Slavery, Secession, and the Civil War

[Clintville]

I thought I would create a place for the Civil War tangent that was in the Noah's Ark tangent, since Quantrill said he would only respond if another thread was made about it, and I kind of liked the discussion. So just consider this a direct continuation of that.

The discussion was mostly about what role slavery played in causing the South to secede. It also covered other things like John Brown, Reconstruction and its amendments, the KKK, etc.

[The Bos'un]

Is this that Liberal Guilt thread?

[The Bos'un]

Please tell me how on earth is possible to be guilty over something I had no control over? I would like to point out that I detest racial segregation. I was from Upstate New York originally, My parents, grandparents, and other family members were not from the south. My grandmother was of American Indian descent.

Why should Conservatives and Independents feel remotely guilty of the whole slavery/secession/civil war affair?

Was it appropriate for Sherman to march to the sea and torch everything in his path?

[Clintville]

Is this that Liberal Guilt thread?
I don't know or care what that means.

[The Bos'un]

I think you know and I believe you were trying to start a discussion that might address it. So, I figured I would get it out there and we can talk about in openly.

You see my friend. I do not have any feelings about something that did not concern me. It was long before my time. I pointed out that I come from a mixed family. My ancestors did not benefit from slavery, etc. I do not think it appropriate to pay retributions for something that did not concern me. If retributions are required, I think that they should pass a tin cup at the DNC and raise the money that way.

No guilt, no concerns over secession, and no feelings about the civil war. My feelings on anyone trying to break away from the USA in a secession movement: Well, if they cannot stand the pain, then they better not try it. ...

Peace,
Bosun

[Clintville]

I think you know and I believe you were trying to start a discussion that might address it. So, I figured I would get it out there and we can talk about in openly.

You see my friend. I do not have any feelings about something that did not concern me. It was long before my time. I pointed out that I come from a mixed family. My ancestors did not benefit from slavery, etc. I do not think it appropriate to pay retributions for something that did not concern me. If retributions are required, I think that they should pass a tin cup at the DNC and raise the money that way.

No guilt, no concerns over secession, and no feelings about the civil war. My feelings on anyone trying to break away from the USA in a secession movement: Well, if they cannot stand the pain, then they better not try it. ...


Yeah, see that isn't at all what I was talking about, it has nothing to do with guilt or reparations (which I don't agree with) or anything. Did you even read the Noah's Arc thread?

Nice try at making an irrelevant point.

[The Bos'un]

As a matter of fact I read it and have posted some there. Remember.... Now I am wondering what you are driving at. Perhaps I missed the complete point of this thread. When you want to discuss slavery, secession, and civil war here, I am wondering where we should go with it.

OK, i will back up a little. Start taking me in the direction you would like to go. Occasionally I frame my threads in the direction I am thinking. But, I normally let them develop as forum members usually take them were they want to go. Forums are kind of like the Rorschach Ink Blot Test. (which I have given and taken along with free assocation) I will let you sit in the drivers seat as to where you want to take this, Clintville.

Enlighten me as to what we should be talking about, slavery, secession, civil war. What agenda to you have in mind?

[The Bos'un]

As far as slavery, do you think that ACORN supports or encourages modern day slavery? Could some areas of the United States be heading toward secession because of the current administration policies?

[Quantrill]

I thought I would create a place for the Civil War tangent that was in the Noah's Ark tangent, since Quantrill said he would only respond if another thread was made about it, and I kind of liked the discussion. So just consider this a direct continuation of that.

The discussion was mostly about what role slavery played in causing the South to secede. It also covered other things like John Brown, Reconstruction and its amendments, the KKK, etc.

"The Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were under Confederate control, and in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized."

The above is a quote from "The Annals of America" by Ency. Britianica. p. 398 in an introduction to the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Procalmation itself: "That on the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people-whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,shall be then, thenceforwad, and forever free;"

Here is a quote from "The Oxford History of the American People" Oxford University Press, p.654 "This Proclamation, more revolutionary in human relationships than any event in American history since 1776, lifted the Civil War to the dignity of a crusade. Yet it actually freed not one slave, since it applied only to rebel states where it could not be enforced. The loyal slave states, occupied New Orleans, and occupied parts of Virginia were excepted."

So, do you see. Lincoln was not the "great emancipator" he is made out to be. The slaves he could have freed, he didn't.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

To Clintville in reply to your reply 440 found in the "Ark" thread.

You said John Brown was captured by U.S. Marines. So.

You commented that Southernors were given the right to vote. No, Southernors were disenfranchised while blacks were franchised, until those who were elected to office were those who would ratify the reconstruction ammendments.

And, as already said, the Southern States were excluded from the proposal of the 14th ammendment, which means they had no vote as a state.

If this be compared to your accusation that the Klan wanting to disenfranchise the black voters is the South wanting white supremacy, then this disenfranchising white Southern voters and enfranchising black voters, is the North wanting to establish black supremacy.

I believe that is apples to apples.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Enlighten me as to what we should be talking about, slavery, secession, civil war. What agenda to you have in mind?
I am just continuing the discussion from the Noah's Arc thread. Mostly about how much the issue of slavery had on the secessions.

It has nothing to do with white guilt or whatever (and calling support for civil rights "white guilt" is pretty offensive).

[Clintville]

As far as slavery, do you think that ACORN supports or encourages modern day slavery? Could some areas of the United States be heading toward secession because of the current administration policies?
I don't think anyone is advocating slavery. And I am pretty certain the "talks" of secession by politicians are crap.

[Clintville]

So, do you see. Lincoln was not the "great emancipator" he is made out to be. The slaves he could have freed, he didn't.

First off, it did free some twenty thousand slaves officially (there were already technically free) as there were areas of the CSA that were under the control of the Union armies. And as they further advanced in the last two year wars, four million were eventually freed. He didn't free the slaves in the border states because he legally couldn't, the EP was a war measure. It is a false claim that that it didn't free a single slave.

And again, even if this document didn't even exist, Lincoln still approved of the 13th Amendment, so he was still involved in the abolition of slavery. And technically the 13th Amendment freed less slaves than the EP, as most slaves in the south were liberated, and at least two of the border states banned slavery by themselves before it was implemented.

[Clintville]

You said John Brown was captured by U.S. Marines. So.

That was the federal government stopping him.

You commented that Southernors were given the right to vote. No, Southernors were disenfranchised while blacks were franchised, until those who were elected to office were those who would ratify the reconstruction ammendments.

Yeah, they weren't represented in states until they ratified the amendments. That is everyone in the states not being represented.

If this be compared to your accusation that the Klan wanting to disenfranchise the black voters is the South wanting white supremacy, then this disenfranchising white Southern voters and enfranchising black voters, is the North wanting to establish black supremacy.

Except it wasn't, it was actually more destroying white supremacy. They only suspended suffrage of Confederate officials and senior officials. As for turning the states into military districts, that took away representation of everyone in the state. It has nothing to do with "black supremacy". And comparing what the federal government did for some time to what racists intentioned to do for all time is disgusting.

[Quantrill]

First off, it did free some twenty thousand slaves officially (there were already technically free) as there were areas of the CSA that were under the control of the Union armies. And as they further advanced in the last two year wars, four million were eventually freed. He didn't free the slaves in the border states because he legally couldn't, the EP was a war measure. It is a false claim that that it didn't free a single slave.

And again, even if this document didn't even exist, Lincoln still approved of the 13th Amendment, so he was still involved in the abolition of slavery. And technically the 13th Amendment freed less slaves than the EP, as most slaves in the south were liberated, and at least two of the border states banned slavery by themselves before it was implemented.

Read the Proclamation. I quoted it in the previous reply. The whole point of this is that there were slaves existing in Union held areas which were once Confederate territory. This Emancipation Proclamation did not free them. It is clear. Only the States or part of the State in rebellion were to be affected.

You have the document in front of you. You have been given quotes from period sources such as William Seward saying the exact same thing I and others are saying. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free one slave.

You say now "even if it didn't exist", but, the document does exist. But no one pays attention to it and Lincoln is made out to be the "Great Emancipator" . The black peoples Moses. And he wasn't. Its all imagery.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Read the Proclamation. I quoted it in the previous reply. The whole point of this is that there were slaves existing in Union held areas which were once Confederate territory. This Emancipation Proclamation did not free them. It is clear. Only the States or part of the State in rebellion were to be affected.

Except it did free some 20,000 immediately. Yes, Union held territory was exempt for the time, but not all of it was.

And of course, the Union armies did advance and freed four million slaves because of the document over the next two years. Also, all runaway slaves and contraband of war were also free.


You say now "even if it didn't exist", but, the document does exist. But no one pays attention to it and Lincoln is made out to be the "Great Emancipator" . The black peoples Moses. And he wasn't. Its all imagery.
Did you not read the part you quoted? I said even if it didn't exist, he can still be regarded as such because he helped pass the 13th Amendment (the one that banned slavery).

[Quantrill]

Except it did free some 20,000 immediately. Yes, Union held territory was exempt for the time, but not all of it was.

And of course, the Union armies did advance and freed four million slaves because of the document over the next two years. Also, all runaway slaves and contraband of war were also free.

Did you not read the part you quoted? I said even if it didn't exist, he can still be regarded as such because he helped pass the 13th Amendment (the one that banned slavery).

You say, 20,000. Show me where you get the numbers.

You cannot equate the Union army advancing and defeating the Southern armies with the Emancipation. Lincoln may as well saved his breath and waited till the Army won.

You cannot equate the 13th ammendment with the Emancipation. The Emancipation didn't abolish slavery.

The language of the Emancipation is clear. Only those in Confederate held States or any part of a State were to be freed. That proclamation freed no slave.

Which brings the question as to why? Why wouldn't Lincoln proclaim freedom for all slaves period?

Quantrill

[Clintville]

You say, 20,000. Show me where you get the numbers.

Wikipedia. Before you claim that anyone can edit it, it is cited. The claim that it didn't free anyone also is contradicted by eye witness accounts of celebrations.

You cannot equate the Union army advancing and defeating the Southern armies with the Emancipation. Lincoln may as well saved his breath and waited till the Army won.

Yes I can, it was the Emancipation Proclamation that officially freed them once the Union armies reached them.

You cannot equate the 13th ammendment with the Emancipation. The Emancipation didn't abolish slavery.

Yeah, I can. You said Lincoln cannot be called an "emancipator" or a Moses or whatever because he didn't do anything. The 13th Amendment shows otherwise.

The language of the Emancipation is clear. Only those in Confederate held States or any part of a State were to be freed. That proclamation freed no slave.

And some of those areas described where occupied by US troops. And of course, it freed millions as the armies advanced.

Which brings the question as to why? Why wouldn't Lincoln proclaim freedom for all slaves period?

Mostly because he couldn't. The EP was a war measure, he could only do it to rebelling areas.

And of course, he did when he approved of the 13th Amendment.

[Quantrill]

Wikipedia. Before you claim that anyone can edit it, it is cited. The claim that it didn't free anyone also is contradicted by eye witness accounts of celebrations.

Yes I can, it was the Emancipation Proclamation that officially freed them once the Union armies reached them.

Yeah, I can. You said Lincoln cannot be called an "emancipator" or a Moses or whatever because he didn't do anything. The 13th Amendment shows otherwise.

And some of those areas described where occupied by US troops. And of course, it freed millions as the armies advanced.


Mostly because he couldn't. The EP was a war measure, he could only do it to rebelling areas.

And of course, he did when he approved of the 13th Amendment.

Cited? Does that mean you can give the source of this information?

No matter how bad you want to make it say what you want, you cannot make the Emancipation Proclamtion the same thing as the 13th ammendment.

And No, the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure because Lincoln wanted it as that. He had power to emancipate the slaves in Union held territories.

Why didn't he?

Oh Lincoln did something. Its just that with the Emancipation Proclamtion, he didn't free any slaves.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Cited? Does that mean you can give the source of this information?

No, it is in a book. Still, there are newspapers and eyewitness accounts of celebrations. Not to mention former slaves' testimonies.


No matter how bad you want to make it say what you want, you cannot make the Emancipation Proclamtion the same thing as the 13th ammendment.

I wasn't. You said Lincoln didn't do anything to end slavery and I proved you wrong. And actually they are pretty in common. The Emancipation Proclamation freed way more slaves than the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment just abolished the institution.

And No, the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure because Lincoln wanted it as that. He had power to emancipate the slaves in Union held territories.

That would have caused more controversy. He didn't want any of the border states to secede as well. He did it because it replaced the Contraband of War system that made it seem as if the Confederate States were a separate nation rather than rebelling states. I guess he could have, but he chose to wait to do it a more constitutional way.

Oh Lincoln did something. Its just that with the Emancipation Proclamtion, he didn't free any slaves.

Except for 4 million of them. And he approved of the 13th Amendment, so he also helped free the rest of them in all states.

[Clintville]

What happened to the discussion about John Brown, and Reconstruction, and the fact that the southern states seceded because they feared slavery would be banned?

[mtdim]

Gauging Lincoln's motives is very tricky. As a politician, it is always hard to know when he was being genuine. I believe that his main goal was always to keep the Union together, and he likely would have accepted an agreement prior to the war which would have perpetuated slavery if it meant avoiding secession (although the Republican party as a whole probably would have objected to this). He certainly had some very racist ideas, as did most people in the 1850s.

As the war happened, I think a very good argument can be made that he became genuinely concerned for the rights of black men and women. He was more willing to show anti-slavery sentiments once the Democrats were out of the political picture, and what we know of his friendship with Frederick Douglass is very telling; that relationship likely had a great influence on Lincoln's views about race. Ultimately, actions speak louder than words and Lincoln was clearly in support of abolition by the end of the war.

[The Bos'un]

Supporting civil rights is not liberal guilt my friend. To give you a clue, whiteness does not have anything to do with it. I never said anything about whiteness. And, if I did it would be offensive especially to me. Sounds to me like you were trying to put words into my mouth.

Remember I have a mixed family, Clint.

I suppose that a symptom of the secessionist movement was slavery, although I suspect that control and alpha dog syndrome had something to do with it. Southerners were leary of control by the north, re-wrting laws and tipping over the apple cart.

[Clintville]

he likely would have accepted an agreement prior to the war which would have perpetuated slavery if it meant avoiding secession (although the Republican party as a whole probably would have objected to this).

He did say that in his campaign speeches, but he asked Congress to reject the Crittenden Compromise, which would allow slavery to remain untouched by the federal government, and would reinstate the Missouri Compromise.

[mtdim]

Supporting civil rights is not liberal guilt my friend. To give you a clue, whiteness does not have anything to do with it. I never said anything about whiteness. And, if I did it would be offensive especially to me. Sounds to me like you were trying to put words into my mouth.

