Posted on 06/23/2013 5:55:07 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
“No, I don’t hate southerners. Perhaps as a southerner you feel entitled to tell me who I must or must not hate. You don’t have that authority either.”
Your own comment betray that BS line. You pound on the South like they were he only ones guilty of slavery, why is that? Why is it that you pick the year 1860 to judge an entire half of the nation and not the entire history of slavery which would also condemn the northern States? Why is that? Are you a northern liberal? Is that it? You certainly post like one. Walks like a duck...
“When I threw my barbeque parties in Texas,”
Carpetbagger, nothing more.
I pick 1860 because that was the year picked by South Carolina to decide that rather than following the law, they would seek division, pretended secession, and ultimately (in 1861) war rather than accept that their slave investment was about to get less valuable.
Ask the Insurrectionists why they chose 1860.
Seems like you disagree with Grant and Eisenhower. You are losing historical friends fast.
So is it that you didn’t read my post 339 or you can’t read post 339?
You lost cause losers are very amusing. If I live in CA, I must be liberal. When I lived in Texas, then I must have been a carpetbagger.
The fact is, my wife went to school at Baylor School of Medicine. I went there, and took a significant pay cut, to work an important military project. After 9/11 I got other opportunities for other projects.
Color me an aerospace gypsy, if you will. I have degrees from schools in CA, AZ, MO, and attended schools in NY along the way. Robert E. Lee also attended a school in NY, and worked in MO TX and MI as well as NY. So was he a carpetbagger?
Reading Donmeaker’s posts, with his single minded one note holier than though attitude, You see now why our Southern boys signed up 1861 in droves to kill the bastards. They have to be killed to get them to make sense.
I don’t think so. I disagree with your cherry picked quotes from them, not with the men themselves.
Certainly each of them made mistakes. Kaye Summersby being one of Eisenhower’s mistakes and the second attack at Cold Harbor being one of Grants.
And again, neither was trained as a lawyer. As a military man there is much to find admirable in Lee.
As a military politician and bureaucrat there is much admirable in Eisenhower. He was the guy Marshall sent to Britain as part of the forward party, and did such a good job that Marshall never felt the need to move forward to take command. Quite a fellow. If you would like to read a rather sad criticism of Eisenhower, try “Conscience of a Conservative” by Barry Goldwater. My copy is autographed, so no, I won’t lend it to you.
Grant was right about many things. He said that the southern men fought with admirable courage, but for the worst cause ever.
The southern soldiers were a large conscript mass. They deserted in droves, and were shot down by their officers for slight provocation.
Once a slave driver, always a slave driver, eh General Lee?
I think I see the problem: You just don’t care for virtue.
Perhaps someday you will, and I will morn the ills done to you by men without virtue until you learn its value.
“The southern soldiers were a large conscript mass. They deserted in droves, and were shot down by their officers for slight provocation.
Once a slave driver, always a slave driver, eh General Lee?
“
Just more of your anti-southern bullsh*t, liberal. You can’t seem to make up the lies fast enough. Since you hate the south so much, why are you so concerned that Lincoln keep them in the union? Hmmm? No need to twist yourself in knots trying to answer that, the very nature of a bigot is that he says two opposing statements at the same time.
“Virtue”? You don’t know virtue. There isn’t a couth bone in your liberal body.
Non-sequitur answer. You are a liberal if there ever was one. Bigots never make sense; it is a primary definition of a bigot. You claim to hate the south for slavery even when the rest of country had slavery and participated in it, but, yet, you pick the south to hate. Another trait of a bigot; illogical reasoning in their hatred.
You should seek professional help for your mental idiocy. You liberals never make sense.
Still playing footsie with the morons, eh Don? LOL
You claim I hate the south. I claim to hate slavery. i also hate those who would make a war to further and extend slavery.
I have the greatest appreciation for the south and for southerners. In particular on my list of the three greatest generals of the civil war in position number three is General Thomas, from Virginia. I place him after Grant and Sherman. Grant appreciated the fighting qualities of southern men too, citing 40 regiments of southern men who fought for the US. Sherman had an Alabama cavalry unit provide local security as he toured Georgia with his army.
Again, read more carefully my post 339 that I wrote just for you. You will note in some cases that I am more critical of the slave trade than of the slave drivers.
These posts tend to be about Lincoln, or other events from the War of the great Rebellion. At that time, the events of the legal trans Atlantic slave trade was a fairly distant memory. That is why I don’t focus on the trans Atlantic slave trade, rather I focus on the active slave trade that took place more close to that time, such as that engaged in by Bedford Forrest, Lee, Davis, and Jackson.
Try me on a D of I thread.
At least I am not playing AS a moron. They give me an excuse to look things up, and I then push my results onto my children as I home school, so it isn’t a complete waste.
“Never wrestle in the mud with a pig. The pig likes it, drags you down to his level, and beats you with experience.”
The trick to winning is not to let them drag me down to their level.
I remember Non-Sequiteur. NS was a friend of mine. I am no NS.
Actually being opposed to the shooting down of southern soldiers by their pretended slave power officers would be a pro-southern and pro southern soldier position.
If you disagree, I hope the ghosts of the men so murdered let you sleep.
They were in the Union because of their accession to the US constitution, their accession to the Declaration of Independence, their accession to the Articles of Confederation, their accession to the Constitution, for the original states.
For the newer states, they were in the Union as part of their local government seeking and accepting the position of States in the Union.
If the southern states wanted to change that, then there were legal options. They just didn’t pursue them, and so remained part of the US, though by their insurrection, lost legitimacy until the insurrection was resolved.
I do confess, I am opposed to illegal combinations that criminally obstruct legitimate government activities. You and I may differ on what are legitimate government activities, but gently suggest that we might agree in ways that would surprise you.
I try to compensate for the errors in your spittle flecked rant and rage with facts, good humor and good will.
You are making it difficult, I will grant you that. Except for the facts part. That part is easy and available to anyone.
You know why there are no gambling casinos in Africa?
Too many Cheetahs.
You self delude fool, there in NOTHING you can teach me about anything.
And I post this for the second time:
"We could not and ought not to be rigidly bound by the rules laid down under circumstances so different for emergencies so utterly unanticipated. The fathers themselves would have been the first to declare that their prerogatives were not irrevocable. They would surely have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed." -- Ulysses S. Grant, Chapter 16: Discussing Secession, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant
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.