Vanderbilt professor maligns UDC,Confederate Heritage in Editorial

The Tennessean ^ | 20 November 02 | Jonathan D. Farley

[Rebeleye]

Lest we forget, the Confederacy aimed to destroy the United States. Every Confederate soldier, by the mores of his age and ours, deserved not a hallowed resting place at the end of his days but a reservation at the end of the gallows. The UDC honors traitors.

[shuckmaster]

That's typical of the kind of fella you'd expect WhiskeyPapa & Nonsequiter to be idol worshoping...

[Non-Sequitur]

Shows how little you know, doesn't it? Where did I ever express support for Farley's article? I've just been disagreeing with all the southron bullsh*t posted here.

[ZULU]

"Indeed, the race problems that wrack America to this day are due largely to the fact that the Confederacy was not thoroughly destroyed, its leaders and soldiers executed and their lands given to the landless freed slaves."

No. The race problems that wrack America today are due to the hostility engendered between white southerners and blacks AFTER the Civil War by the conscienceless employment of freed black slaves as weapons of intimidation by the Radical Republicans against the defeated South.

This article is rife with the kinds of half-truths, lies, and vicious innuendos which are the hallmarks of liberal political thinking.

Less than 10% of all Southerners were slave-holders. The overwhelming number of Confederates fought the Union forces because an outside military force, i.e. the "Union" army, invaded their country.

Many conservatives today would hardly consider Mr. King a paragon of loyalty or virtue. His connections with communist elements are as legendary as his affairs with women besides his wife. The fact that the federal files on this man have been sealed says a lot. He hardly deserves a national holiday. Crispus Attucks, or some of the black officers who died at Battery Wagner are more disserving of that honor than he ever will be.

The New England states threatened seccession before the War of 1812. The fact is, most people back then considered their primary loyalties to thier home state, rather than to the Union. The organization of Union troops along state lines rather than federal ones reflects this.

Abraham Lincoln deliberately sought to create an incident at Fort Sumter. Unforunately, South Carolina took the bait. Lincoln then further aggrevated the situation by calling for volunteer troops from the South to oppress fellow Southerners.

Slavey was a great eveil, true, but it would have died out within a few generations without a civil war. At that time only the U.S. and Brazil (and of course the Islamic states as they still do), permitted slavery. Internationally it was a dying institution and would have died a natural death in the South years before had not a Yankee, Eli Whitney, invented the Cotton Gin.

The very same Northern Industrialist who had earned their first dollars in the slave trade, and who allowed their foreign laborers to live a life of poverty and squalor few slaveholders in the south would have imposed on their own slaves, were the loudest in condemning the South.

Interesting that their consciences were awakened to the evils of slavery only AFTER they longer could derive any profit from that institution.

As for the generals and men in the ranks who fought on BOTH sides of that conflict, victims of their age and the conscienceless politicians who engineered that conflict, they are ALL heros who died fighting for their country and they ALL merit our respect and honor.

[WhiskeyPapa]

i still ask - how much money did lincoln get to pardon the Indians?

Not a penny, boob.

Walt

[stand watie]

NS is NOT in the same pile as wp.

for one thing NS is smart and he is NOT a traitor/turncoat/scalawag to his state & the south.

even the worst of damnyankees causes less of a gag reflex than does a scalawag.

free dixie,sw

[Junior]

Huh? What are you talking about? Would the Northern states have joined the Confederacy? No. They would have gone on just as before. They would call themselves the United States. Before you call something nonsense, sir, I suggest you actually think through your position.

[x]

Slavey was a great eveil, true, but it would have died out within a few generations without a civil war. At that time only the U.S. and Brazil (and of course the Islamic states as they still do), permitted slavery. Internationally it was a dying institution and would have died a natural death in the South years before had not a Yankee, Eli Whitney, invented the Cotton Gin.

First, Spain still had slavery in its remaining colonies. The same may have been true of South Africa and Portugese colonies.

