But even so, do you think that is justification for state-sponsored murder, destruction, dislocation, and persecution of millions of innocents?"
So much dishonesty in one sentence. What was "justified" was one segment of the union responding to another segment of the union instigating, initiating, and waging war against their fellow countrymen. There was plenty of racism to go around and I don't see that as a factor.
If not, do you still hold the smug opinion that northern armies were the heroes...
I haven't seen any posted hold that opinion, smugly or otherwise. The war was a bloody, ugly, violent affair. There were lots of villains and heroes on both sides.
The southern slavocracy certainly demanded the “states right” to own other human beings. They celebrated individual rights, well, except for...you know. And they were downright tyrannical about exerting and maintaining their control over the government. So much so that they tried to blow it up when it looked like their stranglehold on it was nearing the end.
Perhaps I made too many assumptions, but <1/1,000,000th% appeared to use Stephens’ racism as justification for the northerners’ campaign of total war against the South.
i don’t think it’s OK to kill innocent civilians, burn homes, crops, and cities in order to ‘liberate’ people. creating more misery and slavery to fight slavery seems counter-intuitive.
No Sir, it is a hard cover encyclopedia size book with an olive blank cover with the embossed eagle clutching 3 arrows in his righttalon and a shield in his left. The binder is blue and yes the narrative is by Bruce Catton.
My late next door neighbor was born in the 1890s and was from western NC.
He told me that his uncle sued the federal gov't for damages the Yankees did to his farm, and collected.
Do you think it’s OK to shoot back if someone is shooting at you?
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.