Remember I have a mixed family, Clint.

I suppose that a symptom of the secessionist movement was slavery, although I suspect that control and alpha dog syndrome had something to do with it. Southerners were leary of control by the north, re-wrting laws and tipping over the apple cart.

How was slavery a symptom of the secessionist movement? It existed long before secession was on anyone's mind. It seems more accurate to say that secession was a symptom of slavery, more specifically of the diverging views of the north and the south on slavery.

[Clintville]

Supporting civil rights is not liberal guilt my friend. To give you a clue, whiteness does not have anything to do with it. I never said anything about whiteness. And, if I did it would be offensive especially to me. Sounds to me like you were trying to put words into my mouth.
Then what did you mean by "liberal guilt"? Which you tried to accuse me of.

[mtdim]

He did say that in his campaign speeches, but he asked Congress to reject the Crittenden Compromise, which would allow slavery to remain untouched by the federal government, and would reinstate the Missouri Compromise.

That's what I meant about never knowing when a politician is being genuine. :D

Lincoln advised against the Crittenden Compromise because he was opposed to the expansion of slavery. I believe in 1860 he would have accepted a compromise that guaranteed that the southern states would be able to keep slavery. He really didn't want secession to come about.

[Quantrill]

That was the federal government stopping him.

Yeah, they weren't represented in states until they ratified the amendments. That is everyone in the states not being represented.

Except it wasn't, it was actually more destroying white supremacy. They only suspended suffrage of Confederate officials and senior officials. As for turning the states into military districts, that took away representation of everyone in the state. It has nothing to do with "black supremacy". And comparing what the federal government did for some time to what racists intentioned to do for all time is disgusting.

So the Federal Govt stopped him. And....

Andrew Johnson gave the first requirements for the enfranchisement of the Southern voter.
1. No one who served in Conf. Govt.
2. No Governor of seceeding states.
3. No officers in the Confederate army
4. No one who left congress or judicial posts or the army to affiliate with the Southern Cause.
5. No Southern property owners whose property exceeded 20,000 dollars in value.
6. No Southernor who had in any wise cooperated in the conduct of hostillities.

Later when the South is placed under Military Rule by the Reconstruction Acts, of whom Thaddeus Stevens is the dominate member more requirements are applied.

1. The test oath, which was so worded that it made it almost impossible for the Southernor to say without perjuring himself. This was no small matter as the penalty for that could be severe. Whatever the military wanted to do to him.

President Johnson recognized the purpose of this and vetoed this at first but it was overidden by congress. He said its purpose was plain which was the substitution of a mass of negro voters for the white electorate. (Reconstruction and the constitution, John Burgess, p. 132) via footnote from Coming of the Glory, John Tilley

The Union Governor of Virginia in 1865 wrote, " It is folly to suppose that a state could be governed under a republican form of government, wherein a large portion of the state and nineteen-twentieths of the people are disfranchised and can not hold office."
(Why the Solid South , Hilary A. Herbert, p.231) via footnote from Coming of Glory, John Tilley

That is the disenfranchsiement of the individual Southern voters. Then you can consider the State being not represrented in said proposals and then being told to ratify.

It was for the purpose, as President Johnson said, to replace the white Southernor with the black vote. Black supremacy in the South, which would always vote for their northern liberators.

Your proabably right though, the Klan would be somewhat insulted.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

So the Federal Govt stopped him. And....

He was executed. The federal government didn't support a slave insurrection, much less one started by seizing a federal armory.

It was for the purpose, as President Johnson said, to replace the white Southernor with the black vote. Black supremacy in the South, which would always vote for their northern liberators.
No, it was to get rid of the former Confederacy completely. The laws were temporary, unlike what the South did to blacks.


Your proabably right though, the Klan would be somewhat insulted.
Are you really defending what the Klan did? Are you saying denying someone the right temporarily to vote because they were former rebels and wouldn't swear an oath of loyalty to the US is the worse than denying someone the right to vote because they are different? You've already stated slavery is not immoral, so I wouldn't be surprised with the answer.

[Quantrill]

He was executed. The federal government didn't support a slave insurrection, much less one started by seizing a federal armory.
No, it was to get rid of the former Confederacy completely. The laws were temporary, unlike what the South did to blacks.

Are you really defending what the Klan did? Are you saying denying someone the right temporarily to vote because they were former rebels and wouldn't swear an oath of loyalty to the US is the worse than denying someone the right to vote because they are different? You've already stated slavery is not immoral, so I wouldn't be surprised with the answer.

John Brown was executed. Yes that has been said already. But, the Federal Govt. didn't execute him. It was left to the State of Virginia to execute him. Why? Because John Browns actions were approved by the Federal Govt. Which is evident in the martyr position Brown is given later.

The Confederacy was already over. The slaves were free. The purpose of the Federal Govt. now was to enslave and punish the white Southernors and replace them with the black former slave.

The laws were temporary? Look again. The disenfranchisement was for the purpose of creating a new Constitution. One that would not be legally ratified if the Southern States are free to vote. So it had to be done illegally. Changing the Constitution is not a temporary fix.

You and others keep using the word "rebels", when in truth the South was not the "rebels". The South was supporting the Constitution. The South did not rebel and try and overthrow the Federal govt. The South simply sought peace and a way of life outside of the Union which no longer offered them the protections they should have had under the Constitution.

You say you would't be surprised at my answer. Well, when your wet nursed on Wikipedia, I can understand your dislike.

Quantrill

[Samm]

Please tell me how on earth is possible to be guilty over something I had no control over? I would like to point out that I detest racial segregation. I was from Upstate New York originally, My parents, grandparents, and other family members were not from the south. My grandmother was of American Indian descent.

Why should Conservatives and Independents feel remotely guilty of the whole slavery/secession/civil war affair?

Was it appropriate for Sherman to march to the sea and torch everything in his path?

Under the circumstances... yes.

[Clintville]

John Brown was executed. Yes that has been said already. But, the Federal Govt. didn't execute him. It was left to the State of Virginia to execute him. Why? Because John Browns actions were approved by the Federal Govt. Which is evident in the martyr position Brown is given later.

His raids and murders weren't approved by the Federal government. Many in the north may have supported his cause, but the Federal government never actively approved of it.

And trying to connect someone who killed people to stop slavery and people who killed people simply because they were the wrong skin color is pretty weak.

The Confederacy was already over. The slaves were free. The purpose of the Federal Govt. now was to enslave and punish the white Southernors and replace them with the black former slave.

No, an entire country doesn't just disappear that fast. Simply dissolving the CSA wasn't enough. And enslave whites? Please, they temporarily disenfranchised those that wouldn't abide by new rules or take an oath of allegiance. That is different than permanently taking away somebody's rights because they looked different.


The laws were temporary? Look again. The disenfranchisement was for the purpose of creating a new Constitution. One that would not be legally ratified if the Southern States are free to vote. So it had to be done illegally. Changing the Constitution is not a temporary fix.

That is still temporary. They were in rebellion and to be readmitted they needed to approve of the Constitution.


You and others keep using the word "rebels", when in truth the South was not the "rebels". The South was supporting the Constitution. The South did not rebel and try and overthrow the Federal govt. The South simply sought peace and a way of life outside of the Union which no longer offered them the protections they should have had under the Constitution.

Rebel is just a term to describe them. It is used in wars of independence the term is used to those fighting the federal government. And no, they weren't supporting the constitution. The federal government wasn't breaking the constitution before they seceded. They merely seceded because they feared the federal government would ban or hinder slavery somehow.

You say you would't be surprised at my answer. Well, when your wet nursed on Wikipedia, I can understand your dislike.

Well, what is your answer?

[Clintville]

Why should Conservatives and Independents feel remotely guilty of the whole slavery/secession/civil war affair?

I wasn't saying this. How the hell did you think I was?

[Quantrill]

His raids and murders weren't approved by the Federal government. Many in the north may have supported his cause, but the Federal government never actively approved of it.

And trying to connect someone who killed people to stop slavery and people who killed people simply because they were the wrong skin color is pretty weak.

No, an entire country doesn't just disappear that fast. Simply dissolving the CSA wasn't enough. And enslave whites? Please, they temporarily disenfranchised those that wouldn't abide by new rules or take an oath of allegiance. That is different than permanently taking away somebody's rights because they looked different.


That is still temporary. They were in rebellion and to be readmitted they needed to approve of the Constitution.


Rebel is just a term to describe them. It is used in wars of independence the term is used to those fighting the federal government. And no, they weren't supporting the constitution. The federal government wasn't breaking the constitution before they seceded. They merely seceded because they feared the federal government would ban or hinder slavery somehow.

Well, what is your answer?

The Fed. Govt. is not going to actively support a murderer. But by their actions in dealing with this murderer they showed their support. For one, his continued freedom in the North after the Pottawatoimie murders, during which time he got support from the North for his future raid on Harpers Ferry. Two, the Fed. leaving hands off in prosecuting and punishing him. Three, by the support of the Secret Six and that no charges were ever brought against them.

Thats a new one isn't it. I know, ye knew already. So tell me about the Secret Six. Why were charges never brought against them?

So you don't like the connection of John Brown, murderer and terrorist. It only gets better.

Where did you get the idea that ammending the Constitution is temporary?

You say the Southern States were in rebellion. Prove it.

You say the South was not supporting the Constitution. Prove it.

I gave the quote from Jefferson Davis who stated clearly as to the reason for the Secession. Reread

Quantrill

[captusa]

John Brown was executed. Yes that has been said already. But, the Federal Govt. didn't execute him. It was left to the State of Virginia to execute him. Why? Because John Browns actions were approved by the Federal Govt. Which is evident in the martyr position Brown is given later.
History is actually more interesting than what you make up.
John Brown was not approved by the Federal Government PERIODThe Confederacy was already over. The slaves were free. The purpose of the Federal Govt. now was to enslave and punish the white Southernors and replace them with the black former slave.

?????????????????????/


..............

You and others keep using the word "rebels", when in truth the South was not the "rebels". The South was supporting the Constitution. The South did not rebel and try and overthrow the Federal govt. The South simply sought peace and a way of life outside of the Union which no longer offered them the protections they should have had under the Constitution.
You say you would't be surprised at my answer. Well, when your wet nursed on Wikipedia, I can understand your dislike.

Quantrill[/QUOTE]

The Confederates referred to themselves as rebels.
They proudly referred to a scream they used in battle as "The Rebel Yell".
Both the North and South believed they were supporting the Constitution.
By winning the war the Union set the precedent that a state does not have the right to suceede and of course a state doesn't have the right to fire on federal property like Fort Sumpter.

[captusa]

........

Where did you get the idea that ammending the Constitution is temporary?

........Quantrill

How about the 18th and 21th Amendents ?

[sisyphus]

Try this on for size.
The civil war should have never happened. It was an illegal act.

[Clintville]

The Fed. Govt. is not going to actively support a murderer. But by their actions in dealing with this murderer they showed their support. For one, his continued freedom in the North after the Pottawatomie murders, during which time he got support from the North for his future raid on Harpers Ferry. Two, the Fed. leaving hands off in prosecuting and punishing him. Three, by the support of the Secret Six and that no charges were ever brought against them.

Over one hundred people were killed in Bleeding Kansas. Do you think all the murderers were charged?

Thats a new one isn't it. I know, ye knew already. So tell me about the Secret Six. Why were charges never brought against them?

Do you have any evidence the federal government knew they were funding him at the time?

So you don't like the connection of John Brown, murderer and terrorist. It only gets better.

Yeah, comparing him to Klansmen is pretty stupid. Killing people who want to vote is worse than killing people who were trying to expand slavery.

Where did you get the idea that ammending the Constitution is temporary?

I didn't. Disenfranchising the southern states was temporary. Disenfranchising blacks wasn't.

You say the Southern States were in rebellion. Prove it.

They seceded and then attacked a federal fort.

You say the South was not supporting the Constitution. Prove it.

You made the claim, you're supposed to back it up.

I gave the quote from Jefferson Davis who stated clearly as to the reason for the Secession. Reread

And I gave you the freaking statte declarations. That is bigger than one guy's thoughts.

[Quantrill]

To Captusa

If Im making it up you should show me where?

Well, I just explained 3 reasons why John Brown was approved. So.

The South was not in rebellion.

Oh really. Show me where the North thought they were supporting the Constitution. And show me where the South was disobedient to the constitution.

Winning the War? Sorry but winning the War doesn't make one right to the Constitution. It just means one can have his way right or wrong. You have to go to the period just before the War between the States to find out ther right to seceede.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Over one hundred people were killed in Bleeding Kansas. Do you think all the murderers were charged?

Do you have any evidence the federal government knew they were funding him at the time?

Yeah, comparing him to Klansmen is pretty stupid. Killing people who want to vote is worse than killing people who were trying to expand slavery.

I didn't. Disenfranchising the southern states was temporary. Disenfranchising blacks wasn't.

They seceded and then attacked a federal fort.

You made the claim, you're supposed to back it up.

And I gave you the freaking statte declarations. That is bigger than one guy's thoughts.

Does this mean you are not going to tell me about the Secret Six?

Secession is not rebellion. Where is that stated? And, the Fort was not Federal property anymore. It belonged to South Carolina. Tresspassing is still against the law I believe.

Ok. I looked at the Constitution and found no where the South was not supporting the Constitution. Your turn.

Well, that one man was the President of the Confederacy and has the knowledge to know exactly why they seceeded? Keep your stats.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Well, I just explained 3 reasons why John Brown was approved. So.

Brown was tried by Virginia under orders from Virginia Governor Wise. And no, you didn't really give any more reasons. Not good ones anyway.


The South was not in rebellion.

They seceded illegally and fired on a federal fort. What they did was no different than what the US did in the American Revolution. Whether you, the Confederates, or anyone else think it legal is irrelevant.


Oh really. Show me where the North thought they were supporting the Constitution. And show me where the South was disobedient to the constitution.
Again, you made the claim the North was disobeying the constitution. I never said the South was being disobedient. The Constitution doesn't mention the legality of secession, but informally, through historical events, it was looked down upon as traitorous and illegal.


Winning the War? Sorry but winning the War doesn't make one right to the Constitution. It just means one can have his way right or wrong. You have to go to the period just before the War between the States to find out ther right to seceede.
The period before? It was the same. The federal government thought the states could not secede (at least without any consent), and the states (well, South Carolina at least) thought it could. The last time before South Carolina threatened secession, the federal government (or at least Andrew Jackson) threatened federal invasion.

And yes, the Civil War's result definitely answered the question of state sovereignty vs national supremacy. Secession hasn't been an issue since.

[Clintville]

Does this mean you are not going to tell me about the Secret Six?

Tell you what?