Second, "a few generations" can be a very long and miserable time. Slavery could easily have lasted forty years more, until the turn of the century, or perhaps even as much as eighty years more until mechanical cotton pickers began to make an impact. And it's likely that a system of "gradual, compensated emancipation" would have left people in bondage for decades.

Third, our perception of slavery as a "dying institution" wasn't seriously felt at the time, though it might have been imployed as an excuse for not doing anything about slavery. The perception of the day was that "Cotton was King," and slavery would ride high for some time to come. The example of Eli Whitney strengthened the case of those who thought that slavery would come out on top again, as new lands were annexed and new uses found for slave labor.

Had the Confederacy succeeded, either because they won the war or because there was no war, it's likely that Spain and Brazil would not have felt so isolated and compelled to end slavery when they did. Slavery would not seem so anomalous as it did after the American Civil War. The timetable of slavery as a "dying institution" would have been postponed for decades to come.

The very same Northern Industrialist who had earned their first dollars in the slave trade, and who allowed their foreign laborers to live a life of poverty and squalor few slaveholders in the south would have imposed on their own slaves, were the loudest in condemning the South.

This is quite a generalization. There were notable exceptions, but generally, millowners were generally not "the loudest in condemning the South." They understood that their livelihood depended on cotton and advocated moving slowly.

Of course trade, including the importation of slaves to the West Indies played a role in the New England economy in the 18th century, but since the slave trade had been abolished in 1808, it's extremely unlikely that any millowner earned his "first dollars in the slave trade."

It's also worth noting that this kind of argument could with more validity be made against Southerners who favored abolition: "They benefited from slavery as much as they could, and now they want to prevent others from owning slaves." The strongest opponents of slavery were in the professions, like the clergy, and in the independent middle classes, not among millowners.

The striking feature in antebellum history is the drying up of Southern antislavery sentiment. That's the dog that didn't bark that contributed to the coming of the war. Rather than concentrate on hypocritical Yankees, it's the change in Southern attitudes from embarassment about slavery to defiant pride in it that led to the coming of war. When we've fully exhausted that issue and truly understand the difference between the South then and the South now we can return to the endless and tiresome North versus South polemics.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Huh? What are you talking about? Would the Northern states have joined the Confederacy? No. They would have gone on just as before. They would call themselves the United States. Before you call something nonsense, sir, I suggest you actually think through your position.

Don't play that faux southern gentleman crap with me.

If the north had allowed the secession of the 11 so-called seceded states it would have been the end of the United States. Every state could walk, and the state with the latest postmark on its secession documents would be left holding the bag. There would be no United States.

Here's the thing. The Union of states under the Articles was ineffective. The government was broke, the navy sold off, Marine Corps disbanded (!), the army in a state of near mutiny. If we take your line of reasoning, the United States would have been in that very same position again -- if it allowed secession.

Instead, the people and government were strong enough, under the Constitution, to crush the rebellion, and President Lincoln could comment, "Our resources are unexhausted and are, as we think, inexhaustable."

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Rather than concentrate on hypocritical Yankees, it's the change in Southern attitudes from embarassment about slavery to defiant pride in it that led to the coming of war.

Bingo!

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

First of all, as I have posted to you more than once, a number of Sherman's men (as many as 10) lodged in a jail were taken out and shot.

No Walt. I don't believe you have posted it. If it did happen and you can document it, its a true shame and an admitted wrong. If you are making it up though like you do on so many other things, that's another story.

On another occasion, 18 union soldiers were found dead in a gully. They were not criminal looters either.

Without further details of the incident, that cannot be known for sure. If the bodies were found dead in a gully as you describe, it is highly possible they were looters. Confederate sharpshooters were known to fire on and kill the Sherman-sanctioned criminals in the act then deposit their bodies in a single location with a warning note against any future looters.

On another occasion, 7 Union soldiers were found murdered. These men were soldiers in uniform in time of war. They did nothing illegal simply by being in Georgia.

Again, without further detail it is not possible to know the circumstances of their deaths. If they were looters as was often the case, then no, they were not murdered. They were shot while committing criminal acts. That uniform does not excuse criminal acts, Walt. Men have raped, murdered, stolen, and committed arson in that uniform.

