Posted on 04/27/2004 6:28:54 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:28:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Saddam Hussein's devilish practice of using human shields isn't exactly new. It was pioneered by an American, in fact, during the last year of the Civil War.
"Your officers, now in my hands, will be placed by me under your fire, as an act of retaliation," Union departmental commander Gen. John G. Foster wrote his Southern counterpart in an edict, and with that a sordid new standard was set in the conduct of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsleader.com ...
In our eyes, it was yesterday morning. My great-g-grandfather joined the Confederate army at age 56, was wounded, and never surrendered, and refused a pardon, because "those people" were coming to destroy everything his family spent 4 generations building.
They were "dirt farmers". The yankees raped the Black women, who could not escape to the swamps, stole all the food, and anything of value. (Which is probably why y'all have a problem with the Clintons stealing silver from the White House).
All that the yankees could not steal, they burned. The objective was to starve women, children, and old men. There is an island, off Edisto Beach, where the yankees starved 1,000 slaves, working for the United States government, because they were an "inconvenience".
If that were not enough, the yankees on the Federal Courts have made a mockery of the Southern "Bible Belt", by embracing abortion and sodomy, allowing perversion into schools, and banning our symbols.
There is a culture war. The Yankees embraced transencentalism, rationalism, and humanism, at the same time the South was experiencing a Christian revival.
When y'all yankees refer to us as the "Bible Belt", most of y'all are not being complementary.
We have a severe difference in our belief structure.
The North's use of "Human shields is no different than the former dictator, Saddam Hussein's use of "human shields". Lincoln is the moral equivilent of "Saddam Hussein". They have used the same methods.
The one schism, that I have found on Free Republic, is that between "Northern Republicans" and "Southern Republicans". It is almost as if, we were from different parties.
Keep in mind, my father held the first Republican Party meeting in Aiken County since 1866. He supported Bill Workman, and Floyd Spence. That was in 1962. Most of the "founders" of the Republican Party in the South, believed that the Party could be turned from the Socialistic ideas of Lincoln, and could become a voice for Freedom.
Even my father, as a "founder" of the Republican Party in South Carolina, has come to question the wisdom of his decision. We have given many statesmen to the Senate and Congress, but the party has left the "fundamental, Christian, Southern" foundations that they laid.
To answer the initial statement, "It may have been two centuries ago for you, but for us, it was yesterday".
The Republican Party has deserted the "Southern strategy", because they don't think that we have anywhere else to go.
I will promise you, there is an anger brewing in Dixie. David Beasley lost on one issue: The Confederate flag. For the first time since Reconstruction, a Democrat governor (and 36 Democratic legislators) lost office on one issue: the Confederate flag on the Ga. State flag). David Beasley(R.SC) faces protestors everywhere he speaks, because he tried to remove the Confederate flag from the State House dome. He has tried to marginalise his opposition, but they have hired airplanes with banners to oppose him. The money is coming from somewhere.
H.L. Meneken wrote that, "In the South, the past is not forgotten, it is not even past". We are like the Irish, and the Scots. We do not see conflicts in terms of months, or years, we consider it in generations. Lincoln and Sherman were the progenitors of a people that have carried the "War for Southern Independence" in their hearts for 160 years, with the same anger and fury as the Irish Republican Army (without the violence) or the Scots.
A University of North Carolina study found that 20% of Southerners (Suprisingly, more Black than White) thought that if the "South could find independence, without war with the united States, it would be better off".
Revolutions have been made of less.
So, don't talk to me about how it was two centuries ago. For us, that was yesterday morning.
One early Southern Nationalist told me three things, that have become true. First, he said that as "Southern Nationalism" grew, Southern artists would write songs, music, poems, in the traditional sense. He was right. If you are interested, Freep mail me, and I can refer you to a place to buy them. The second thing he predicted, is that, as "we grew in power and influence, politicians would come to us for support". He was correct, again. The third thing he predicted was, as the "Southern movement" grew, that there would be a "revival" of "Fundamental Christianity".
Until recently, I was skeptical of the link between "Southern Issues" and "Fundamental Christianity". However, as a result of my readings of the "Theological History of the United States", and the "South Under Siege, 1830-2000", I am convinced that the "political differences" that seperate the "Democratic North" and the "Republican South" are the product of two fundamentally different value systems. They can not be reconciled.
The frightening factor, is that the terms, "Republican" and "Democratic" have become alternate venues for the same action.
Both parties have become venues for Socialism, and slavery.
We Southrons are a little different. We send our sons, (and my son) to the Marine Corps. (I served in the USMC for 24 years). I was an Infantry Officer.