Secession is not rebellion. Where is that stated? And, the Fort was not Federal property anymore. It belonged to South Carolina. Tresspassing is still against the law I believe.

They were fighting against federal authority, so they could be considered rebels. They were by the US. And the CSA was never recognized by the federal government. And I am pretty sure federal forts are owned by the federal government.

Ok. I looked at the Constitution and found no where the South was not supporting the Constitution. Your turn.

Again, I didn't say that. Get that through your head. You said the north was violating the Constitution and the south was supporting it by seceding.

Well, that one man was the President of the Confederacy and has the knowledge to know exactly why they seceeded? Keep your stats.

And the documents I showed you were the states themselves, the people who actually seceded, giving their reasons why they seceded. Either all the states secession conferences were getting their existence confused, or one man was disagreeing, or lying, or using a euphemism.

Are you really saying the secession ordinances and the declarations got it wrong? Please. They directly say why they were seceding. It was over slavery. Get over it.

[captusa]

Try this on for size.
The civil war should have never happened. It was an illegal act.
Do you mean that the South illegally seceded or it was illegal for a sovereign to retaliate for the attack and seizure of its people and property or are you saying it was illegal for a country to maintain its borders and keep its member states from abrogating the contract they entered into by ratifying the Constitution.
If the South had won they could have punished the Union for illegally invading but by winning the war the Union reinforced the legality of maintaining the Union.
In some cases might might make right.

[Quantrill]

Tell you what?


They were fighting against federal authority, so they could be considered rebels. They were by the US. And the CSA was never recognized by the federal government. And I am pretty sure federal forts are owned by the federal government.

Again, I didn't say that. Get that through your head. You said the north was violating the Constitution and the south was supporting it by seceding.

And the documents I showed you were the states themselves, the people who actually seceded, giving their reasons why they seceded. Either all the states secession conferences were getting their existence confused, or one man was disagreeing, or lying, or using a euphemism.

Are you really saying the secession ordinances and the declarations got it wrong? Please. They directly say why they were seceding. It was over slavery. Get over it.

Tell me about the "Secret Six". Who, what, when, and why. Then tell me why charges were never brought against them and they were not brought to justice?

But if the Southern States are not rebellious towards the Constitution, and are fighting the Northern States and Federal govt., then who are the real rebels.

Once a state seceeds from the Union the fort is no longer Federal.

Oh but you did say that. Your reply #32. Next to the last paragraph. But apparently you are not saying that now. Thats alright. That means the South was in full support of the Constitution. Which brings the question, how can the South be the rebellious one when it is in full support of the Constitution?

Again, slavery was an issue. Slavery was not the cause. The cause is given you by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy. Please read it again, or for the first time.

Why should I get over it. No one else does. The only time the Southernor is told to get over it, is when he is defending some sterotype accusation by some .....yankee or NAACP rep.

Quantrill

[The Bos'un]

Maybe so. I see what you mean. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

[The Bos'un]

Your the one who got defensive :)) I simply asked the question and you carried it on from there and then you added white guilt which I am confused about because it does not take being white to be liberal. I never said "white guilt" I said liberal guilt. You are the one who started trying to inject race into what I said....

[The Bos'un]

Lets get back to ACORN and slavery for a minute. The videos that appeared to put the question of prostitution into the ACORN topic. Prostitution is a form of slavery, especially when the ACORNERS said not to let the 13 year old Salvadorians get educated or learn how to read, as it would be difficult to control them.

This type of criminal mindset seems to promote a form of Slavery.

And, we have "soft slavery" in some parts of America almost like having indentured servants when certain sectors exploit illegal aliens.

How come that minimum wage laws sometimes do not apply to migrant workers? Sounds almost like indentures servitude to me. And when a rich liberal hires illegals to work in the home and pays them minimally under the table, takes their passports, or in some way controls their movements, sure sounds like slavery to me.

I say soft slavery is alive and well in some parts of America.....exploiting the downtrodden...

[BlueEyedJarhead]

Why would there be 'white guilt' even? African criminals sold by other africans to Muslims and Europeans..They didn't really even see them as humans, which is messed up, but they didn't seem human. But what I don't really understand is this: Sure, even though white europeans took a group of people with no idea of civilization and helped them get to where they are today, it doesn't even come close to what we did to Native Americans.And yet, native americans are still the most proud and self-supporting people in this country.Being part Caddo myself, I am proud of my ancestors mainly for not giving up and blaming society on their problems.

[The Bos'un]

THere is still a slave trade to the tune of about 27million people in the world today.... Some are sex slaves, some are indentured servants, some are exploited migrant workers.... Slavery is alive and will in the 21st century....

[Clintville]

Tell me about the "Secret Six". Who, what, when, and why. Then tell me why charges were never brought against them and they were not brought to justice?

You do know that the three of them did run away to Canada to avoid arrest?One was in a crazy house and another went to Europe.

But if the Southern States are not rebellious towards the Constitution, and are fighting the Northern States and Federal govt., then who are the real rebels.

The South still was. They were fighting the authority of the national government. That by definition makes them rebels.

Once a state seceeds from the Union the fort is no longer Federal.

According to whom? You?

Oh but you did say that. Your reply #32. Next to the last paragraph. But apparently you are not saying that now. Thats alright. That means the South was in full support of the Constitution. Which brings the question, how can the South be the rebellious one when it is in full support of the Constitution?

By that I meant I didn't mean they were breaking the Constitution, I meant they weren't defending it from the Union breaking it. How exactly did the US break the constitution before the war. If they banned slavery, that could be considered a violation. But they didn't. The South just feared they might, so the left.


Again, slavery was an issue. Slavery was not the cause. The cause is given you by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy. Please read it again, or for the first time.

Once again, the words of the secession meetings are more important than what one man said, regardless of his position in the state. They explicitly said they were leaving because they feared slavery. Jefferson Davis was full aware of this and joined his state.

Though please, in your own words, explain what the main issue was. You cannot say states' rights, as all the issues regarding that were about slavery as well. And tariffs were more an issue thirty years prior.

Why should I get over it. No one else does. The only time the Southernor is told to get over it, is when he is defending some sterotype accusation by some .....yankee or NAACP rep.

Well, I am not bringing up stereotypes so what you said is moot. I meant you need to face the facts that the Confederacy was created on slavery. It isn't surprising looking at the history of the South. I mean, most of America does have a racist history, but the South's is much deeper and longer.

[Clintville]

Maybe so. I see what you mean. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I don't know who or what you are replying to. Why don't you quote the posts?

[Clintville]

Your the one who got defensive :)) I simply asked the question and you carried it on from there and then you added white guilt which I am confused about because it does not take being white to be liberal. I never said "white guilt" I said liberal guilt. You are the one who started trying to inject race into what I said....
Well, this is pretty much entirely about slavery and race, so I really wasn't injecting anything. I don't know what "liberal guilt" is or what it has to do with this thread.

[Clintville]

Lets get back to ACORN and slavery for a minute. The videos that appeared to put the question of prostitution into the ACORN topic. Prostitution is a form of slavery, especially when the ACORNERS said not to let the 13 year old Salvadorians get educated or learn how to read, as it would be difficult to control them.

This type of criminal mindset seems to promote a form of Slavery.

And, we have "soft slavery" in some parts of America almost like having indentured servants when certain sectors exploit illegal aliens.

How come that minimum wage laws sometimes do not apply to migrant workers? Sounds almost like indentures servitude to me. And when a rich liberal hires illegals to work in the home and pays them minimally under the table, takes their passports, or in some way controls their movements, sure sounds like slavery to me.

I say soft slavery is alive and well in some parts of America.....exploiting the downtrodden...
Well, this is about the slavery during the Civil War. Not illegals and what their work can be called.

[Clintville]

Why would there be 'white guilt' even? African criminals sold by other africans to Muslims and Europeans..They didn't really even see them as humans, which is messed up, but they didn't seem human. But what I don't really understand is this: Sure, even though white europeans took a group of people with no idea of civilization and helped them get to where they are today, it doesn't even come close to what we did to Native Americans.And yet, native americans are still the most proud and self-supporting people in this country.Being part Caddo myself, I am proud of my ancestors mainly for not giving up and blaming society on their problems.
Well, most of the natives were killed by diseases. And officially they were allowed to stay on lands if they recognized federal authority.

Still, this is about the origins of the Civil War and events surrounding it, not white guilt or liberal guilt or whatever.

[Clintville]

THere is still a slave trade to the tune of about 27million people in the world today.... Some are sex slaves, some are indentured servants, some are exploited migrant workers.... Slavery is alive and will in the 21st century....
Yes, but this is more about clear and legal slavery before the Civil War, not what is happening here illegally and in other countries.

[The Bos'un]

In America, some take a blind eye. Elitists encourage it. Heck, even entitlements destine people to a form of soft slavery.

As far as the slave trade itself, it has not slowed a bit since the 1700s. Slave holders have gotten smarter. Radical Islam enslaves many today, too.

IN some countries it is not illegal. many of the same that brought to America (which was a small part of the trade, very small part).

Clint, I get a kick out of the universe that you have built and surround yourself with. :))

[Clintville]

In America, some take a blind eye. Elitists encourage it. Heck, even entitlements destine people to a form of soft slavery.

As far as the slave trade itself, it has not slowed a bit since the 1700s. Slave holders have gotten smarter. Radical Islam enslaves many today, too.

IN some countries it is not illegal. many of the same that brought to America (which was a small part of the trade, very small part).

Again, irrelevant.

Clint, I get a kick out of the universe that you have built and surround yourself with. :))
What does that mean, what are you replying to? Is it actually about the discussion?

[Quantrill]

You do know that the three of them did run away to Canada to avoid arrest?One was in a crazy house and another went to Europe.

The South still was. They were fighting the authority of the national government. That by definition makes them rebels.

According to whom? You?

By that I meant I didn't mean they were breaking the Constitution, I meant they weren't defending it from the Union breaking it. How exactly did the US break the constitution before the war. If they banned slavery, that could be considered a violation. But they didn't. The South just feared they might, so the left.


Once again, the words of the secession meetings are more important than what one man said, regardless of his position in the state. They explicitly said they were leaving because they feared slavery. Jefferson Davis was full aware of this and joined his state.

Though please, in your own words, explain what the main issue was. You cannot say states' rights, as all the issues regarding that were about slavery as well. And tariffs were more an issue thirty years prior.

Well, I am not bringing up stereotypes so what you said is moot. I meant you need to face the facts that the Confederacy was created on slavery. It isn't surprising looking at the history of the South. I mean, most of America does have a racist history, but the South's is much deeper and longer.

Is that all you can say about the Secret Six? Is that all you could find? Is that all Wikipedia says? Do you just dislike a little research or are you just hesitant to reveal what you found? I guess you want someone else to do the work and then you can just come back with your quick phrases of denial with no real understanding of what was taking place.

You dismissed earlier the role of the Secret Six as evidence of the Federal Govt's approval of John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry. Of course you offered nothing as to why. Now in answer to my questions to you about the Secret Six, the who, what, when, and why, and why wern't they brought to justice, you just give the immediate happenings after Harpers Ferry.

If you don't want to do the work or just don't want to say it, tell me, and I will do it for you. But I do think you should do it yourself as it helps. So, who were the Secret Six?
What was their relation to John Brown? When was their influence with Brown taking place. Why did they do what they did? And, why didn't the Fed. Govt. bring them to justice?

When you say the South was still rebels becasue they were fighting the Fed. Govt., you neglected what I said at the first. Which was, If the Southern States are not rebellious towards the Constitution, then how can they be the rebels in their fight with the Fed. Govt. and Northern States?

According to me? Not hardly. Secession is separation. What a state entered into the union with, it leaves with when it seceeds. When South Carolina seceeded, all her land went with her. Thus Fort Sumter is South Carolinas property and the Fed. Govt. is tresspassing.

Concerning that denial of what you said in your reply #32, and your now fancy foot work and double speak to explain it, it would have been better to admit you made a mistake.

Why do I need to put the reasons for secession in my own words when I have told you that Jefferson Davis has explained it perfectly? All you have to do is read what he said, and then consider me agreeing that that is the reason for secession.

As to slavery being mentioned in the Oridinances of Secession of the States seceeding, of course it will be mentioned. It was the unconstitutional treatment of the Southern States by the Fed. Govt. and Northern States concerning slavery that was the present provocation. In other words, the South was not wrong or illegal in having slavery. Yet the Fed. Govt was not offering the South the protections that the Constitution gave.

And States rights was most definitely center of all the trouble. Which is easily seen in the tremendous power given to the Federal Govt. after the war. The root of the war was power and money. An enlarged Federal power and control of the south and the future westward expansion.

Most of your answers are just stereotypical. Provide a little substance with them and perhaps I will believe you, that they are not typical.

Quantrill

[angelicmadrigal]

Just a thought, someone brought up the idea of prostitution being a form of slavery. Here's the deal with that. If a grown woman or man CHOOSES to sell sexual services on her or his own that is NOT slavery, that is a CHOICE. When someone is FORCED or sold into it, THEN it comes into the realm where you can claim it's slavery.

[Spectre]

"Was it appropriate for Sherman to march to the sea and torch everything in his path?"

Sherman waged war upon non-combatants including women and children. Isn't that how Terrorists fight?

[Spectre]

Surprise history lesson...

After slavery was abolished in the Confederate states, Union States MD,DE,KY,MO,WV and NJ still kept slavery.

Yet everyone now days equates slavery to Southern or Confederate states, why is that?

[captusa]

Surprise history lesson...

After slavery was abolished in the Confederate states, Union States MD,DE,KY,MO,WV and NJ still kept slavery.

Yet everyone now days equates slavery to Southern or Confederate states, why is that?

Was New Jersey a slave state???????

West Virginia was formed by an area of Virginia effectively seceding from Virginia and the Confederacy.

[captusa]

Well, most of the natives were killed by diseases. And officially they were allowed to stay on lands if they recognized federal authority.

Still, this is about the origins of the Civil War and events surrounding it, not white guilt or liberal guilt or whatever.

The Cherokee recognized federal authority and were removed from their land.
It was Andrew Jackson that did accept federal authority.

[Spectre]

Was New Jersey a slave state???????



They had slavery in the North for over 200 years, starting in the Colonial times.

Northern states NY, NJ, NH, PA, RI and CN had slavery well after they became states.

Yes New Jersey kept slavery until 1865 after the Civil War was over. It took the 13th Amendment to force the end of slavery in NJ.

If the Yankees were fighting to 'free the slaves' why didnt they start in their own backyards?

I sure hope the thousands of brave men who volunteered to fight and die from NJ realized that their own state still had slavery.

