Written by a yankee liberal. Full of more poop than a christmas goose.
Since yankee liberals HATE the South so much, then why not just go ahead a not oppose secession?
Hugo Chavez was a great humanitarian and saviour of the Venezuelan people. He died leaving a country that was greatly equalized with opportunity for all.
IF you want to know the truth about something—NEVER ask a twit professor of scatology masquerading as history. The people who actually were there, their families, the stakeholders.
Let’s take the logical conclusions from these “results”, and fast forward into the 1900’s and to today. You have buttinsky Progressive BS from the get go. And obamaumao is Abe Lincoln. Got news— he suuuure is. Statists of the World, Unite.
I generally agree with the thrust and tone of this post, but as far as pillaging goes, even Lee’s worst critics admit his army never caused any unnecessary harm or damage and never took more than they could use. They were driven by necessity, not wantonness. Sherman intended to inflict harm and damage to bring the Confederacy to its knees. The Confederate armies avoided contact with the Union forces as much as possible after Gettysburg, they were trying to wear down resolve in the North. Sherman and Grant’s strategy was to force the Confederate armies to confront them or face ruin. In the end they got both.
Even if all of this is true — and for the most part, it’s just revisionist bunk — the next Civil War WILL be about states’ rights. And if it’s about slavery, it will be about American citizens refusing to become slaves.
“For example, the Virginia Ratification Statement says:
“...the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...”” - BJ
So is it your position that under *some* circumstances Virginia has the right to unilaterally secede?
What about the claim that West Virginia is not a legitimate state, if Virginia was part of the USA when it was created?
In all wars there in a primary aggressor, and there is a loser of every war.
In the end, when it is the aggressor that loses the war, the sycophants for that loser will for generations attempt to whitewash the true actual history.
The fact is that that the Neo-Confederates are simply Revisionist Historians, equipped not with facts, but simply a catchy song and fading Stars & Bars mud flaps on an old Ford F-150 sitting on cinder blocks in front of a manufactured home.
I would like to bring to this thread’s discussion an interesting, to me at least, set of ideas presented by DeprogramLiberalism on another thread.
Commentators on this thread (BroJoeK’s)have referenced the dangers of the Democrat Party (and Liberalism).
DeprogramLiberalism has put forth some ideas which might actually be useful in reaching the low information voters.
It is not ideas they are worried about, but their fears. We must answer their fears and reclaim them to being able to conceive of living bravely and freely again, if I understand what DeprogramLiberalism has said. Please consider checking out those ideas.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2995389/posts
Usually there are two sides to a debate...
All in all, a fair analysis. One note on this statement:
“But the bottom line is this: in previous cases — i.e., the Whiskey Rebellion — once rebellion was defeated, rebels were all released or pardoned by the President of the United States.
And that pattern, first established by President Washington, was followed under Presidents Lincoln and Johnson.”
You are correct that confederates were released and pardoned after the civil war, for the most part. There were exceptions. One was Col. James Madison Bell, who was arrested and charged with treason for serving with the confederacy. He was tried at Ft. Smith, Arkansas in November of 1876, acted as his own attorney and was acquitted.
Now, this charge really didn’t come as a result of the war. It was all about property because Bell was a Cherokee Indian and the government was doing another land grab of Indian territory which Bell was fighting.
How’s that reconstruction thing workin’ out for ya?
I grew up in the North being told that the Confederacy was evil and they wanted to ruin the nation, and enslave blacks forever blah blah blah...
The more I studied the civil war and compared it to modern day politics the more I see parallels happening.
I’ve grown to question my belief of Lincoln, and who was really “right” regarding the war.
As I see states rights continue to erode to this day, I believe we are doomed to repeat history.
Details regarding #6:
The Battle At Big Bethel Church, Virginia - June 10, 1861
Pierce’s command, 7 regiments in all, were in nearly complete disorganization when they hit Magruder’s entrenched line.
During the confusion of the attack the 7th New York began firing in the Union rear and the Yankees withdrew to reorganize but never attacked again.
The Union lost 76 men.
The Confederates lost 8.
Both sides were Americans and that is all that matters.
Hell, our most famous General’s family fought for the South - i.e. the Pattons of Virginia. The irony is that the South (generally speaking) has become the last bastion of freedom against the encroaching and sinister effects of socialism seeping in from the rest of the country. Folks in the midwest and Intermountain West need to stand with the Southerners on this before the left and east coast pukes have us all in serivtude. Posts likes this only serve to divide otherwise conservatively similar people on FR. Of course I do not mean this as a slight on FR's founder, who hails from California.
Bless your heart.
there are remarkably few records of civilians murdered or raped ...the best known exceptions are Grant at Vicksburg and Sherman's "march to the sea". In both cases, their actions were crucial to victory.