My son is an infantryman, in the USMC. My son's life is worth more than the Corporate interests of British Patrolium, or the interests of George W. Bush.
When I was a Marine Infantry Officer, we faced the possibility that they would invade Norway, or the Fulda Gap.
Now, it is a matter of "how much profit, can British Petrolium make per gallon of oil".
Like the Scots, and the Irish, we Southerners have obeyed "patriotism", and sent our sons to fight the wars of the "united States". My grandfather, the grandson of a Confederate soldier, fought in WWI. My father was a Ranger Company Commander in Korea. As a Marine, I saw friends die in Beruit, and I spent 24 years serving, "The Republic".
"The Republic" no longer exists.
I woke up one morning, after Bill Clinton got elected, and realised that the rest of the nation did not want the same type of government that I believed in. I seceeded.
Limited government, and the idea of liberty, is lost.
Only in Dixie, does the defiance to "secular humanism", and "unlimited government" exist.
You may not be Southern Born, but we have a name for you, and it is a good name. If you live in the North, and believe in limited government, then you are a "Copperhead". Join us on www.sclos.org.
Grace be with you.
Larry Salley
Those who make direct claims that aren't true are liars and you are a liar.
Actions speak louder than words, if the North actually were so against slavery, the proper course of action would be to set the example and end first in your own country, then you could begin to throw stones.
They were. While the north was ramping it down, the south vowed to perpetuate it.
As far as ramping down, slavery was being "ramped down" in the South.
No it wasn't.
As time passed the races were gaining more respect for each other, and the need and economic justification for slavery was on the wane. One has to remember that most people viewed the blacks as subcreatures when they first came off the slave ships as knuckle dragging savages. Then in a few generations the blacks reached the point of learning the 3 "R's", being christianized, and learning trades and business skills, and more or less being the equals, friends and business partners of whites. Had the first savages not been freed from their cages on the Ivory Coast and brought here, their descendants would have never had the chance to grow and have the opportunities they have here. They would have stayed slaves of some tyrrancical tribal chief and would only be able to pass ignorance to their progeny in perpetuity.
So you don't subscribe to the claims of other neoconfederates who say the northern ships that picked up the slaves were doing evil? They blame everything on the ships. (Both were immoral in my opinion, by the way, the ships and the owners.)
The point being is that by the time of the Civil War, slaves were allowed to use their trade and business skills to earn money that would eventually buy themselves or their chilldren out of slavery. Also, with advancing technology/machines the cost benefit dynamic to house and care for slaves vs just hiring and firing part time workers would shift as well. Slavery's days were numbered for all sorts of reasons.
Not according the the Declarations of Secession. The south vowed to perpetuate slavery.
as an aside, the importation of slaves to the USA ceased around 1830, however the greedy hypocritical racist northeastern slave operations continued the slave trade in South America till about 1870.
Yeah, they were just as bad as the plantation owners.
That is a laugh. His threat to end slavery prematurely is what caused the secession,...
What threat?
...then upon losing half the nation he offers to allow slavery to continue if the South would forgive and forget. Maybe Linkum had some issue that needed introspection as well. He takes on the slavery issue to point he "Dissolves the Union"...
He did? Where?
...then he says maybe I should not have made such an issue of it. Maybe John Kerry is related somewhere along the line. That is a major flip flop. Again Mr Hypocrite, "first remove the camel from your own eye, so you can see clearly how to remove the gnat from your brothers eye". If slavery were so evil Mr Linkum why not abolish it where you have control first, then you can better tell the South how to deal with it.
He did abolish slavery where he had control, in the south thanks to their stupid move of starting a war.
The fact that he was too cowardly to abolish slavery in his own State or nation speaks volumes.
First things first, the south seceded before he even took office.
He suspended the Constitution, imprisoned state legislators to prevent their voting on secession, jailed journalists who disagreed with him politically, seized assets of those who spoke against his policies, arbitralily waged against fellow States, etc. now maybe you would not call that dictatorial power, but again if it walks like a duck............
He detained traitors. Detaining traitors and possible traitors is in his job description. Becoming dictator and imposing law not related to the rebellion is not in his job description. It doesn't surprise me that you neoconfederates cannot see the difference.
There again your shallow, just parrot the CCN type logic reveals your true nature.
You are a liar.
If Linkum were like the abolitionist fringe, slavery would have been abolished the first day he took office.
He wasn't dictator.
Linkum just utilized the lunatic fringe to his political advantage as his "useful idiots", much the same as todays DemonRat party utilizes and exploits blacks as their "useful idiots".