[Clintville]

Is that all you can say about the Secret Six? Is that all you could find? Is that all Wikipedia says? Do you just dislike a little research or are you just hesitant to reveal what you found? I guess you want someone else to do the work and then you can just come back with your quick phrases of denial with no real understanding of what was taking place.

You dismissed earlier the role of the Secret Six as evidence of the Federal Govt's approval of John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry. Of course you offered nothing as to why. Now in answer to my questions to you about the Secret Six, the who, what, when, and why, and why wern't they brought to justice, you just give the immediate happenings after Harpers Ferry.

I did give you the why. They they fled the country out of fear of being charged. That kind of shows that the federal government wasn't supporting them.

Still, I already stated that Brown wasn't tried by Virginia because the federal government didn't want to try him, but because the Governor of Virginia ordered him to be. So what were the other reasons you thought the federal government approved of armed insurrections against itself?



When you say the South was still rebels becasue they were fighting the Fed. Govt., you neglected what I said at the first. Which was, If the Southern States are not rebellious towards the Constitution, then how can they be the rebels in their fight with the Fed. Govt. and Northern States?

Again, they were fighting national authority. That makes them rebels. No one was technically breaking the constitution.

According to me? Not hardly. Secession is separation. What a state entered into the union with, it leaves with when it seceeds. When South Carolina seceeded, all her land went with her. Thus Fort Sumter is South Carolinas property and the Fed. Govt. is tresspassing.

Who says secession is legal? The federal government never thought it was. The US never recognized the South.


Concerning that denial of what you said in your reply #32, and your now fancy foot work and double speak to explain it, it would have been better to admit you made a mistake.

But I didn't make a mistake. I meant what I said. You said the north was breaking the constitution and the south was supporting it. I said that was wrong. You never said why. That is it.

Why do I need to put the reasons for secession in my own words when I have told you that Jefferson Davis has explained it perfectly? All you have to do is read what he said, and then consider me agreeing that that is the reason for secession.

I meant would you specify what he was saying. What legislation was the North discriminating? The only thing that comes to mind is the Fugitive Slave laws.

Still, why is he more important than the people that actually were seceding?

As to slavery being mentioned in the Oridinances of Secession of the States seceeding, of course it will be mentioned. It was the unconstitutional treatment of the Southern States by the Fed. Govt. and Northern States concerning slavery that was the present provocation. In other words, the South was not wrong or illegal in having slavery. Yet the Fed. Govt was not offering the South the protections that the Constitution gave.

Exactly, the feared the federal government would get rid of slavery or not protect it. That makes it about slavery. I wasn't saying it as slavery was a crime. Still, the government wasn't going to ban slavery, they just thought it would.

And States rights was most definitely center of all the trouble. Which is easily seen in the tremendous power given to the Federal Govt. after the war. The root of the war was power and money. An enlarged Federal power and control of the south and the future westward expansion.

Yes, and those state rights' issues were about slavery, so that cannot be brought up. And bringing up the end of the war and its effects on national slavery is irrelevant to the cause. That would be like saying the south seceded over secession. That wouldn't make sense.


Most of your answers are just stereotypical. Provide a little substance with them and perhaps I will believe you, that they are not typical.

How are the enforcing stereotypes of southerners. All I said was the southern states seceded over slavery. Saying the south was horribly racist during that time is not a stereotype, it was most certainly true.

[Drawz]

On a bit of a tangent:

I'm fairly ignorent of the specifics of the Civil War era but I've been told that slavery was on it's way out in the South due to it's being economicaly unsustainable until the invention of the cotton gin.
Any thoughts?

[Clintville]

Sherman waged war upon non-combatants including women and children. Isn't that how Terrorists fight?
No, that is total war. That is how the US fought in WWII.

War crimes weren't just limited to the North. The Confederacy also killed surrendering troops (especially black regiments).

[Clintville]

On a bit of a tangent:

I'm fairly ignorent of the specifics of the Civil War era but I've been told that slavery was on it's way out in the South due to it's being economicaly unsustainable until the invention of the cotton gin.
Any thoughts?
It may have been. But the southerners still feared it would be banned by the federal government. If the South had won, they would probably have gotten rid of it gradually by 1900 at the latest. Especially since they would probably be under strong pressure from the British and French.

The invention of the cotton gin expanded slavery.

[Clintville]

The Cherokee recognized federal authority and were removed from their land.
It was Andrew Jackson that did accept federal authority.
That is why I said officially. Jackson wasn't much to obey laws if he disagreed with them. For someone who is so beloved today, he was kind of a dick to the rule of law.

[Clintville]

They had slavery in the North for over 200 years, starting in the Colonial times.

Northern states NY, NJ, NH, PA, RI and CN had slavery well after they became states.

Yes New Jersey kept slavery until 1865 after the Civil War was over. It took the 13th Amendment to force the end of slavery in NJ.

If the Yankees were fighting to 'free the slaves' why didnt they start in their own backyards?

I sure hope the thousands of brave men who volunteered to fight and die from NJ realized that their own state still had slavery.

All northern states had banned slavery by the early nineteenth. For many it was gradual emancipation. By the 1860s, in New Jersey, there was about 20 slaves (though they weren't called that). That is compared to 4 million in the South, so it isn't that hard to see why one is more identified with slavery than the other.

And the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery, not at first at least.

[Drawz]

It may have been. But the southerners still feared it would be banned by the federal government. If the South had won, they would probably have gotten rid of it gradually by 1900 at the latest. Especially since they would probably be under strong pressure from the British and French.

The invention of the cotton gin expanded slavery.

Really? You think slavery in the south would have been gone in less than forty years even if they won the war?

[Clintville]

Really? You think slavery in the south would have been gone in less than forty years even if they won the war?
I cannot say for certain of course, but I cannot seeing it living into the twentieth century. Of course, once slavery is ended, the lives of blacks wouldn't change much. The UK and France would probably be there biggest allies and they would probably be pressuring them to get rid of it.

Then again, it would have to be banned individually by the states of the Confederacy, so it might have taken very long for them all to eventually get rid of it.

[Quantrill]

I did give you the why. They they fled the country out of fear of being charged. That kind of shows that the federal government wasn't supporting them.

Still, I already stated that Brown wasn't tried by Virginia because the federal government didn't want to try him, but because the Governor of Virginia ordered him to be. So what were the other reasons you thought the federal government approved of armed insurrections against itself?



Again, they were fighting national authority. That makes them rebels. No one was technically breaking the constitution.

Who says secession is legal? The federal government never thought it was. The US never recognized the South.


But I didn't make a mistake. I meant what I said. You said the north was breaking the constitution and the south was supporting it. I said that was wrong. You never said why. That is it.

I meant would you specify what he was saying. What legislation was the North discriminating? The only thing that comes to mind is the Fugitive Slave laws.

Still, why is he more important than the people that actually were seceding?

Exactly, the feared the federal government would get rid of slavery or not protect it. That makes it about slavery. I wasn't saying it as slavery was a crime. Still, the government wasn't going to ban slavery, they just thought it would.

Yes, and those state rights' issues were about slavery, so that cannot be brought up. And bringing up the end of the war and its effects on national slavery is irrelevant to the cause. That would be like saying the south seceded over secession. That wouldn't make sense.


How are the enforcing stereotypes of southerners. All I said was the southern states seceded over slavery. Saying the south was horribly racist during that time is not a stereotype, it was most certainly true.

No, you didn't give the why. I will get back later with the details.

Harpers Ferry was a Federal Arsenal. The charges should be treason against the U.S. Instead its treason against Virginia. Brown was not a subject of Virginia. It was a give away by the Fed. Govt. so they didn't have to try one who they actually were in agreement with. Had the Fed. Govt wanted, Wises request would have been rejected.

Your not listening. Just because one is fighting the Federal govt. does not make them rebels. Why is the one fighting the Fed. Govt. the rebels? They could only be rebels if they were breaking a law that the Fed. Govt had over them. What law was that?

I do. I say secession was legal. Who says it was illegal? You?

Jefferson Davis gave clearly the reason for secession. He is more important because he is the President.

But since you keep wanting to pursue the States Ordinances of Secession lets list them.

1. Texas - I only saw stated as the reason is that Federal power was being used as a weapon to destroy their interests when it was intended to be uses as a shield.

2. Louisiana - I saw nothing mentioned of slavery

3. Mississippi - I saw nothing mentioned of slavery

4. Alabama - Mentions interests of Alabama being threatned and a desiret to meet other slaveholding states

5. Georgia - I saw no mention of slavery

6. Florida - I saw no mention of slavery

7. South Carolina- I saw no mention of slavery

8. Arkansas - stated that they were seceeding because Lincoln was ordering them to go to war with the seceeding States.

9. Tennessee - I saw no mention of slavery

10. Virginia - I saw no mention of slavery

11. Kentucky - offered more explanation. "...instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties , our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States...

12. Missouri - also was more verbal. "Whereas the Govt of the U.S.,in the possession and under the control of a sectional partyhas wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Gobvt. and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies, the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia whilst legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occuppying the State Capital...destroyhing private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity, peaceable citizens...indicating a deep settled hostililty toward the people of Missouri and their institutions...

So from what I see it appears that the Seceeding States are very much in agreement with Jefferson Davis's reason for the cause of secession.

No, States rights are about States rights. Just because slavery was the States responsibility doesn't mean its all thats involved with States Rights. To no one but those who think as you.

Because what you say is typical. Brief and typical. And wrong.

I will get back later with more on the Secret Six.

Quantrill

[Spectre]

War crimes weren't just limited to the North. The Confederacy also killed surrendering troops (especially black regiments).

I'm glad that you admit that the North committed war crimes. Would like to see some proof of Confederate troops "killing surrendering troops (especially black regiments)." Can you come up with an example?

[Clintville]

No, you didn't give the why. I will get back later with the details.

Yes I did. They weren't in the country. They left because they feared they would be arrested.

Harpers Ferry was a Federal Arsenal. The charges should be treason against the U.S. Instead its treason against Virginia. Brown was not a subject of Virginia. It was a give away by the Fed. Govt. so they didn't have to try one who they actually were in agreement with. Had the Fed. Govt wanted, Wises request would have been rejected.
So because they government didn't try Brown that meant they supported him? And you concluded this how. Say Wise didn't order it. Do you think the federal government would just let Brown go?


Your not listening. Just because one is fighting the Federal govt. does not make them rebels. Why is the one fighting the Fed. Govt. the rebels? They could only be rebels if they were breaking a law that the Fed. Govt had over them. What law was that?

Again, yes it does. A rebel is someone defiant to authority. They were rebelling against the federal governments authority.

I do. I say secession was legal. Who says it was illegal? You?

The federal government, and informally, it was seen as illegal or traitorous.

Jefferson Davis gave clearly the reason for secession. He is more important because he is the President.
No, that does not make him more important. He didn't cause the secession, the states did.

But since you keep wanting to pursue the States Ordinances of Secession lets list them.
[quote]
1. Texas - I only saw stated as the reason is that Federal power was being used as a weapon to destroy their interests when it was intended to be uses as a shield.

And that interest was slavery.

And this is from the Declaration of Causes for Texas:

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

There you go.

3. Mississippi - I saw nothing mentioned of slavery

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"

That is the first line in the declaration. I don't think I need to go further. But there is a lot more if you want.
[quote]
4. Alabama - Mentions interests of Alabama being threatned and a desiret to meet other slaveholding states

And the fact that the states it calls on to secede all happen to be slave states tell you what?

5. Georgia - I saw no mention of slavery

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"

Second line in the declaration

7. South Carolina- I saw no mention of slavery

Their declaration of causes brings criticizes the north not obeying the fugitive slave laws.


As for the remaining states, excluding those that seceded after the war started, why do you think they seceded. And be specific.


So from what I see it appears that the Seceeding States are very much in agreement with Jefferson Davis's reason for the cause of secession.

Please bring up his quote and specify what he was talking about.

No, States rights are about States rights. Just because slavery was the States responsibility doesn't mean its all thats involved with States Rights. To no one but those who think as you.

No, states rights was primarily about slavery. Please give a more important reason if you can.

Because what you say is typical. Brief and typical. And wrong.

No, it is right. You're the one who is wrong. You thought John Brown was approved by the federal government just because he was tried by a state, on orders from the governor of the state. You think secession wasn't about slavery but have not given any specific reasons why it wasn't. You thought the purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments were to establish black supremacy because former Confederate officials were disenfranchised until they swore allegiance to the US, then compared it to what the racist Klan did (who were trying to disenfranchise blacks simply because they were different).

I am guessing you are from the South?

[The Bos'un]

Did it go over your head. Slavery is alive and well in the 21st century.... Regardless of what world one choses to live in....

[The Bos'un]

Why do you keep trying to bring White into it? Liberal guilt is not white, by the way. I'd say you and Jimmah Carter have a lot in common......

[Spectre]

Did it go over your head. Slavery is alive and well in the 21st century.... Regardless of what world one choses to live in....

Absolutely, especially in Africa.

[The Bos'un]

Slavery has remained. In a way liberalism encourages a bondage of sort..... Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South Asia, Europe, and even America.....Sex slavry, abuse of illegal aliens, etc. etc. etc..

[Clintville]

I'm glad that you admit that the North committed war crimes. Would like to see some proof of Confederate troops "killing surrendering troops (especially black regiments)." Can you come up with an example?

such slaughter I have not witnessed upon any battlefield anywhere. Their men were principally negroes and we shot them down until we got near enough and then run them through with the bayonet. … We was not very particular whether we captured or killed them, the only thing we did not like to be pestered burying the heathens.

-Confederate Major Matthew Love on the Battle of Crater

There was also the massacre at Fort Pillow.

[Clintville]

Did it go over your head. Slavery is alive and well in the 21st century.... Regardless of what world one choses to live in....
I already said I was aware of that. But we are not talking about that!

[Clintville]

Why do you keep trying to bring White into it? Liberal guilt is not white, by the way. I'd say you and Jimmah Carter have a lot in common......
You still haven't told me what liberal guilt is.

[Clintville]

Slavery has remained. In a way liberalism encourages a bondage of sort..... Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South Asia, Europe, and even America.....Sex slavry, abuse of illegal aliens, etc. etc. etc..
Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

How exactly does liberalism encourage slavery in other countries. How does it encourage sex slavery? And I assume that is defined as being forced, not just prostitution.

[The Bos'un]

Slavery, the civil war, secession were all excuses and justifications of sort by opposing points of view. I suspect that the as with the American justice system, color was used as a prop just as criminals are used a props between defense and prosecuting attorneys. Guilt or innocence takes a back seat to the agenda of the dueling attorneys. Color was just a justification for war in the clash of American cultures. After the war was over, carpetbaggers exploited the war torn south.

[The Bos'un]

Now we have Jimmah Carter lecturing conservatives, repubics, and those who question President Obama and question the new left; "racism..."

