Posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:10 AM PDT by SJackson
I will always stand by and defend my fellow Southerners also (Jews included, oy vey!).
All this moral relativism by liberal northerners makes me ill. If you guys hate the South so much, don't come here. Problem solved.
We do not need your moral and cultural pollution anyway.
I just got burned by friendly fire, you have me mistaken for Yankee scum. I assure you that I am on you side.
It depends on whether you want them to behave as a conquered nation with generations of resentment or as an ally and equal partner. I MUCH prefer the later.
Do you really think the union would NOT have not the war without the depravities which characterized Sherman's march?
And, by the way, I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents. I would rank only Washington, Jefferson and possibly Ronald Reagan ahead of him.
But I also think his two greatest mistakes were:
I would too, but it's a faulty premise. There would never be two self-sustaining nations. The south simply could not stand on its own. It lacked the infrastructure and the resolve to build the infrastructure necessary to provide for itself.
Besides - how much faith can one have in a confederacy built on the notion that when the times get rough the rough get going? If you base your culture on secession, why wouldn't you expect secession to be a permanency in your life?
Glad to see you calling it what it was, lest there be confusion about things.
I read his post and could not help but wonder if he is just stupid. I mean, his link supports the original article.
At the very least, the boy ain’t too bright.
And they know that the masses of american sheeple are awaking up (albeit too slowly for my taste) and are attempting to flood us with medical marijuana, shock TV, "green energy", the undocumented and "international law.
It feeling more like 1859 or 1935 than 2010 with each passing day. Look for the collapse of the dollar next year when or as a result of the new coming oil price shock. When the dollar is worth less than a dime and the truckers will no longer bring food to the cities, that is when the shooting will commence.
From your link:
And Grant himself did not mention Order No. 11 in his Memoirs. He deliberately omitted it, his son explained in a 1907 letter, because “that was a matter long past and best not referred to.”
LMAO! Memoirs ARE about “matters long past”. Don’t know about Grant, but his son was a moron.
“Also uttered by WT Sherman. The Human Torch.”
I’m not defending the man. I don’t know enough about the American Civil War. It was mentioned in Israel on about 1 page of a world history book. There was a picture of a Gatlin Gun.
All I remember is thinking the Gatlin Gun was really, really, cool.
I am merely commenting on the tactical efficacy of a scorched Earth strategy.
While you are correct that at the big-picture/political/money level, slavery was the issue...where Southerners get confused is at the individual soldier level. Lee for example, was against slavery, and freed all of his slaves before the war began...(contra Grant), however he strongly believed in states’ rights, so too, the majority of the soldiers who fought for the South were too poor to own slaves—hence they each had their own personal motivations for fighting, some noble, some not.
I find that the whole North/South debate on whether slavery or other issues were the cause of the conflict boils down to big-picture/political/money issues (of which slavery was it for the South...) verses individuals’ personal motivations for fighting (often simply “because the Yankees are coming...”) which really is an apples to oranges comparison.
Another complication is why did the NORTH go to war? It wasn’t to free slaves, as Lincoln had repeatedly said he would keep them enslaved IF IT WOULD PRESERVE THE UNION. So Northern motives at the big-picture/political/money were not all about freedom and idealism (as their descendants like to think) but rather were primarily just to preserve the union...for all kinds big-picture/political/money reasons.
As to individual Northern soldiers motivations? Of course some were fighting for freedom...some weren’t, there were all kinds of reasons for being there. But at the big-picture/political/money level, Lincoln and the North only pushed emancipation mid-war, when they saw they were losing...and they knew this new moral crusade would rejuvenate motivations.
As a Southerner, what convinced me that at the big-picture/political/money the reason the South separated was due to slavery, is the record of the various state-legislatures debates on secession. In every one, the debate centered around preserving slavery—which of course was a keystone in their economy at the time....so if you follow the money trail the truth comes out. Of course state legislatures’ votes, and individual soldiers’ motivations are two different things.
So too, follow the money trail in the North...and loss of union was bad news for Northern money...hence preserving the union was the highest priority, NOT freeing slaves. Noble motivations for abolition amidst certain soldiers...sure, but, so what?
This argument does not seem to apply very well to Japan and Germany, whose cities we burned without thinking about dallying on our way to unconditional surrender. The waring parties succede best post bellum when the victory is clear.
I'm sure that if Sherman was quoted saying, "The weather's nice today," you'd find a way to conceive that as a sinister statement of utter evil.
“You have been deluded by your upbringing which portrays slavery as the worst of all human conditions and uses it then as a justification for the destruction visited upon the southern States.”
It’s pretty darn close to the worse. The only difference between this and genocide is that at least those folks are dead right then, instead of having no stake in your own existence. To be bought a sold at some A-hole’s pleasure and profit.
Too bad the south allowed themselves to be lorded over by a power elite that moved events along to protect their little lifestyle. Maybe the whole affair could have been avoided.
An easy question: to enforce “justice, fairness, and the liberal way.”
Lee had mixed views on slavery, regarding that Peculiar Institution as a necessary evil and "the white mans burden". He did manumit his slaves but evidence suggests that it was more a matter of practical necessity rather than ideological bent.
U.S. Grant owned no slaves. Well that's not entirely true. He did purchase one slave from his FIL so that he could manumit him.
"I just got burned by friendly fire, you have me mistaken for Yankee scum. I assure you that I am on you side."I know that you're "my people". My ire is directed at the ignorant and hateful northerners on this thread, and in the world overall. It's as if they were raised with anti-Southern propaganda, and never made the effort to cure themselves of their ignorance as adults.
I hope you will accept my apology, FRIend.
No, that was Sheridan.
Powerfully clueless statement.
ML/NJ
"As to individual Northern soldiers motivations? Of course some were fighting for freedom...some weren’t, there were all kinds of reasons for being there"Wasn't there a draft in effect part way through the war?
It is a rare day that I agree with you, but this is it. Slavery was the primary, irreconsilable issue. Tariffs roads... were secondary. The proof, slave holding Whigs supported secession just like slaveholding Democrats.
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.