Posted on 07/23/2013 8:18:43 AM PDT by Bon of Babble
Rush Limbaugh would have sided with the confederacy during the Civil War, according to MSNBC analyst Dorian Warren.
Warren, a Columbia professor and fellow at the progressive Roosevelt Institute, explained that Limbaugh “represents the Confederacy. He would have been on that side that went to war around the question of slavery.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Have you read The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 ?No, the south fired on a federal battery and in addition was moving north to threaten Washington. The average soldier bought into the “states rights” lie to shed their blood to defend the right of a few to hold slaves.
If you read letters that confederates wrote home, you will find that they thought they were defending their homes.
Was not Sherman’s march to the sea an invasion where a
path of destruction was wrought that lasted for 100 years.
If you read letters that confederates wrote home, you will find that they thought they were defending their homes.
Was not Sherman’s march to the sea an invasion where a
path of destruction was wrought that lasted for 100 years.
Total revisionist BS. Read the Confederates reason for secession. Study the 30 year period before secession and see what issue drove division between the states.
Slavery was the only reason the Confederates had.
Abe Lincoln glorified the war as about preserving “The Union” as if “The Union” was some religious deity.
Religious deity? I doubt that. But it was Lincoln's sworn duty as President of the United States to preserve the Union and millions of people agreed with him, and were willing to fight and die to do so.
Sherman’s march was at the end of the war and at that point they may have been defending their homes but that’s unlikely since the bulk of them were far north of Georgia marching with Lee.
They surely thought that they were defending their homes because they early on bought into the propaganda that the yankees were weak and without the will to fight so early on they didn’t worry about any union invasion. They were fighting for the myth of states rights. They made the first moves and attempted to take Washington, that failed.
If it weren’t for a string of political, inept generals on the union side the rebellion might have been put down much earlier. Then there was McClelland, the southern sympathizer, the MacArthur of his time. It took a while for the north to finally figure out that they needed generals who would fight like Grant and Sherman.
Sherman’s “destruction” was vastly overplayed by the south. His path was necessarily very narrow since he left his supply train behind. The fires that burned Atlanta were mostly set by retreating confederates to deny the union any usable materials. When the union army entered Atlanta, it was already burning. I seem to recall that on the 100th anniversary of Sherman’s march there were magazine articles that noted how the “path of destruction” had been mostly rural and that the few cities affected had quickly recovered, by the beginning of the 20th century. In 1964, Atlanta and other southern cities were booming centers of commerce and had been for years. Certainly not 100 years to come back.
Lincoln’s sworn duty was to uphold The Constitution, not to ‘preserve the union’
The Constitution ALLOWS for States to secede
It does not say you must go to war to stop them
The war was about states’ rights, and slavery was the vehicle involved. That is all I am saying, it could have easily been some other reason the states wanted to secede, but they do have that right.
By contrast, for the insurrection, it was all about slavery from the first days.
At the end days, with shortages of manpower, they had a brief window to supplement the insurrection manpower by giving slaves their freedome and making soldiers of them. They didn’t do it.
“If slaves can make soldiers, then our entire theory of government is in error.”
Jeff Davis was the US senator responsible for butchering the statue on top of the Capital. It was originally going to have a Phrygian cap, an ancient symbol of liberty, refering to the Roman ceremony that freed a slave, touching him with a white rod (vindicating him) and granting him the cap of liberty.
Jeff Davis wasn’t about having a freed slave on top of the Capitol. He had it changed to a helmet of Minerva.
It would be a smear, if it what I said about the confederacy or its proponents was false.
If it is true, it isn’t a smear. It is just stating the facts.
It would have been, if he had, but it was a tax issue from the start.
The Constitution allows states to secede, by amendment, by federal law, or even by successful supreme court case.
It does not allow states to secede unilateraly. Rather, Article 3 of the constitution requires states to resolve controveries between them and the federal government at the Supreme Court.
Except that Roberts “made law” by rewriting Obamacare from the bench. That’s how it was passed as a tax.
The path of Sherman was narrow, his foraging parties relatively large to be able to defend themselves from Wheeler’s cavalry, and his destruction focused on larger plantations, because there a slave could always be found to reveal where foodstuffs were hidden. Sherman’s orders were to only burn houses if the were fired on from such houses.
By contrast, southern deserters moved in smaller groups, were able to range more widely, mostly ransacked smaller properties, burned them to hide the evidence of their crime, and were not accompanied by a reliable officer, so they were more able to indulge in rape and murder as well as theft.
Just as the southern partisans blame the burning of Atlanta on Sherman, despite fires set at the orders of pretended confederate general Hood that destroyed most of the town, they also blamed destruction and crimes wrought by southern deserters on Sherman’s bummers.
It was a tax from the start, and as such had to be initiated in the House. The Senate met that requirement by taking a bill on another subject, stripping everything out, and putting in the Obamacare parts.
That fact doesn’t detract from opposition to Obama care as bad, even very bad policy, which it is.
Those Damn Yankees ran the China Opium Trade too? Wow. Thanks for the history lesson. And all the years, I was under the impression that it was the British East India Company that had a monopoly on the Opium Trade with China.
Now you tell me it was really those rascally Yankees. The stuff you can learn from you neo-confederates is amazing. < / s>
Sherman’s march to the sea happened when Hood moved his forces away from Sherman, refusing to defend Georgia against him.
Hood was not about defending southern homes.
That is right, after Hood burned Atlanta, he refused to defend Georgia, and that opened up Georgia for Shermans march to Savanah and then through Sough Carolina.
Instead he took his army north to Tennesee where it was destroyed by Virginian US Army General Thomas.
What a shameful post. I hope the moderator hides your foolishness. Such racism as yours has no place here.
So that gives Roberts the right to rewrite it from the bench, or fix it, and not just throw it out ?
Today, they just play the race card from the opposite side of the deck than they played it 150 years ago. But they have always played the race card.
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.