[The Bos'un]

What are you talking about. You get offended when I question liberal guilt and then you pepper later comments with "white" guilt, you tell me irrevalent again when you do not say irrevelant the first time around, you try to run an intellectural discussion about the civil war, when the real underlying issue was POWER. Perhaps slavery had some small part to do with the civil war.... If it had not been slavery it would have been something else, trade, economics, etc. etc.

The South did have right to suceed from the Union to pursue their own government. But, the powers to be in the North had another agenda....

[Spectre]

There was also the massacre at Fort Pillow.

The forts commander Maj. Lionel F Booth was killed by a Confederate sharpshooter.

Forrest sent a note to new commander Maj. William F Bradford demanding unconditional surrender. Assuring that the captured would be treated as prisoners of war.
Bradford's final reply was, "I will not surrender."
The Union flag was still flying over the fort, which indicated that the force had not formally surrendered. Lt. Daniel Van Horn of the 6th U. S. Heavy Artillery (Colored) stated in his official report "There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter."

Yes it was a massacre but certainly not a war crime.

[Quantrill]

Yes I did. They weren't in the country. They left because they feared they would be arrested.
So because they government didn't try Brown that meant they supported him? And you concluded this how. Say Wise didn't order it. Do you think the federal government would just let Brown go?


The Secret Six were:

George Luthor Stearns
Gerrit Smith
Thomas Wentworth Higgenson
Samuel G. Howe
Theodore Parker
Franklin B. Sanborn

The Secret Six were men of wealth and prestige in the North who funded and supporte John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry. They wanted their involvement unknown but their names were found among Browns possessions after Harpers Ferry.


Stearns did flee to Canada but later returned. He said of Harpers Ferry, that it was one of the greatest events of the age. He became active during the war raising up black regiments for the Union. No charges

Gerrit Smith did have a temporary fit of insanity after Harpers Ferry. Later however, he sat in Congress as an independent and worked for the war effort. No charges.

Thomas Higgenson after Harpers Ferry became the commander of the 1st regiment of black troops accepted officially into the Union. Was an author after the War. No charges.

Samuel Howe was husband of Julia Ward Howe. He also fled to Canada and denied involvement with Harpers Ferry. He later returned and served during the War as director of United States Sanitary Commission. No charges

Theodore Parker , liberal minister, was already overseas for health reasons, which he died from. No charges

Franklin Sanborn did flee to Canada but later returned. Attempt was made to arrest him again but mobs supported him and the courts didn't pursue any action. No charges

These are men who encouraged and supported John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry. They were as guilty as Brown of the deaths of those killed and the treason of the act itself. Yet they functioned in the north as leaders and were given positions of authority.

So, though the Federal Govt would of course bemoan such activity due to political libility, in reality, they didn't care because its exactly what they wanted anyway. Their refusal to bring these men to justice proves it.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

To Clintville

Do I think they would let Brown go. He was already a murder. Had been in custody when leaving Kansas. Was some freed after entering free states. Was free to roam about and gather funds for future raids, one of which would be Hapers Ferry. The Federal Govt. did let him go by their washing their hands of him. He was not charged with treason against the U.S. He was charged with treason against Virginia.

The South was not defying authority. The South seceeded. You say the Federal Govt said secession was illegal. How was secession illegal?

In Texas declaration of causes, your right slavery is mentioned, but it is mentioned in the context of the refusal of the Federal Govts. to protect the property and rights of the persons of the slave holding states. Which responsibility they had.

In other words, yes slavery is an issue but the cause is the Federal Govt not protecting the citizens of the Slave States and allowing their injury.

So, are you saying because the Southern States had slavery that they should not have been protected by the Constitution?

I gave Jeff Davis quote in an earlier reply, and don't have time at this time. I will get it later.

Why give a more important reason, that said it very well.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Perhaps slavery had some small part to do with the civil war.... If it had not been slavery it would have been something else, trade, economics, etc. etc.
No, it had everything to do with secession. The states said this themselves. You can say states' rights all you want, but those issues still regarded primarily among slavery.

[Clintville]

The Secret Six were:

George Luthor Stearns
Gerrit Smith
Thomas Wentworth Higgenson
Samuel G. Howe
Theodore Parker
Franklin B. Sanborn

The Secret Six were men of wealth and prestige in the North who funded and supporte John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry. They wanted their involvement unknown but their names were found among Browns possessions after Harpers Ferry.


Stearns did flee to Canada but later returned. He said of Harpers Ferry, that it was one of the greatest events of the age. He became active during the war raising up black regiments for the Union. No charges

Gerrit Smith did have a temporary fit of insanity after Harpers Ferry. Later however, he sat in Congress as an independent and worked for the war effort. No charges.

Thomas Higgenson after Harpers Ferry became the commander of the 1st regiment of black troops accepted officially into the Union. Was an author after the War. No charges.

Samuel Howe was husband of Julia Ward Howe. He also fled to Canada and denied involvement with Harpers Ferry. He later returned and served during the War as director of United States Sanitary Commission. No charges

Theodore Parker , liberal minister, was already overseas for health reasons, which he died from. No charges

Franklin Sanborn did flee to Canada but later returned. Attempt was made to arrest him again but mobs supported him and the courts didn't pursue any action. No charges

These are men who encouraged and supported John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry. They were as guilty as Brown of the deaths of those killed and the treason of the act itself. Yet they functioned in the north as leaders and were given positions of authority.

So, though the Federal Govt would of course bemoan such activity due to political libility, in reality, they didn't care because its exactly what they wanted anyway. Their refusal to bring these men to justice proves it.

Quantrill

So you are saying that the federal government should have charged the remaining members with treason? That would be difficult considering they weren't doing the same to the southern states.

[Clintville]

The South was not defying authority. The South seceeded. You say the Federal Govt said secession was illegal. How was secession illegal?

Yes, they were defying authority. The United States said they couldn't secede and they did anyways. Then they started a war to secede. Informally, secession was seen as traitorous and illegal according to some past events.


In Texas declaration of causes, your right slavery is mentioned, but it is mentioned in the context of the refusal of the Federal Govts. to protect the property and rights of the persons of the slave holding states. Which responsibility they had.

And that regarded slavery.

In other words, yes slavery is an issue but the cause is the Federal Govt not protecting the citizens of the Slave States and allowing their injury.

And those also regarded slavery.

So, are you saying because the Southern States had slavery that they should not have been protected by the Constitution?

How did you get that?

[Quantrill]

To Clintville

Here is the quote again from Jeff Davis, which comes from his work, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

" It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws', it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union-generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity."

"No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it."

Quantrill

[captusa]

......
Again, they were fighting national authority. That makes them rebels. No one was technically breaking the constitution.

Who says secession is legal? The federal government never thought it was. The US never recognized the South.


But I didn't make a mistake. I meant what I said. You said the north was breaking the constitution and the south was supporting it. I said that was wrong. You never said why. That is it.
.......

Let me add a simple explaination.
When a state ratified the Constitution it entered into a contract with the United States.
The only way terms of a contract can be vacated if both parties agree.
By seceding the Southern States abrogated a contract and the federal government had no choice other than enforcing the contract.

[Quantrill]

So you are saying that the federal government should have charged the remaining members with treason? That would be difficult considering they weren't doing the same to the southern states.

I am saying the men who were the Secret Six were accomplaces to murder and treason and just as guilty as John Brown. The refusal of the Federal Govt. to bring these men to justice proves that they approved of this conduct. As does the awards of rank and authority given these men.

It shows that the Federal Govt and Northern states cared not for the peace and tranquillity of the Southern people but instead promoted agitation.

Weren't doing what to the Southern States?

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Let me add a simple explaination.
When a state ratified the Constitution it entered into a contract with the United States.
The only way terms of a contract can be vacated if both parties agree.
By seceding the Southern States abrogated a contract and the federal government had no choice other than enforcing the contract.

"We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

The above statement is in the ratification statement for the state of Viriginia.


"The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics...It depends on the State itself, to retain or abolish the principle of representation; because it depends on itself, whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistant with the principles on which all our political systems are founded..."

The above is from William Rawle, U.S. District Attorney under George Washington

"Anypeople anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people,that can, may revolutionize,and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. "

The above is from Abraham Lincoln in a speech to Congress Jan.12,1848

Quantrill

[Clintville]

To Clintville
" It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws', it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union-generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity."

And what did he mean by depriving them of liberty? How was that happening? What legislation was he referring to?

And what about the Vice President of the CSA? He said that it was directly founded upon slavery, and even criticized the US Constitution, and they were replacing the Constitution with a new one, so in away they weren't really fighting for the US Constitution, at least in the eyes of Alexander Stephens, who saw it as imperfect with regards to slavery.







"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted."

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Look at the last sentence. I am not trying to make much of a relevant point, but he is pretty much criticizing one of the most famous lines in the Declaration of Independence.

And even after the war, he held that it was about slavery.

"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession".

[Clintville]

Weren't doing what to the Southern States?

Charging its officials with treason. No one was executed (well, one guy was, but it was for war crimes).

[Clintville]

Oh, and going back to the whole Reconstruction being worse than Jim Crow thing, did you know that Jim Crow laws (though unintentionally disenfranchised more whites than Reconstruction did)? And Reconstruction was only temporary.

[Quantrill]

And what did he mean by depriving them of liberty? How was that happening? What legislation was he referring to?

And what about the Vice President of the CSA? He said that it was directly founded upon slavery, and even criticized the US Constitution, and they were replacing the Constitution with a new one, so in away they weren't really fighting for the US Constitution, at least in the eyes of Alexander Stephens, who saw it as imperfect with regards to slavery.







"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted."

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Look at the last sentence. I am not trying to make much of a relevant point, but he is pretty much criticizing one of the most famous lines in the Declaration of Independence.

And even after the war, he held that it was about slavery.

"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession".



I do acknowledge Alexander Stephens speech and particular statements you present. Before I respond to them, I first want to know, if you believe it yourself.

After all, I presented several quotes from that period of history concerning Lincolns emancipation speeches, to which you just ignored. So am I to believe that you really believe what Stephens has said, and if so why did you not believe the quotes I had given you?

Example, William Sewards view of the Emancipation Speech. Seward was Lincolns Secretary of State. He said the Emancipation freed no one. You ignored it. So what should I do with this speech of Stephens?

Quantrill

[Clintville]

I do acknowledge Alexander Stephens speech and particular statements you present. Before I respond to them, I first want to know, if you believe it yourself.

After all, I presented several quotes from that period of history concerning Lincolns emancipation speeches, to which you just ignored. So am I to believe that you really believe what Stephens has said, and if so why did you not believe the quotes I had given you?

Lincoln may have been lying. He obviously had different ideas during the war. It was the same with slavery.


Example, William Sewards view of the Emancipation Speech. Seward was Lincolns Secretary of State. He said the Emancipation freed no one. You ignored it. So what should I do with this speech of Stephens?

I didn't ignore it. What Sewards said about the Emancipation is different from what the southerners are saying about their own direct choice to secede. What Seward said is contradicted by recorded fact. Even if it didn't directly free anyone (and it did), it still eventually officially freed most of them once the Union took the rest of the South.

[NascarGirl2448]

Under the circumstances... yes.

NO it wasn't. That scumbag was 100% dead wrong in what it did. Targeting civilians is NOT right, regardless of why you try and "justify" the action.

[NascarGirl2448]

Try this on for size.
The civil war should have never happened. It was an illegal act.

You're right, the War for Southern Independence should not have happened. However, it was NOT illegal to secede, and the South knew it. The only way it ever escalated into a war was that lincoln and company decided they would force the South's hand, and make us come back into the union. Well we Southerners don't get pushed around, we fight. Had we not lost General Jackson at Chancellorsville, we would have kicked ass and then some in Gettysburg, and the war would have been over. What kind of leadership (if you want to call it that) did the yankees have? NONE. Grant was so drunk I'm surprised he managed to stay on his horse (he didn't deserve such a beautiful horse, either!) sherman and sheridan were scum, and who else did they have? McClellan was a decent guy, but he was about the only one.

[NascarGirl2448]

"Was it appropriate for Sherman to march to the sea and torch everything in his path?"

Sherman waged war upon non-combatants including women and children. Isn't that how Terrorists fight?

Exactly. sherman was scum and sheridan wasn't much better.

[NascarGirl2448]

West Virginia was formed by an area of Virginia effectively seceding from Virginia and the Confederacy.

And if you read the part of the Constitution that deals with statehood, West Virginia should not be a state. The admission was not approved by the majority required.

[NascarGirl2448]

They had slavery in the North for over 200 years, starting in the Colonial times.

Northern states NY, NJ, NH, PA, RI and CN had slavery well after they became states.

Yes New Jersey kept slavery until 1865 after the Civil War was over. It took the 13th Amendment to force the end of slavery in NJ.

If the Yankees were fighting to 'free the slaves' why didnt they start in their own backyards?

I sure hope the thousands of brave men who volunteered to fight and die from NJ realized that their own state still had slavery.





Its common knowledge that Grant owned slaves. In fact his wife was once quoted as saying she would never free their slaves because "good help was just too hard to find." Ironic when you consider he was supposedly fighting to "end" slavery. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[Quantrill]

Exactly. sherman was scum and sheridan wasn't much better.

And I second that sentiment.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Lincoln may have been lying. He obviously had different ideas during the war. It was the same with slavery.


I didn't ignore it. What Sewards said about the Emancipation is different from what the southerners are saying about their own direct choice to secede. What Seward said is contradicted by recorded fact. Even if it didn't directly free anyone (and it did), it still eventually officially freed most of them once the Union took the rest of the South.

Well, on that basis I could just as easily say Stephens was wrong and the facts don't support him. But, that sounds so cheap, doesn't it?

The speech you quote from is Stephens Cornerstone Speech given in Savannah at the begining of the Confederacy where he is speaking much of the New Govt. and the Confederate Constitution.

But from whatever source you copied this from, you should have had a note stating at the begining that there is in existance no "official copy" of this speech. It was an extemporarneous speech and a reporter took down those things he could and what he thought were the highlights.

Thus at the end of the speech, or where you copied it from, you should have a reporters note, saying, "Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report,but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgement, the most important points presented bythe orator"

In other words, its the reporters words, though he did the best he could. And Im sure he presented it as accurately as possible. But, you and I are discussing on a level where "words" are key. So I don't think much argument should be given on this speech because of its questionable existance.

But, Stephens wrote about the Confederacy and Im sure you can find some quotes of equal meaning there.

Quantrill

[buflineks]

"Was it appropriate for Sherman to march to the sea and torch everything in his path?"

Sherman waged war upon non-combatants including women and children. Isn't that how Terrorists fight?

