Posted on 07/22/2002 12:30:48 PM PDT by Aurelius
I occasionally get some rather rude e-mail from those with a deep-rooted Yankee mentality in regard to my little web site. Usually the writer informs me, rather contemptuously that my web site is all wet, that it stinks, that the War of Northern Aggression was really fought to preserve slavery, that I am totally in error about Abraham Lincoln, who, in the writer's opinion, is really god, and on it goes. 'Those people' never offer historical argument to back up what they say [they can't] but they are quite accomplished at ridiculing others when they, themselves, don't have a clue about the historical accuracy of anything. No doubt many of them are cultural marxists and don't even realize it. But, then, no one has ever accused those with a Yankee mentality of being over-endowed with discernment. Let me say here, that when I refer to the Yankee mindset, I am not offering a blanket condemnation of all Northern folks, else I would also condemn myself. I know lots of good Northerners who would cringe at being thought of as Yankees, and I know some Southerners who, unfortunately, fit perfectly into the Yankee mold. What I am talking about has no connection whatever with where you were born.
I got a rather nice e-mail recently from a Southern-born Yankee type who crudely informed me that "Lincoln was right and J W. Booth, and R. E. Lee and Jeff Davis and the rest of the gang were murderers who all deserved to be hanged." You can really tell that this character did his homework - what historical insight! He then went on to inform me that he was a white man born in the South but was, "thankfully educated in California." Folks, I submit, that anyone today who is thankful for having been 'educated' in California the way this man seems to have been 'educated' is just not the brightest light in the harbor. He then informed me, in his infinite wisdom that I should 'get a life' beyond my web site and 'grow a brain.' He closed his tirade with the statement that Lincoln was the last of the good Republicans, and his parting salutation was 'Long live Bill Clinton.' Usually I don't bother replying to such sanctimonious drivel, but, in this man's case I made an exception. I e-mailed him back and told him that if people such as he didn't like my web site then I must be doing something right. I suppose I should have ended my reply to him with 'Have a nice day' but, for some unknown reason, I didn't bother to.
This individual is a perfect example of the Yankee mindset - smug, self-satisfied, egotistical, and totally ensconced within a sense of their own perfect rightness in all things and on all issues. Anyone daring to disagree with them has to be berated because 'those people' have got it all figured out - after all, their 'teachers' and 'college professors' dutifully informed them that the war was all about slavery and that Lincoln freed all the slaves, and the 'history' professor wouldn't lie - would he? Lincoln must be more astute than Jesus Christ because, after all, Lincoln came along more recently on the evolutionary scale didn't he?
I have had people that checked out my web site and disagreed with something they saw on it. Often they have contacted me and have been courteous enough to voice their opinions in a civil manner. Others have offered constructive criticism, which was all right, because I took it in the spirit in which it was given. I had a black man once that read one of my articles and took exception to it, stating that he was a Christian. I contacted him back, informing him that I was also a Christian and with Christian charity, I sought to correct the misconception that he had. Once he understood where I was coming from we were able to carry on a dialogue with no bad feeling on either side. Some folks will check out the site and come back with genuine questions about something. That's fine. I answer what I can historically [unlike the Yankees, I don't claim to have all the answers about everything] and I often try to pass these folks on to someone else that knows more than I do.
But there is a certain class of Yankees - often well 'educated' that are just so superior to the rest of us 'great unwashed' that they don't even feel the need to attempt courtesy. They howl about us 'rednecks' and what we write and tell us to 'get a life' yet the sum total of their 'life' seems to be wrapped up in demeaning those who dare to disagree with their vaunted opinions.
A while back, Professor Clyde Wilson wrote an excellent article in Southern Partisan magazine called The Yankee Problem in America. In it Professor Wilson took on such Yankee paragons or 'virtue' as Ted Kennedy, the man who never learned to drive over a bridge straight, and St. Hillary Clinton of 'Cattle Futures' fame. Wilson described such people as smug, self-righteous, above the rules the rest of us live by, and completely convinced that they are right in all things - right enough that they deserve the privilege of telling the rest of us how to live - all for 'our own good' of course [and just maybe for their profit.]