The EP proves you wrong.
Linkums concern was power and serving his masters, not any morality. The reality is that Linkum was very similar to Clinton, both had worthless drunks for fathers, both were amoral , and both had talent in the use of language which helped in speechwriting.(See "Lincoln, the Man")
I don't read books by wackos. You are immoral for your false accusations.
In your opinion, as well as many on both sides opinions as well. However the Constitution had a proscribed procedure to change it.
The south chose not to take this route.
It is the amendment procedure, and if 75% of the States agree then an item is changed. However for some States to aid and abet the violation of one or more provisions on their own is another matter.
The south broke the Constitution for slavery.
Israelites not to enslave other Israelites, does not mandate not enslaving others.
Most blacks are Israelites in spirit.
Jesus did not mandate against the practice of slavery, in fact seemed quite comfortable with it. He only railed against the mistreatment of slaves not against the instituion. So the fringe element that is so opposed to slavery neeeds to take it up with God and Jesus.
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word says for Israelites not to enslave other Israelites. As of the crucifixion, anyone who believes in Jesus is an Israelite.
An amendment would take 75% of the States to ratify, the North did not have that super majority, especially when most of the Northerners despised and hate blacks worse the the South did.
Point being that despite anything Lincoln would've supported to save the union, it could've been changed later by amendment.
OK what was it, was he a "murderer" from Ft Pillow onward, or when he iniated the KKK or what?
Looks to me like that he was a murderous person all his life whether or not he ever committed murder before the Civil War. You don't suddenly murder hundreds at Fort Pillow, and then even after the War murder blacks and Republicans unless you have a mind for it. He reminds me of Al Capone. An intelligent guy who is also a murderous criminal and has no respect for his fellow man until right before death.
If was such a scoundrel then why he quit later, when he had a problem with the excessive lynchings.
Like I said, Al Capone regretted his murders in his last years also. You get close to meeting up with God, you start thinking of all the terrible things you've done I guess.
To me a leopard does not change its spots. Forrest was an honorable man the whole time,...
He was a racist murderer most of his life.
...and was also honorable when he formed the KKK in response to the pillaging, looting and oppression of reconstruction.
Lynching blacks and murdering Republicans simply for the way they vote is not honorable. It's not surprising that you see him as honorable as a neoconfederate when he has done so many things that are anti-American.
Later when the KKK became to bent on lynching blacks instead of the oppressors in general, being a man of honor after determining he could not change it, simply left.
He left when he knew that the government was going to come after the Klan if they kept up the murders and the undemocratic ways. Had he been honorable and the KKK been honorable, he would've rooted out the murderers, but since he was a murderer himself, he ran.
If you justify the above, then why is the killing of POW's so terrible?
POWs don't supply the armies.
We did it to the Germans during the Normandy action, and justified it with "we were too busy" to deal with POw's. maybe Forrest had similar "excuses".
The fact that he committed this atrocity only against blacks troops and their companions proves that he did it for racist reasons, not because of expediency.
What are you psychic? How do you know this?
They said so.
Thats why they followed their masters into battle, were captured by Union troops then came back south, and later served in the CSA.
It's all they knew. When the Siberian gulags were closed, some the slaves there stayed in the prisons also, it was all they knew. What a tragedy.
In addition they could have exacted vengeance on the home front as all men were gone, but chose to keep the home going. All victims of "under threat of death oppression"? Get real.
They were conditioned just as some of the gulag prisoners were. Don't forget the Underground Railroad ran north, there was a reason it ran north, obviously...freedom.
Finally some truth!
What do you mean "finally"? Who says any different?
Again that is your position and the same of many during the that time. However as previously pointed out if 75% of the States agreed it would be "complete". Till then it is complete and disoboedience only breeds anarchy, as someone else may disagree with another portion and so on.
Disobedience to unGodly laws in not "anarchy".
The States and some their elected leaders overtly aided and abetted same, and threatened more.
Good for them. Regardless, the states of the north kept with the Constitution.
The answer is this, Just follow the Constitution and the Founders principles, not the 10 planks of Marx.
Read the preamble. Obviously slavery is against the spirit of the Constitution.
I'll use my discernment to see if it's suspicious no matter what your source is. Most northerners fought to save the union, not to end slavery, and we have ugly people here even today, most of whom are Democrats. Individuals acts of cruelty by anyone would not surprise me. That's the trouble with neoconfederates, they will never admit that anything bad was ever done by anyone on their side. It's why nothing a neoconfederates says can be believed in some cases, they are so biased they're delusional.
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.