It's called, "Total Warfare".

If he hadn't of done it the war would have lasted longer.

The next thing you'll tell me is that the Dropping of the A-Bombs to end WWII were "Genocide". :rolleyes:

[buflineks]

Exactly. sherman was scum and sheridan wasn't much better.

As opposed to whom?

Quantrill?

Sterling Price?

I love how you all sit around here and make these judgements based upon some mythical idyllic premise of the "Southern Cavalier".

Wars aren't like that. And the U.S. Civil war was no different.

[buflineks]

As an historian it amuses me to sit here and read this.

You all look for one specific "cause" for the conflict, "Slavery", "States Rights", etc. When in reality it was a combination of Factors; cultural, economic, etc.

And you are all engaging in "Blame" historiography.

And I will bet that you all teach your kids this stuff and anyone who will listen.

This is why history should be left to the professionals.:rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

As opposed to whom?

Quantrill?

Sterling Price?

I love how you all sit around here and make these judgements based upon some mythical idyllic premise of the "Southern Cavalier".

Wars aren't like that. And the U.S. Civil war was no different.

When my ancestors are attacked and have their last bag of wheat (which they hid under a tree to keep the yankees from stealing it) I believe I have earned the right to call the leaders of that unwarranted, disgusting attack against civilians every name in the book.

[buflineks]

When my ancestors are attacked and have their last bag of wheat (which they hid under a tree to keep the yankees from stealing it) I believe I have earned the right to call the leaders of that unwarranted, disgusting attack against civilians every name in the book.

Youi can "believe" anything you want.

But your hypocrisy speaks volumes.

btw, you haven't "earned" anything. Being Born doesn't "earn" a single solitary thing. You didn't have to "work" for it.

addum. "Unwarrented"??????? It was a "WAR". But I guess your education makes believe that only soldiers should be killed in "wars".
like most people you have NO concept as to the meaning of "Total Warfare".

[NascarGirl2448]

It's called, "Total Warfare".

No, its called unwarranted aggression by scumbags.

If he hadn't of done it the war would have lasted longer.

Better soldiers fight it out than target innocent civilians.

The next thing you'll tell me is that the Dropping of the A-Bombs to end WWII were "Genocide". :rolleyes:

Ironic that Japan didn't think we had the courage to do it and now we're the ones defending them. But after they found out we were serious, they haven't messed with anyone, militarily or otherwise.

[NascarGirl2448]

Youi can "believe" anything you want.

But your hypocrisy speaks volumes.

btw, you haven't "earned" anything. Being Born doesn't "earn" a single solitary thing. You didn't have to "work" for it.

When its your relatives who end up falling victim to scum, you've earned the right to call the head scumbags anything you want. And just what "hypocrisy" are you speaking of? I haven't been hypocritical about the scum that target innocent civilians during the War for Southern Independence being scumbags. I've maintained that all the way through.

[buflineks]

No, its called unwarranted aggression by scumbags.



Better soldiers fight it out than target innocent civilians.



Ironic that Japan didn't think we had the courage to do it and now we're the ones defending them. But after they found out we were serious, they haven't messed with anyone, militarily or otherwise.

Oh so now you're going to sit there and tell me that the Bombings of Hiroshima and Negasaki were wrong?

And by this you are now asserting that Col. Paul Tibbits was a scumbag.

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh so now you're going to sit there and tell me that the Bombings of Hiroshima and Negasaki were wrong?

Yes they were, but losing over 1,000,000 of our soldiers would have been worse. That was one situation where you had to go with the lesser of 2 evils. Still ironic that we now have soldiers over there defending Japan because they gave up an active military after getting their butts kicked.

[buflineks]

Yes they were, but losing over 1,000,000 of our soldiers would have been worse. That was one situation where you had to go with the lesser of 2 evils. Still ironic that we now have soldiers over there defending Japan because they gave up an active military after getting their butts kicked.

So it's only okay if it's YOUR side that does this?

Again, you've just called Col Paul Tibbits a "scumbag".

Your hypocrisy is unreal.

[buflineks]

Yes they were, but losing over 1,000,000 of our soldiers would have been worse. That was one situation where you had to go with the lesser of 2 evils. Still ironic that we now have soldiers over there defending Japan because they gave up an active military after getting their butts kicked.

Wait a minute you just stated that fighting between soldiers was okay. But that the taking "innocent lives" was wrong.

So is the projected lose of "1,000,000 of OUR soldiers" worse than the killing of civilians?

[Quantrill]

As opposed to whom?

Quantrill?

Sterling Price?

I love how you all sit around here and make these judgements based upon some mythical idyllic premise of the "Southern Cavalier".

Wars aren't like that. And the U.S. Civil war was no different.

No one has any illusion what war is like. And, there is nothing mythical thats being said. If you think there is, reference it and we will see how mythical it is.

As to Sherman being scum, there is no need of comparrison with anyone. Do you want to compare him to Quantrill, fine make the comparrison.

Quantrill

[NascarGirl2448]

And by this you are now asserting that Col. Paul Tibbits was a scumbag.

No. He was doing what he had to do to protect our soldiers from being massacred. We would have lost over 1,000,000 people had we not done what we did. That was apples and oranges compared to what sherman and sheridan did. Japan attacked us first, we taught them a lesson they haven't forgotten. Apples and oranges. We did not attack the yankees first. Big difference.

[NascarGirl2448]

Wait a minute you just stated that fighting between soldiers was okay. But that the taking "innocent lives" was wrong.

So is the projected lose of "1,000,000 of OUR soldiers" worse than the killing of civilians?

Would you have let Japan get away with attacking us?

[NascarGirl2448]

So it's only okay if it's YOUR side that does this?

Again, you've just called Col Paul Tibbits a "scumbag".

Your hypocrisy is unreal.

Its unreal how you seem to enjoy comparing apples and oranges.

[buflineks]

No one has any illusion what war is like. And, there is nothing mythical thats being said. If you think there is, reference it and we will see how mythical it is.

As to Sherman being scum, there is no need of comparrison with anyone. Do you want to compare him to Quantrill, fine make the comparrison.

Quantrill

I'm not the one here deciding character issues.
I'm sitting here amazed at the lack of knowledge that is being displayed as to the content of warfare.

I have one person who thinks they have "earned" the right to engage in character assasination.

I think that if you want to bring in your namesake, you going to find it hard to justify his actions for the burning of lawrence as well as other the actions of other "pukes" (missouri boarder ruffians).

In the same breath, one would be just as hard pressed to defend the actions of the Jayhawkers.

But in Shermans case, he was engaged in a new military concept called,"Total Warfare". And we used to win wars that way. He was conducting warfare, a dirty, ugly business.

[buflineks]

Its unreal how you seem to enjoy comparing apples and oranges.

No. Unlike you I know how to look at history and warfare. Examin it and draw a rational conclusion.

It's not apples and oranges. They are the same thing.

The only differnce is your bias of one event compared to another and your extreme hypocrisy.

[buflineks]

Would you have let Japan get away with attacking us?

What I would or wouldn't do is not the issue here.

You set the perameters. Now I'm calling you on it.

Answer the question.

[NascarGirl2448]

But in Shermans case, he was engaged in a new military concept called,"Total Warfare". And we used to win wars that way. He was conducting warfare, a dirty, ugly business.

How anyone can defend that scumbag is just baffling. And when it was MY relatives (along with thousands of others) who were attacked by this scumbag, then whether you like it or not, I have earned the right to call the scum what they are, SCUM.

[Quantrill]

As an historian it amuses me to sit here and read this.

You all look for one specific "cause" for the conflict, "Slavery", "States Rights", etc. When in reality it was a combination of Factors; cultural, economic, etc.

And you are all engaging in "Blame" historiography.

And I will bet that you all teach your kids this stuff and anyone who will listen.

This is why history should be left to the professionals.:rolleyes:

Apparently your just reacting and haven't been following this discussion. If you think something historical that has been said is in error, by all means, point it out.

The professionals? And who would that be? You I bet. And, how do you know who is or isn't a professional anyway?

If your alluding to the "history" that is taught in schools now days, then I would avoid that lesson.

Well, historian, what do you say?

Quantrill

[NascarGirl2448]

No. Unlike you I know how to look at history and warfare. Examin it and draw a rational conclusion.

It's not apples and oranges. They are the same thing.

The only differnce is your bias of one event compared to another and your extreme hypocrisy.

Yes it is indeed apples and oranges. What we did to Japan was 100% different than what the scumbags did. Japan attacked us first. You follow? Ok then. We know Japan attacked us first and we had to teach them a lesson they have never forgotten. Ok still with me? Now, what sherman and sheridan did to innocent Southerners (civilians who didn't have a dog in the fight) was wrong, barbaric, and quite frankly, something that would be condemned by every civilized nation today. Got it now? Thought so.

[Clintville]

Well, on that basis I could just as easily say Stephens was wrong and the facts don't support him. But, that sounds so cheap, doesn't it?

Yeah except you don't actually have any facts. It is a fact that the Emancipation did immediately free some slaves. And it is completely undeniable that it eventually freed most of them.

The speech you quote from is Stephens Cornerstone Speech given in Savannah at the begining of the Confederacy where he is speaking much of the New Govt. and the Confederate Constitution.

But from whatever source you copied this from, you should have had a note stating at the begining that there is in existance no "official copy" of this speech. It was an extemporarneous speech and a reporter took down those things he could and what he thought were the highlights.

Thus at the end of the speech, or where you copied it from, you should have a reporters note, saying, "Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report,but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgement, the most important points presented bythe orator"

In other words, its the reporters words, though he did the best he could. And Im sure he presented it as accurately as possible. But, you and I are discussing on a level where "words" are key. So I don't think much argument should be given on this speech because of its questionable existance.

But, Stephens wrote about the Confederacy and Im sure you can find some quotes of equal meaning there.

Quantrill
Okay, even if the speech was totally fabricated by journalists for some reason, that last quote is directly from him in a writing by him explaining the speech, so it is at least true that the speech did exist and that he at least thought slavery as the key issue of secession.

[NascarGirl2448]

What I would or wouldn't do is not the issue here.

You set the perameters. Now I'm calling you on it.

Answer the question.

What question was that? And why don't you answer mine? Would you or would you not have let Japan get away with attacking us?

[Clintville]

NO it wasn't. That scumbag was 100% dead wrong in what it did. Targeting civilians is NOT right, regardless of why you try and "justify" the action.
So what was WWII? Was what we did right?

[captusa]

No. He was doing what he had to do to protect our soldiers from being massacred. We would have lost over 1,000,000 people had we not done what we did. That was apples and oranges compared to what sherman and sheridan did. Japan attacked us first, we taught them a lesson they haven't forgotten. Apples and oranges. We did not attack the yankees first. Big difference.


1) You did attack the Yankees first.
Fort Sumter did not fire on anyone.
Sherman introduced strategic warfare.
War is Hell meant that suffering was not limited to the men in uniform.


Far more people were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo and several other Japanese cities than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (and Cologne and Dresden)
The Japanese killed more civilians during the "Rape of Nanking" than were killed than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I always wonder how many of the fathers and grandfathers would have been in the 1,000,000 Americans that would have been casualties had the bombs not been dropped.

[buflineks]

Apparently your just reacting and haven't been following this discussion. If you think something historical that has been said is in error, by all means, point it out.

The professionals? And who would that be? You I bet. And, how do you know who is or isn't a professional anyway?

If your alluding to the "history" that is taught in schools now days, then I would avoid that lesson.

Well, historian, what do you say?

Quantrill

I'm discussing the character assasination.

That's right, I've been trained in history. I hold a degree. I understand methodology and hold myself to an ethical standard that you and others here have failed to engage.

And yes, I have been following the discussion.

Again, you are ALL trying to engage in "Blame" or "Fault" methodology.

What I learned in school.

Can you tell me the major historical works regarding the U.S. Civil war and what methodologies they fall under? Can you tell me the four eras of those Histories?

Give me a critical review of Boritt, Gienapp, and Rolands works.

[Clintville]

You're right, the War for Southern Independence should not have happened. However, it was NOT illegal to secede, and the South knew it. The only way it ever escalated into a war was that lincoln and company decided they would force the South's hand, and make us come back into the union. Well we Southerners don't get pushed around, we fight. Had we not lost General Jackson at Chancellorsville, we would have kicked ass and then some in Gettysburg, and the war would have been over. What kind of leadership (if you want to call it that) did the yankees have? NONE. Grant was so drunk I'm surprised he managed to stay on his horse (he didn't deserve such a beautiful horse, either!) sherman and sheridan were scum, and who else did they have? McClellan was a decent guy, but he was about the only one.
No, the South couldn't have won regardless of who led it. The United States totally beat them economically, industrially, and militarily. The only hope they had was getting the UK to pressure the US into recognizing the CSA.

Or do you have something to add about the UK and the Civil War? Something no one but you knows perhaps?

[NascarGirl2448]

So what was WWII? Was what we did right?

As has been explained several times over, it was apples and oranges. What we did in WW2 was teach those who had already attacked us (remember Pearl Harbor?) a lesson they have not forgotten. What scum like sherman and sheridan and their cohorts did was just plain flat out wrong. Not only did the innocents these scum targeted not have a dog in the fight, but they had no food, no blankets, no homes, nothing. You cannot tell me that kind of barbarianism would be tolerated today, even in wartime.

[Quantrill]

I'm not the one here deciding character issues.
I'm sitting here amazed at the lack of knowledge that is being displayed as to the content of warfare.

I have one person who thinks they have "earned" the right to engage in character assasination.

I think that if you want to bring in your namesake, you going to find it hard to justify his actions for the burning of lawrence as well as other the actions of other "pukes" (missouri boarder ruffians).

In the same breath, one would be just as hard pressed to defend the actions of the Jayhawkers.

But in Shermans case, he was engaged in a new military concept called,"Total Warfare". And we used to win wars that way. He was conducting warfare, a dirty, ugly business.

I disagree. I believe one who knows Sherman is scum, is well aware of the real war that was waged.

Just because it was total warfare doesn't mean Shreman wasn't scum.

Whether total warfare is wrong or right, doesn't mean the one to whom it is pointed against is in the wrong. In other words total warfare doesn''t make Sherman right. And to the Southernors who have links back to that time, he was and is scum.

Quantrill

[buflineks]

What question was that? And why don't you answer mine? Would you or would you not have let Japan get away with attacking us?

Nice deflection.

too tough to answer, wanting to save face so now you engage in Foucaultian/Marxist debate tactics.

Lovely.