There is no place in the Yankee mindset for grace, courtesy, compassion, consideration of the feelings of others, or for any of those Scriptural virtues that have graced and improved our civilization in the past. The Yankee knows only complete self-righteousness and, in that self-righteousness he exhibits a certain perverse pleasure in seeking to trample on the feelings of those who dare to disagree with his elevated opinions. In most cases, the Yankee understanding of accurate history is about an inch deep, and therefore, he becomes little more than a 'useful idiot' that the cultural Marxist professor that 'educated' him can turn loose on the world for the total benefit of the New World Order.
As anticipated, you are projecting again in order to hide and compensate for your inability to engage in coherent communication. It's actually somewhat pitiful to watch you post here. Oh well. Can't say I didn't try to help you!
You claimed that your Hitler quote made your point that states have sovereignty, or 'states rights'. It doesn't.
Uh, no. I don't believe I ever did anything of the sort. I did claim the Hitler quote takes an argument along the lines of the pro-yankee position about the alleged permanence of the union and its creation.
I refuted your point with an observation on the constitution.
No. Not really. You proclaimed Hitler correct by yourself on a whim, appealed to an anonymous authority to agree with that claim, then posted a little statement about the constitution that did not adequitely substantiate or deny anything being said.
You agreed, at first, that my point is correct in regard to the constitution.
No. I agreed on the noted contingency - the position I have consistently held ever since.
The fact remains that my constitutional point is correct.
Then you should be able to demonstrate this. Seeing as you have not and since you refuse to do so, I may reject it in a word and declare you to have lost this argument. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Regards....I was on vacation and lately the market threads have occupied me.
I love how everyone blames us for LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. Folks need to remember that we here in the South have Black populations approaching 40% in many states and they will vote large and overwhelmingly Dem. Whites in the South have to more or less match the monolithic pattern of black voting in an opposite fashion to insure a Pubbie carrying the state. No doubt these scalawags were borne of the South but the black vote got them the electoral votes from here. It took white liberal votes in the blue zones to make it a fait accompli.
No the only pattern you sense here is your lack of understanding of the subject. The quotes you give were from Kneflers service under Wallace at Shiloh in April 1864. I have given references which show Knefler held regimental and brigade commands under Sherman two years later. Your error is what seems to be your insistance that Knefler served under Wallace and nobody else.
"Battles and Leaders of the Civil War" is no 'coffee table book'. It's four volumes of history, mostly written by the men who were there. I would suggest that you try reading it some time, or any other serious history of the time for that matter. You might learn something.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever run across any confederate regimental or brigade leaders? Just curious.
In # 276 you said it WAS decisive. Please try and keep your lies straight.
Walt
Operations by Grant and Sherman should always have been the main focus of the so-called CSA.
I don't think any reflecting person will disagree with the idea that the so-called CSA needed to use its advantages of interior lines. As Non-Sequitur points out, Texas was isolated from the rest of the insurgent area.
The -best- strategy of Davis and his minions was to fight a defensive war and react to federal incursions as they came. This would have best been done by mantaining forces in the interior of the insurgent area. Texas was on the periphery.
The rebels had what they wanted at least briefly: territorial integrity. The federals had to come to them. And the vital areas for the so-called CSA were Georgia and the Shenandoah valley. If those areas remained productive, the so-called CSA could have continued the war indefinitely. If your Texans had been with Hood instead of being on the Red River or wherever, the rebels might have been able to hold Atlanta through the November election. Had Lincoln lost that election, probably independence was assured for the rebels. But that didn't happen. Jefferson Davis' policy (such as it was -- no grand strategy was ever enunciated by the rebels so far as I know) was to defend all the states equally, which meant that nothing would be defended adequately.
You weird seque into all this reminds me of the 2000 Tennessee/Florida game. UT led in all the stastical categories and ran up and down the field on the Gators, but the Gators pushed over the winning TD with 14 seconds left. We lost. That is the bottom, line. The fact that UT led in all the stats doesn't matter more than a hill of beans, and neither do all these tactical victories in Texas that you keep harping on.