By the standard you would apply, all that CSA shark bait up at Camp Lookout could have been executed too.

No Walt. For starters, two wrongs do not make a right. More so, Camp Lookout had many thousands of victims, all of them POWs in a federal prison camp, not some isolated shooting of half a dozen under possible circumstances of looting in the middle of a war zone.

I can't imagine what sort of experience could warp someone into making the posts that you make. You will say anything, be it untrue, unreasonable or just fantasy.

You're projecting again, Walt. Give it up.

As many as 50 of Sherman's men were murdered by CSA forces --regular CSA forces. And that's all it was, murder.

Call it what you want, but under any objective definition the shooting of a criminal in the act is defensive and is therefore not murder.

And you can't name a single civilian that was murdered by Sherman's men on the march to the sea.

One truly has to laugh at the constantly changing criteria you demand for murder victims, Walt. It's laughably inconsistent on your part and thoroughly exposes your true agenda, which is nothing more than a holocaus-denier style attempt to pretend the yankee war crimes did not happen.

- First you demanded the names of a rape victim of the yankee invasion. I gave you several with documentation and dates. You ignored them.

- Next you demanded that it had to be one of Sherman's men who did the rape and implied that others didn't count. I gave you several incidents from Sherman's men with documentation and dates. You ignored it.

- Next you demanded I name a confederate - any single confederate - who was murdered by Sherman's men. I did so by naming one with dates and specifics. You changed your criteria again and suddenly he didn't count.
- Next you demanded that it be a civilian murdered by Sherman's men after arbitrarily deciding soldiers don't count. I gave you several civilians with full documentation and dates.

- Now you have narrowed it down even further and are demanding a civilian non-soldier murdered by Sherman's men, but you say it only counts if it happened between Atlanta and Savannah.

I have no doubt that with due research, incidents will turn up on this latest criteria. In typical fashion though I fully anticipate you will change them to an even narrower scope once it becomes so that you are proven in error on this one as well, Walt. What next - it only counts if the murder victim was a female from a non-slave owning family between the age of 10 and 40 who was executed before dawn in a cotton field within a 10 mile radius of Columbia? That certainly appears to be the direction you are going, Walt, and it shows nothing more than just how desparately you are grasping at straws.

You can't show, even by your count, a dozen rapes by an army of 60,000 men.

Already have, Walt. Repeatedly. I provided you names, dates, rapists, and units. You ignored the list every time and demanded a new set of criteria for some other crime, which you similarly ignored when I provided evidence of it. You are simply in denial, Walt, and it shows.

[GOPcapitalist]

Don't mind WhiskeyPapa. He suffers from a chronic case of idiocy induced by his socialist-leftist political beliefs. By all means, continue to piss him off by pointing out his idiocy though. Here's all you need to know about this character...

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
The following is a collection of recent statements from freeper "WhiskeyPapa" aka "Walt" on FR that accurately demonstrate his far left political leanings. Each statement is verifiable at the link accompanying it. It has also been said that, in addition to voting for Bill Clinton, this same individual has admitted on FR to have bragged of never supporting a Republican presidential candidate. Among his candidates of choice, it is said, were Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and most recently Al Gore, this in addition to Clinton. In addition to the following statements, WhiskeyPapa is known most famously for his obsessive anti-southern tirades, support of PC censorship against the south, and for throwing racial mccarthyist style accusations of bigotry at other freepers in a manner not unlike the tactics practiced by the radical left.

"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=452#448

"I'll say again that based on what I knew in 1992, I would vote for Bill Clinton ten times out of ten before I would vote for George Bush Sr." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?q=1&&page=401#420

"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432

"Nationalism and socialism are opposites." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=570#516

"First of all, the AJC [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] is -not- an "ultra-leftist" newspaper, and you know it." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/13/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784464/posts?page=70#70

"I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432

[WhiskeyPapa]

First of all, as I have posted to you more than once, a number of Sherman's men (as many as 10) lodged in a jail were taken out and shot.

No Walt. I don't believe you have posted it.