Again, answer the question. Since you said that killing innocent civilians is worse than soldiers killing soldiers. And Since you have asserted that those who do so are "scumbags".
How do you then JUSTIFY you opinion that the Bombings of Japan were better than the projected loss of 1mill american soldiers from an invasion. In addition, how do you JUSTIFY Col. Tibbits be "pure of heart" and yet Sherman was a "Scumbag". Especially when Tibbits actions killed more civilians?

[Clintville]

Its common knowledge that Grant owned slaves. In fact his wife was once quoted as saying she would never free their slaves because "good help was just too hard to find." Ironic when you consider he was supposedly fighting to "end" slavery. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Grant himself acquired one slave and set him free after a year. When he was president he banned the KKK and approved of civil rights for blacks.

[NascarGirl2448]

No, the South couldn't have won regardless of who led it. The United States totally beat them economically, industrially, and militarily. The only hope they had was getting the UK to pressure the US into recognizing the CSA.

Keep deluding yourself. Its obvious that a lot of people deny reality.

Or do you have something to add about the UK and the Civil War? Something no one but you knows perhaps?

I wasn't the only one who knew about it. The Confederate veterans who lived in the Old Soldier's Home in Richmond Virginia knew about it also. My grandfather got it from them, then passed the true history of the War for Southern Independence down to my mom and uncles, and finally to me. I wish you could have met my grandfather. He would have taught you a lot.

[NascarGirl2448]

Grant himself acquired one slave and set him free after a year. When he was president he banned the KKK and approved of civil rights for blacks.

He must have overruled the missus then, because that quote from her is common knowledge to anyone who has studied them.

[captusa]

When my ancestors are attacked and have their last bag of wheat (which they hid under a tree to keep the yankees from stealing it) I believe I have earned the right to call the leaders of that unwarranted, disgusting attack against civilians every name in the book.

The number of people killed by Sherman's troops was extremely small for the size of the operation.
As Napolean said, "An army travels on its stomach."
Attacking the source of supply of the army was a legitimate although new tactic.

[buflineks]

As has been explained several times over, it was apples and oranges. What we did in WW2 was teach those who had already attacked us (remember Pearl Harbor?) a lesson they have not forgotten. What scum like sherman and sheridan and their cohorts did was just plain flat out wrong. Not only did the innocents these scum targeted not have a dog in the fight, but they had no food, no blankets, no homes, nothing. You cannot tell me that kind of barbarianism would be tolerated today, even in wartime.



[bold mine]

Can you site the primary source that states this?

If they didn't have any food, then how was it that Shermans army was capable of siezing their supplies and living off that?

didn't have a "dog in the fight"?????????

You mean all those women who were lining the roads yelling obscenities and talking about how Bobby Lee was going kill them all, didn't "have a dog in the fight"?


I love it, why don't you spread some more propoganda to confuse the issue.

[Quantrill]

I'm discussing the character assasination.

That's right, I've been trained in history. I hold a degree. I understand methodology and hold myself to an ethical standard that you and others here have failed to engage.

And yes, I have been following the discussion.

Again, you are ALL trying to engage in "Blame" or "Fault" methodology.

What I learned in school.

Can you tell me the major historical works regarding the U.S. Civil war and what methodologies they fall under? Can you tell me the four eras of those Histories?

Give me a critical review of Boritt, Gienapp, and Rolands works.

How about just join the discussion and prove whatever you think is wrong, as wrong. Your labels are all neatly catagorical. Im not impressed.

Don't misunderstand. Im not trying to mock your education. I do detest your attitude of all knowing because of your education. As though some others may not be eduacated to "your" degree.

I have noticed that degrees do that to people.


Quantrill

[NascarGirl2448]

Nice deflection.

too tough to answer, wanting to save face so now you engage in Foucaultian/Marxist debate tactics.

Lovely.

Again, answer the question. Since you said that killing innocent civilians is worse than soldiers killing soldiers. And Since you have asserted that those who do so are "scumbags".
How do you then JUSTIFY you opinion that the Bombings of Japan were better than the projected loss of 1mill american soldiers from an invasion. In addition, how do you JUSTIFY Col. Tibbits be "pure of heart" and yet Sherman was a "Scumbag". Especially when Tibbits actions killed more civilians?

Unlike you, I don't compare apples to oranges. Now answer my question. Would you have let Japan get away with attacking us?

[buflineks]

Keep deluding yourself. Its obvious that a lot of people deny reality..

So Lee was deluding himself?
He knew, they all knew.
that is why Lee fought mostly a defensive war.

[Clintville]

No, its called unwarranted aggression by scumbags.

No, it is called destroying the enemy's ability to wage war.

As for aggression, the South fired first. You can say all you want that the federal government should have left, but the South still fired first.


Ironic that Japan didn't think we had the courage to do it and now we're the ones defending them. But after they found out we were serious, they haven't messed with anyone, militarily or otherwise.
So you're saying it was right? Because that would make you a hypocrite.

[buflineks]

Unlike you, I don't compare apples to oranges. Now answer my question. Would you have let Japan get away with attacking us?

Translation -

I'm being hypocritical and have been caught at it. So now I'm trying to turn the focus of the debate away from my hypocrisy.

[NascarGirl2448]

[bold mine]

Can you site the primary source that states this?

If they didn't have any food, then how was it that Shermans army was capable of siezing their supplies and living off that?

didn't have a "dog in the fight"?????????

You mean all those women who were lining the roads yelling obscenities and talking about how Bobby Lee was going kill them all, didn't "have a dog in the fight"?


I love it, why don't you spread some more propoganda to confuse the issue.

Where do you get this stuff??? :)) I have my family history that tells what really happened, and sherman and sheridan and company targeted innocent civilians for no good reason. And NO the women and children who were targeted by these scum did not have a dog in the fight. They were trying to survive as best they could and sherman and sheridan and company didn't give a frog's fat behind. And ANYONE who thinks that kind of thing would be tolerated today, well, I have to wonder why they think that. I'm pretty sure there are laws against such things nowadays.

[Clintville]

You all look for one specific "cause" for the conflict, "Slavery", "States Rights", etc. When in reality it was a combination of Factors; cultural, economic, etc.

Slavery was the main issue for secession. Issues over states' rights regarded slavery.

[Clintville]

When its your relatives who end up falling victim to scum, you've earned the right to call the head scumbags anything you want. And just what "hypocrisy" are you speaking of? I haven't been hypocritical about the scum that target innocent civilians during the War for Southern Independence being scumbags. I've maintained that all the way through.
It is hypocritical to accuse the North of atrocities when the South also carried them out.

[buflineks]

How about just join the discussion and prove whatever you think is wrong, as wrong. Your labels are all neatly catagorical. Im not impressed.

Don't misunderstand. Im not trying to mock your education. I do detest your attitude of all knowing because of your education. As though some others may not be eduacated to "your" degree.

I have noticed that degrees do that to people.


Quantrill

You totally miss my point here.

The rampant "Character Assasination" does nothing to further the discussion.

Was Sherman Brutal? Yes
Were Civilians endangered because of his actions? Yes.
Was he a "scumbag"? Depends on which side you were on. A truely objective Opinion is that he did what he had to do in order to achieve victory. Moral judgements on his actions do NOTHING to further the discussion or communication of History.

addum. I am further dismayed at trying to find "One Cause". Take in the bigger picture and things might start to fall into place.

[NascarGirl2448]

Translation -

I'm being hypocritical and have been caught at it. So now I'm trying to turn the focus of the debate away from my hypocrisy.

Translation - You don't seem to be able to answer the question, so you keep trying to avoid it. Now I will ask you again, and for the love of god, answer this time! Would you or would you not have let Japan get away with attacking us at Pearl Harbor?

[captusa]

He must have overruled the missus then, because that quote from her is common knowledge to anyone who has studied them.

Rutherford B. Hayes brokered his win in the election (in the House of Representives) by promising not to enforce the reconstruction.
BTW It took a while before the North has black troops.
Jefferson Davis suggested offering freedom to blacks who would fight for the Confederacy bnut was over-ruled.
Sherman was far more racist than either Lee or Davis. (Over course none of them were as racist as Nathan Forrest)

[NascarGirl2448]

It is hypocritical to accuse the North of atrocities when the South also carried them out.

Like it was our fault we didn't have enough to feed our own soldiers, much less clothe them, and couldn't do the same for those we captured.

[Quantrill]

Yeah except you don't actually have any facts. It is a fact that the Emancipation did immediately free some slaves. And it is completely undeniable that it eventually freed most of them.

Okay, even if the speech was totally fabricated by journalists for some reason, that last quote is directly from him in a writing by him explaining the speech, so it is at least true that the speech did exist and that he at least thought slavery as the key issue of secession.

Its a fact only to you that slaves were freed by the emancipation. You provided nothing to show it.

The speech existed but its nothing you or I can use to prove our position. As I said, Stephens wrote much about the South. You should be able to find like quotes from him there.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

We did not attack the yankees first. Big difference.
Yes "you" did.

And Sherman and the Union believed their tactics were shortening the war, so that makes him just as evil as Truman.

Technically, the atomic bombings could be called terrorism more than Sherman's march.

[buflineks]

Slavery was the main issue for secession. Issues over states' rights regarded slavery.

Slavery was an issue. But to classify it as "the main issue" is to do a disservice to the entire period.

Btw, I notice how everyone seems to forget Lincolns Inagural adress when he told the nation that he was not out to end slavery.

[Clintville]

Would you have let Japan get away with attacking us?
That isn't the point. Still, the US and Japan could have come to a conditional end. By that time Japan had lost much of its possessions, so I think it was taught a pretty good lesson for bombing us.

[buflineks]

Like it was our fault we didn't have enough to feed our own soldiers, much less clothe them, and couldn't do the same for those we captured.

I love it.....

More "fault" historiography.

will it never end.

And love all this "we" and "our". trying to use personal history as justification to win a debate...... How Foucault.

[buflineks]

We did not attack the yankees first. Big difference.

Gee....
Can you say, "Ft. Sumter"?

[NascarGirl2448]

Yes "you" did.

And Sherman and the Union believed their tactics were shortening the war, so that makes him just as evil as Truman.

Technically, the atomic bombings could be called terrorism more than Sherman's march.

Let's see, starve to death (or freeze to death) vs being vaporized in an instant. Hmmmmmm which was really a worse way to die?

[Clintville]

I'm not the one here deciding character issues.
I'm sitting here amazed at the lack of knowledge that is being displayed as to the content of warfare.

I have one person who thinks they have "earned" the right to engage in character assasination.

I think that if you want to bring in your namesake, you going to find it hard to justify his actions for the burning of lawrence as well as other the actions of other "pukes" (missouri boarder ruffians).

In the same breath, one would be just as hard pressed to defend the actions of the Jayhawkers.

But in Shermans case, he was engaged in a new military concept called,"Total Warfare". And we used to win wars that way. He was conducting warfare, a dirty, ugly business.

It is useless to argue with her. She thought the UK invaded the south in the war, and no matter how much evidence to the contrary she stood by it.

[buflineks]

Translation - You don't seem to be able to answer the question, so you keep trying to avoid it. Now I will ask you again, and for the love of god, answer this time! Would you or would you not have let Japan get away with attacking us at Pearl Harbor?

I'll answer as soon as you answer mine, since I asked you first.

[NascarGirl2448]

Gee....
Can you say, "Ft. Sumter"?

Can you say evicting yankee trespassers? That's exactly what the yankees became after South Carolina seceded and took the fort to boot.

[NascarGirl2448]

I'll answer as soon as you answer mine, since I asked you first.

I answered you already. But since you missed it, I'll tell you again. I do not compare apples to oranges.

Ok now are you going to answer me finally?

[buflineks]

It is useless to argue with her. She thought the UK invaded the south in the war, and no matter how much evidence to the contrary she stood by it.

OMG!:rolleyes:

Where the hell did that piece of fiction come from?

[Quantrill]

You totally miss my point here.

The rampant "Character Assasination" does nothing to further the discussion.

Was Sherman Brutal? Yes
Were Civilians endangered because of his actions? Yes.
Was he a "scumbag"? Depends on which side you were on. A truely objective Opinion is that he did what he had to do in order to achieve victory. Moral judgements on his actions do NOTHING to further the discussion or communication of History.

addum. I am further dismayed at trying to find "One Cause". Take in the bigger picture and things might start to fall into place.

Give it time. The big picture comes with time and discussion. And I believe the big picture is being addressed.

Well, if your a Southernor, Sherman is a scumbag. And had the South won he would have been hung. Though I doubt he would have made it to the gallows in one piece. And nothing is going to change that.

We can and do have these opinions and can still discuss the causes of the war.

Quantrill

[buflineks]

I answered you already. But since you missed it, I'll tell you again. I do not compare apples to oranges.

Ok now are you going to answer me finally?

no you haven't all you've said is "I do not compare apples to oranges".

That isn't an answer, that's "Ducking the question".

[NascarGirl2448]

It is useless to argue with her. She thought the UK invaded the south in the war, and no matter how much evidence to the contrary she stood by it.

I guess you would rather believe what the books say than what those who were actually there knew, but why am I not surprised. My grandfather was right, the true history of the South is being eliminated from this country. That's just sad.

[NascarGirl2448]

no you haven't all you've said is "I do not compare apples to oranges".

That isn't an answer, that's "Ducking the question".

I have explained it several times, and you just can't seem to grasp the concept.

[Clintville]

Yes it is indeed apples and oranges. What we did to Japan was 100% different than what the scumbags did. Japan attacked us first. You follow? Ok then. We know Japan attacked us first and we had to teach them a lesson they have never forgotten. Ok still with me? Now, what sherman and sheridan did to innocent Southerners (civilians who didn't have a dog in the fight) was wrong, barbaric, and quite frankly, something that would be condemned by every civilized nation today. Got it now? Thought so.
Sherman destroyed or took anything that could be used by the enemy. That is what total war is. The US completely destroyed almost every Japanese city, and the Allies together did the same thing to Germany.

And how many civilians were killed by Sherman? There is a lot of controversy about that. We all know he burned down farms and houses and took food and cattle, but how many people were ordered killed?

[Quantrill]

It is hypocritical to accuse the North of atrocities when the South also carried them out.

And what atrocities might that be?

Quantrill

[buflineks]

I have explained it several times, and you just can't seem to grasp the concept.


You haven't explained anything...ergo.... there is no "concept".

[NascarGirl2448]

OMG!:rolleyes:

Where the hell did that piece of fiction come from?

Fiction??? If you had actually been able to talk to soldiers who were there (including one who was captured at Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, you would have had a whole different perspective of the war. But since you or no one you know or were related to ever had that chance obviously, you're limited to what the books say. That's really a shame.