You are calling THOUSANDS of civilian lives murdered an "exception" "crucial to victory."
In contrast there is one known civilian casualty due to Confederate forces (a farmer at Gettysburg).
There is no doubt in my mind that slavery is/was not good for anyone involved.
My question is, paraphrasing a Philadelphia mayor of the early 80s, “When is the debt paid up?”
BroJoeK.......
Bless your Heart!
We of the South really enjoy the warmth of your message. We are looking forward to setting down with you, sometime, to a fine “supper” of fried chicken. mashed taters, biscuits and sweet tea.
My parentage is Alabama and Pennsylvania. We gave up on fighting each other years ago. Maybe you should consider it today, as it is a beautiful SUNDAY!
Again, may I say , Bless your Heart!
So, you’re having a slow day?
Something that people always ignore when they open up these discussions are the economies involved and the reasons events occur. In the 19th Century, the north was a manufacturing economy. They had the raw materials necessary and the factories that enabled them to produce as much as they needed.
The south had an agricultural economy. Unlike the north, when the south needed to produce more food, they had to plant more land or obtain more cattle. If they plant more land, they need more hands to work the land.
Since there were no federal crop subsidies to enable farmers to be paid for crop losses, etc., southern farmers had few options to increase production and increase revenue.
We also forget that wages were incredibly low in those days. It was common that the average wage was around $10 to $20 per month. The farmers in those days lived on the edge of poverty. Any bad crop or bad season could spell the end for them. Without crop subsidies from the government (as they have today) and crop insurance, things were pretty tight.
The same was not true for the north. Manufacturers could increase production when necessary and, if the price of the raw materials increased, that price increase got passed along to the consumer, just as today.
But, there is another piece that the anti-slavery crowd ignores and that is that farmers were largely prohibited from raising prices without government permision. So, their hands were tied. To increase production they had to plant more land which took more hands. To increase prices, they had to get government permission.
In order to meet these requirements, they couldn’t afford to pay their field hands. If they did, the price of produce, even bread, would have skyrocketed beyond what anyone could afford.
So the only other option was slaves. Before I go any further, allow me to explain that I am neither condoning nor justifying slavery. My point is to explain why they were needed and why, when notherners began pushing for the abolition of slavery, the south felt threatened. Their very way of life and livelihood was being threatened. This is what brought us to secession and the whole Civil War.
It is also important to note that the Founders established the Constitution on the basis of the balance of power. The balance of power is visible throughout the Constitution including the 3 branches, different responsibilities, etc. While secession was not codified in the Constitution, it was acknowledged by several of the Founders in the Federalist Papers as another measure available to the states to maintain the balance of power against a strong central government.
The Second Amendment was about both defending the country as well as maintaining the balance of power so that the government would not be the only entity with the means to either defend the country or wage war. And, secession was another part of that balance of power.
History is great and I love history because it teaches us so much. However, you cannot study historical records in a vacuum, nor can you ignore the various stresses present on a society. When we read historical documents, we must read them in the context of the day, not as abstract things that say “x and such”. The documents often shed light on the WHAT of an historical event, but not the WHY. The WHY of an event is the reason that the historical document exists.
So, you may want to re- re- re- re- re-fight the Civil War ad infinitum on the basis of the historical records but, if you fail to understand the prevailing pressures of the day, you fail to understand what history has to teach us.
The north was fighting for a principle that history teaches us was, ultimately, the right one. However, they way they chose to go about it was the wrong approach. The south was fighting for its very life and, as biologists have long told us, the will to survive is the strongest will we have.
If you get to this point, you will undoubtedly blather on about how I am actually defending slavery and the south was just trying to maintain slavery because all southerners are inherently evil bastids. And, if you respond that way, we will not have had a civil discourse and, once again, another individual will have failed to learn what history has to teach us by taking events out of context.
Good article. Maybe it’s the “all” and “only” that sets some people off. The problem is that some states didn’t secede when it was all about slavery, but waited until war had already begun. I’d just say secession was about slavery and leave it at that.
Instead, secession (or "disunion") is always seen as a last resort, requiring mutual consent or material usurpations and oppression.
In other words, the Federal Government was not created as compact or contract between the states, but a legal framework ratified "by the people."
This claim will always seem absurd, since:
1. the constitution was ratified by the states 2. later states were not represented in it's formation
3. "the people" is an abstraction
4. Most important, it closes the door to secession in the future-- perhaps not that distantwhen it--or more practically its implicit threat--might be the last measure to forestall tyranny.
In other words, this reading will make it possible for the Federal Government to imprison or assassinate citizens it deems seditious, or mobilize the army against its own citizens-- (a violation of its own constitution.)