Yes, I have, and I've posted it directly to you. It's from Burke Davis' "Sherman's March". We've done all this before.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

NS is NOT in the same pile as wp. for one thing NS is smart and he is NOT a traitor/turncoat/scalawag to his state & the south.

I agree. Despite their many flaws and their positions, posters like NS and Ditto are still generally conservative in their modern political views. The same may not be said of Walt, who comes from the far left wing of the Democratic party, openly admits this at every opportunity, and espouses Chomskyite marxist propaganda conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the two Bush administrations. Walt is a thoroughly repulsive and offensive individual who belongs reading The Nation or Democratic Underground, not FR.

[GOPcapitalist]

Yes, I have, and I've posted it directly to you. It's from Burke Davis' "Sherman's March".

Then pull it from your cutnpaste library and quote it again.

[GOPcapitalist]

You know, Walt, what is so offensive about the way you conduct yourself on the topic of yankee war crimes is that it flies directly in the face of a history of humans suffering and dying.

So well known were the yankee abuses that even the slaves, who otherwise hoped to be set free, denounced the yankee armies in disgust and went out of their way to protect their plantations from being looted and burned. It is telling, Walt, that even those who wanted the yankees to win recoiled in disgust when they saw the exploits of the yankee armies yet persons such as yourself emerge a century after the fact and pretend that it never happened.

[Junior]

Why shouldn't every state have the right to "walk?" Whatever happened to the right of self-determination?

Regardless, you cannot make the case the other states would have thrown in the towel and disbanded; there is very little evidence that would have happened.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Why shouldn't every state have the right to "walk?" Whatever happened to the right of self-determination?

Every state HAS A right to walk. They just can't do it under U.S. law.

I don't see why you are so all-fired in a hurry to reduce us to Europeans.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Regardless, you cannot make the case the other states would have thrown in the towel and disbanded; there is very little evidence that would have happened.

So what? They -could- have walked. What you suggest would have Balkanized the USA.

A wise man has already examined the issue.

"Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...

If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You know, Walt, what is so offensive about the way you conduct yourself on the topic of yankee war crimes is that it flies directly in the face of a history of humans suffering and dying.

What I know is that you don't want to rub the scab off the issue of CSA atrocities vs. USA atrocities.

We've done this before. Federal authorities suspend Habeas Corpus and make a large number of arrests. Not -one- of those arrested is executed. One of the more notable, the police chief of Baltimore in 1861, is later a serving officer in the insurgent army. In 1861, he had helped blow up railroad bridges. He was released unharmed. They all were.

On the CSA side we see 40 loyal Texans hanged in 1862. We see 22 loyal North Carolinians hanged; we see 184 men and boys shot down at Lawrence, Kansas; we see 2-300 Union soldiers murdered at Fort Pillow. We see over 100 Union POW's murdered at Saltville, VA. We know that @ 50 of Sherman's men were murdered. That's right about 500 right there.

On the US side, we see that your new hero, Ben Butler hanged a man for desecrating Old Glory. That's a big difference.

All the neo-reb boo-hoo'ers want to wail about the abuse of CSA prisoners. It was because the CSA abused the exchange cartels that it was decided to end them. Then-- it gets -better-- the CSA tries to pressure the USA into returning to the exchange system (so they could abuse it some more) by abusing US POW's. It was the CSA that took the lead in every instance of cruelty and atrocity. It's no wonder that Robert E. Lee said that the efffect of slavery was as bad on whites as it was on the slaves.

Now, what Sherman was doing was humane. By burning crops and public buildings and wrecking railroads and bridges he was forcing the rebels to stop their resistance. Burning private dwellings had the same effect. You can rebuild a house; you can't conjure a husband or father or brother or son back from the grave.

I guess had Sherman followed Hood into Alabama and Tennessee and crushed his army -- say with Thomas as the anvil -- and killed every single soldier in Hood's army, you'd be happy.

Now, you are able to log onto the internet and get to this website, and keep your electricity paid and your internet provider paid, so why don't you drop the stupid act? Why don't you stop with the lies and misinformation?

Walt