Walt
Wilson won by carrying the "solid south", which every Rat did for 100 years. Mind-numb straight Democrat voters. If they had allowed blacks to vote in Dixie in 1912, things likely would have been different. Maybe no WWI --- Think about that for a while while you're whistling about how perfect Dixie is.
Here's the results --- the darker red, the higher percent of Wilson votes. The only states he got more than 50% were in the "Freedome Loving" Jim Crow south!
That's nice and all but you are still avoiding the issue of the far west theater.
As Non-Sequitur points out, Texas was isolated from the rest of the insurgent area.
And as I am pointing out, that isolation AND defense from federal assaults allowed Texas to perform a role that was advantageous to the confederacy at little cost.
Like it or not it happened and it was a major embarrassment for the yankees. You seek to avoid that embarrassment, arguably one of your worst and most thorough in the war, by downplaying and ignoring its existence. That does not make it go away though, which is why I bring it up.
I have said my position before and will say it again - The battle of Antietam itself was a military draw. It was decisive in the sense that had the confederates won it they very well may have won the war, just as potentially could have happened with Gettysburg. More immediately they could have gotten European recognition. If you take issue with that position, please say why. Otherwise I may conclude by your evasion and fibbing that you are unable to carry out this debate any further.
The sailors didn't ammount to 20,000, but were nevertheless sizable. I've read that the Red River fleet was the largest river assault fleet assembled in the war by the yankees. It had over 50 ships total including over a dozen ironclads and several gunboats. The rest of the number seems to come from Steele or possibly other commands you may be missing. Take a look at that link I gave you. They give the 45,000 figure and do a rough breakdown of several of the commands.
Really? Cause I seem to remember the march on Little Rock to have taken place in October 1863. The Camden expedition and push on Shreveport were in 1864, causing action in both LA and AR. The Price expedition into Missouri was in 1864, largely coming out of Arkansas. Pea Ridge was 1862, but the lengthy Arkansas campaigns came after that. Louisiana can be broken up by the New Orleans operations, the confederate attempts to regain areas lost near Baton Rouge, and the Shreveport and northern fights. In other words, you are incorrect to say there was little to do after in either 1862 as quite the contrary is true. New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Memephis all fell in 1862.
Sure they did, but that didn't stop confederate forces from attempting to regain ground or from defending their positions elsewhere. The LA capital moved to Shreveport after Baton Rouge fell, prompting federal expeditions to take it. Practically every action that occured in the northern part of the state was after 1863.
Little Rock fell in 1863.
Yeah, in October.
Even Red River didn't start out too badly. The Union beat the confederates at Fort De Russy, at Pleasant Hill, at Monett's Ferry and Yellow Bayou. If Banks hadn't run his boats too far up the river then it might have turned out different.
Not entirely. The problems with shallow waters occured mostly on the way back. They almost had to ditch several ships because of it - they'd come across a low spot, have to build a temporary dam to raise the level, and confederates would come along the side and start shooting at the stranded boats. Red River went bad for Banks when he was defeated at Mansfield before he could ever get to Shreveport or to Texas.
I seriously doubt it. Most of the shops are down here, the shells are built down here, the engines are built down here(well the parts are more than likely from shops in California, but as they said in Days of Thunder, if you're from California you're not really anything
NASCAR? LOL! In California, we built some of the most sophisticated space craft known to mankind.
Here on the west coast, not to many are impressed with cars going in circles at 180 mile an hour. Now sending a space craft into space and reaching 27 miles a second, does have a tendency to impress us. While some folks in the south play with toys, many here have left the ol south in the dust of the past.
Thanks to your frequent production of it, of course.
Thanks once again for proving yourself unable to respond in common english.
To the contrary. Thank you once again for demonstrating your inability to address with your communication deficiencies by attempting to project your learning problems onto others. And you accuse me of failing to admit when I am wrong? Go figure.
We had a similar situation in Houston during our last election. Despite claims that it isn't by the media and Democrats, I believe Houston proper is a conservative city.
This is demonstrated in our city council. The seats are officially non-partisan, but openly affiliated conservative Republicans safely hold 5 district seats out of 9 and 2 at large seats out of 5 for a total of 7 seats out of 14. The remaining 4 district seats are all minority liberal Democrats. The remaining 3 at large seats are all Democrats, two of them liberals and one a moderate. Additionally the only reason they have 3 instead of 2 at large seats is because we shot ourselves in the foot a few election cycles back when one of the at large seats opened up because half a dozen republicans jumped in and chopped up the GOP vote needed to make the runoff.
I also believe that conservatives would easily hold another district seat if the districts were not absurdly gerrymandered to favor liberal Democrats. Case in point - there are two strong reliably conservative regions of the city on the far north and far south sides with democrat ghettos in between. They are both in the same council district connected by about 30 miles of drainage ditch running in between them and nothing else, because if they were geographically attached to the areas next to them the Democrats would lose at least one seat.
Anyway, strictly speaking the city has a slight conservative majority in it on a given city election. But our mayor is a liberal Democrat - Lee P. Brown. The only reason he is mayor is because he enjoys nearly 97% unanimous support from the blacks (blacks are about 25% of the city population) . A conservative Republican barely lost to him in the last election. We got about 65% of the white vote and over 70% of the hispanic vote. In any normal election anywhere else, that would have been enough to give us a landslide victory. But Brown mobilized the blacks by running "Hate Crimes" scare commercials with James Byrd's DNC prostitute daughter. They came out in unprecedented numbers, voted 97% for Brown, and gave us a mayor the rest of the city did not want by a clear majority (Brown also aided his cause by campaigning to blacks outside the city limits - over a thousand of them who did not even live in the city and were not entitled to vote drove in on election day and were permitted to cast ballots by corrupt democrat poll workers).
Now does that mean Houston is a left wing craphole because we've got a democrat kook mayor? Despite Lee Brown's concentrated efforts to turn it into one, heck no. Compared to the urban crime cesspools of yankeeland, we're about as good of as you can get these days. The same goes for the south.
You cite some of the Southern states' references to slavery in their Declarations of Independence as if that in some way justifies Lincoln's war. In fact, it was treasonous to interfere with a STATE's 10th Amendment right to decide about slavery, especially after the 1857 Dred Scott decision, just as a State today has a right to decide about abortion, even though it has been unjustly taken away by Roe V Wade - the antithesis of Dred Scott. A violation of the 10th Amendment, by the Yankees, was the only treason that occured c. 1861.
A voluntary Union is a more perfect Union.
Your boys had to destroy the States, in order to save the Union of -- well-- whatever those things were.
Do you still think that Blacks can't be responsible? You leaped to that conclusion a while back when responding to one of my posts. I said that justice in the (CSA) Constitutional States of America, demands that liberty be tied to responsibility, and you leaped on that like a Clinton on an intern, and said that that was a racist (white-supremacist) thing to say. That belies your prejudice against blacks. How racist of you invent a relationship between race and responsibility. I had suggeted absolutely no such thing. It's your mind that's gone there, not mine. The reason it went there, is because it has a predisposition to go there. Maybe you try to wring out your inner guilt by transferring it to my heritage.
If you weren't a racist, you would have agreed with me that liberty is tied to responsibility (that's why children can't vote) instead of leaping to your racist conclusion and trying to slander my handle, using a bleeding heart/Clinton-Gore-liberal tactic - implying I'm a white supremacist. What a laugh. Doesn't that same old ploy ever get tiring for you people?
The Supreme Court said clearly that the president had the right and power to ensure that U.S. laws operate in all the states. They cited a law passed (to include the wording) at the request of --George Washington--. Was Washington a traitor?
You call it treason. The Supreme Court did not. And I think we can safely assume that they, even Mr. Chief Justice "Ex Parte Merryman" Taney, had heard of the 10th amendment and they simply didn't see it the same way you do.
It sort of cuts your position off at the knees.
Walt
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.