[Clintville]

As has been explained several times over, it was apples and oranges. What we did in WW2 was teach those who had already attacked us (remember Pearl Harbor?) a lesson they have not forgotten. What scum like sherman and sheridan and their cohorts did was just plain flat out wrong. Not only did the innocents these scum targeted not have a dog in the fight, but they had no food, no blankets, no homes, nothing. You cannot tell me that kind of barbarianism would be tolerated today, even in wartime.
So dropping two super bombs on cities was "teaching a lesson" for the Japanese sinking some of our ships. And you are bringing up apples and oranges.

[NascarGirl2448]

You haven't explained anything...ergo.... there is no "concept".

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=61216771&postcount=129

Pay attention this time.

[NascarGirl2448]

So dropping two super bombs on cities was "teaching a lesson" for the Japanese sinking some of our ships. And you are bringing up apples and oranges.

Did women and children attack the yankees? Didn't think so. Get it now?

[buflineks]

Fiction??? If you had actually been able to talk to soldiers who were there (including one who was captured at Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, you would have had a whole different perspective of the war. But since you or no one you know or were related to ever had that chance obviously, you're limited to what the books say. That's really a shame.

The one captured at Gettysburg was a military observer from England, and he was there observing the Confederate Forces.

That is historical fact.

I love it....."my grandaddy said"......LMAO!

[Clintville]

Keep deluding yourself. Its obvious that a lot of people deny reality.

The US had much more money, and industrial based economy, more people (and escaped and freed slaves added to that), tons of more railroad tracks for fast troop transportation and naval supremacy. Please tell me how one general could beat all of that.

[buflineks]

Did women and children attack the yankees? Didn't think so. Get it now?

What about those Japanese women and Children at Hiroshima? How many there were at Pearl Harbor? How about Guadacanal? The Philipines?

Or do you consider them "enemy combatants" as well?

[NascarGirl2448]

And how many civilians were killed by Sherman? There is a lot of controversy about that. We all know he burned down farms and houses and took food and cattle, but how many people were ordered killed?

They didn't have to be ordered killed to be killed by sherman and company. The acts that scumbag engaged in killed people by leaving them to starve or freeze to death.

[Quantrill]

I guess you would rather believe what the books say than what those who were actually there knew, but why am I not surprised. My grandfather was right, the true history of the South is being eliminated from this country. That's just sad.

Yes they are trying to eliminate it.

It wont be forgot if you don't let it. Keep telling you and yours what was told you and it will be remembered.

I met a man several years ago that told me the people of Vicksburg, Miss., did not celebrate the 4th of July until 1967, after the War between the States. Why? Because it was on that day they succombed to the siege. I don't forget it. Read about it.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Unlike you, I don't compare apples to oranges. Now answer my question. Would you have let Japan get away with attacking us?
You just compared nuclear warfare to conventional warfare.

[NascarGirl2448]

What about those Japanese women and Children at Hiroshima? How many there were at Pearl Harbor? How about Guadacanal? The Philipines?

Or do you consider them "enemy combatants" as well?

The difference was we didn't know which Japanese were on whose side. That's why we rounded them up here in this country during the war. All we knew was that we had been attacked, and the Japanese needed to be taught a lesson.

[NascarGirl2448]

You just compared nuclear warfare to conventional warfare.

That's just where this discussion lead.

[buflineks]

Can you say evicting yankee trespassers? That's exactly what the yankees became after South Carolina seceded and took the fort to boot.

LMAO.

agian, more "fault" historiography with Foucault methodolody.

A fort in the middle of a bay that had been a federal reservation since it's inception.

Gotta love it.:)):)):)):))

[Clintville]

Where do you get this stuff??? :)) I have my family history that tells what really happened, and sherman and sheridan and company targeted innocent civilians for no good reason. And NO the women and children who were targeted by these scum did not have a dog in the fight. They were trying to survive as best they could and sherman and sheridan and company didn't give a frog's fat behind. And ANYONE who thinks that kind of thing would be tolerated today, well, I have to wonder why they think that. I'm pretty sure there are laws against such things nowadays.

Like the British invading the Confederacy. I know I am committing fallacy, but you never answered this. But, it does prove that whoever you get your "facts" from shouldn't be too trusted.

[Quantrill]

Like the British invading the Confederacy. I know I am committing fallacy, but you never answered this. But, it does prove that whoever you get your "facts" from shouldn't be too trusted.

And your "facts" should. Sorry Ive seen your facts.

And what about those Southern atrocities.

Quantrill

[NascarGirl2448]

Yes they are trying to eliminate it.

It wont be forgot if you don't let it. Keep telling you and yours what was told you and it will be remembered.

I met a man several years ago that told me the people of Vicksburg, Miss., did not celebrate the 4th of July until 1967, after the War between the States. Why? Because it was on that day they succombed to the siege. I don't forget it. Read about it.

Quantrill

That's interesting. I never knew that Vicksburg took so long to recognize the 4th of July. Honestly I'm surprised they recognize it at all, considering.

[Clintville]

Like it was our fault we didn't have enough to feed our own soldiers, much less clothe them, and couldn't do the same for those we captured.
Too bad. That is still illegal in war. And why do you think surrendering black regiments were more likely to be shot after surrendering?

[buflineks]

The difference was we didn't know which Japanese were on whose side. That's why we rounded them up here in this country during the war. All we knew was that we had been attacked, and the Japanese needed to be taught a lesson.

We didn't "round them up" as a matter of fact, can you say 442nd combat regiment?

And why were all the Japanese americans allowed to remain in Hawaii and not in interment camps?

You still havent' answered the question.

You accuse Sherman of being a "scumbag" for harming "innocent" civilians and then in the same breath try to Justify the deaths of thousand of "innocent" civilians.

[Clintville]

Its a fact only to you that slaves were freed by the emancipation. You provided nothing to show it.

Know it is a fact that it freed most of them by the end of the war. You have newspapers reporting of it, soldiers reporting of it, and former slaves reporting of it.


The speech existed but its nothing you or I can use to prove our position. As I said, Stephens wrote much about the South. You should be able to find like quotes from him there.

So bringing up Davis' quote is proof, but Stephens' isn't? That was the whole point of me bringing up the speech.

[NascarGirl2448]

Like the British invading the Confederacy. I know I am committing fallacy, but you never answered this. But, it does prove that whoever you get your "facts" from shouldn't be too trusted.

I think Confederate veterans who lived in the Old Soldier's Home in Richmond, Virginia, are more credible than a book that was written by someone who read other biased books. That's where my grandfather got the true history of the War for Southern Independence from, and I believe it more than I believe some book written by someone who is out to eliminate Southern history. Read The South was Right if you want reality. Its actually one of the few books out there that does not whitewash history.

[buflineks]

Yes they are trying to eliminate it.

It wont be forgot if you don't let it. Keep telling you and yours what was told you and it will be remembered.

And your primary source evidence of this is.....?

[NascarGirl2448]

We didn't "round them up" as a matter of fact, can you say 442nd combat regiment?

And why were all the Japanese americans allowed to remain in Hawaii and not in interment camps?

You still havent' answered the question.

You accuse Sherman of being a "scumbag" for harming "innocent" civilians and then in the same breath try to Justify the deaths of thousand of "innocent" civilians.

Read post #129, and pay attention, will ya? I'm going to bed. I have to get up early in the morning.

[Clintville]

Slavery was an issue. But to classify it as "the main issue" is to do a disservice to the entire period.

So you think that if slavery didn't exist there would still be a secession crisis? No one has told me specifically why the south seceded.


Btw, I notice how everyone seems to forget Lincolns Inagural adress when he told the nation that he was not out to end slavery.
He did reject the Crittenden Compromise and did end up destroying slavery. According to Quantrill, he also stated that states could secede legally. So obviously he is capable of changing his mind of lying.

And I never said Lincoln was out to get rid of slavery. The Union wasn't, the south just feared they would.

[Quantrill]

And your primary source evidence of this is.....?

Through the removal of the Souths flags and monuments and any school mascots identifying with the Confederacy.

Through not teaching the real story of the war between the States as we have been discussing.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Know it is a fact that it freed most of them by the end of the war. You have newspapers reporting of it, soldiers reporting of it, and former slaves reporting of it.


So bringing up Davis' quote is proof, but Stephens' isn't? That was the whole point of me bringing up the speech.

I asked you where and all I got back was in books somewhere.

Davis was a quote. Your quote was of a reporter.

Quantrill

[captusa]

I disagree. I believe one who knows Sherman is scum, is well aware of the real war that was waged.

Just because it was total warfare doesn't mean Shreman wasn't scum.

Whether total warfare is wrong or right, doesn't mean the one to whom it is pointed against is in the wrong. In other words total warfare doesn''t make Sherman right. And to the Southernors who have links back to that time, he was and is scum.

Quantrill

Someone who uses the monicker "Quantrill" should show a little discression on whom he refers to as scum.
I really can't defend Sherman as a person.
Abondoning the blacks who followed his army to be slaughtered by trailing Confederates was deplorable and of course the accurate quote "The only good Indian I ever so was dead" doesn't say much for his humanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4AW8wgjoA&feature=related.

[buflineks]

Through the removal of the Souths flags and monuments and any school mascots identifying with the Confederacy.

Through not teaching the real story of the war between the States as we have been discussing.

Quantrill

No..... I'm asking for the primary source evidence of British soldiers invading the South during the Civil War. And in case I even misunderstood it, the primary source evidence of ANY British soldiers acting under orders to be beligerants on Either side.

You evidently haven't engaged in College level education on this subject. Because it's all pretty much out there now.

[captusa]

Yes they are trying to eliminate it.

It wont be forgot if you don't let it. Keep telling you and yours what was told you and it will be remembered.

I met a man several years ago that told me the people of Vicksburg, Miss., did not celebrate the 4th of July until 1967, after the War between the States. Why? Because it was on that day they succombed to the siege. I don't forget it. Read about it.

Quantrill

Vicksburg was a fortified position guarding the Mississippi River and siege was an accepted tactic of war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pKmRyeLDa0

[captusa]

The difference was we didn't know which Japanese were on whose side. That's why we rounded them up here in this country during the war. All we knew was that we had been attacked, and the Japanese needed to be taught a lesson.

Germany and Italy declared war on the USA.
Did we round up American citizens of German and Italian origin ?

[buflineks]

I. Read The South was Right if you want reality. Its actually one of the few books out there that does not whitewash history.

LMAO

Yeah, whatever.

Written by two brothers who aren't historians.

If you want reality I wouldn't read that nor their sequel Was Davis Right?

" ...the Kennedys remind us of how simplistic analysis may be used to obfuscate and distort complex historical subjects."
Dirck, Brian, The Journal of American History vol. 86 no. 2 ( September, 1999.) pg 785

Again, History is best left to the professionals.

[Clintville]

Let's see, starve to death (or freeze to death) vs being vaporized in an instant. Hmmmmmm which was really a worse way to die?
I believe that is irrelevant. And again, I don't think the Confederates were taking mercy into account when they executed black soldiers.

And there were plenty of POW camps. They may have been horrible, but it wasn't like it was impossible to take them prisoner.

Oh, and not that this is a war crime. But had Lee continued the prisoner exchange system, the South wouldn't be in that situation. But, he didn't continue it, because Grant's condition was that black soldiers, even if they were former slaves would be treated the same. This worked in the South's disadvantage, because the US had much more troops to spare, and could gain more by liberated slaves.

[buflineks]

Yes it is indeed apples and oranges. What we did to Japan was 100% different than what the scumbags did. Japan attacked us first. You follow? Ok then. We know Japan attacked us first and we had to teach them a lesson they have never forgotten. Ok still with me? Now, what sherman and sheridan did to innocent Southerners (civilians who didn't have a dog in the fight) was wrong, barbaric, and quite frankly, something that would be condemned by every civilized nation today. Got it now? Thought so.

So the U.S. had to teach those Japanese civilians a lesson, but the North just did cause they were "scumbags"?

LMAO

Both were "Total Warfare".
But evidently Military tactics and stratagy are beyond your comprehension.
You try and justify and claim things are different, but yet can not provide substantial arguement.

btw.....LOVE .... how you try to impose modern thought on Historical actions...... Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the Europeans taught the Amer-indians how to scalp.
LMAO

Your "Lost Cause" methodology doesn't work. Your "Fault" Methodology doesn't work.

[Clintville]

Can you say evicting yankee trespassers? That's exactly what the yankees became after South Carolina seceded and took the fort to boot.
They still fired on them first.

[Clintville]

OMG!:rolleyes:

Where the hell did that piece of fiction come from?
Her grandad. But don't worry, he got it from a real soldier in the war!

It is in another Civil War thread a few pages back or so in General Discussion.

[Clintville]

Give it time. The big picture comes with time and discussion. And I believe the big picture is being addressed.

Well, if your a Southernor, Sherman is a scumbag. And had the South won he would have been hung. Though I doubt he would have made it to the gallows in one piece. And nothing is going to change that.

We can and do have these opinions and can still discuss the causes of the war.

Quantrill
Again, I doubt the South would be in a position to prosecute US officials even they had won. They would only be able to obtain victory from British pressure, and I doubt the British would try to force something like that on the US.

[Clintville]

I guess you would rather believe what the books say than what those who were actually there knew, but why am I not surprised. My grandfather was right, the true history of the South is being eliminated from this country. That's just sad.
So what makes the books wrong and your grandfather right? The books have primary sources too. A whole lot more than just one person. How could a country invading a country be covered up from an even that happened only a century and a half ago?

[Clintville]

And what atrocities might that be?

Executing prisoners. Already brought it up.

[Clintville]

Did women and children attack the yankees? Didn't think so. Get it now?
Did the women and children of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and countless others attack the Allies?

[Clintville]

Yes they are trying to eliminate it.

It wont be forgot if you don't let it. Keep telling you and yours what was told you and it will be remembered.

I met a man several years ago that told me the people of Vicksburg, Miss., did not celebrate the 4th of July until 1967, after the War between the States. Why? Because it was on that day they succombed to the siege. I don't forget it. Read about it.

Quantrill
Did you hear what she said? She thinks the United Kingdom joined the war and fought the south. You can't believe that. That is crap.

[buflineks]

Give it time. The big picture comes with time and discussion. And I believe the big picture is being addressed.

Well, if your a Southernor, Sherman is a scumbag. And had the South won he would have been hung. Though I doubt he would have made it to the gallows in one piece. And nothing is going to change that.

We can and do have these opinions and can still discuss the causes of the war.

Quantrill

and you are presenting a Foucaultian view of a historical event that does nothing to educate nor advance discussion.

As to the "And had the South won, he would have been hung" is totally off the boards.
If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

Even Lee realized early on in the War that they could not achieve an offensive victory. The wouldn't have been able EVER to have conqoured the North. Therefore, they wouldn't have been able to force their political will on the Union.
Lee took a page from Washington, realizing that if he kept his army in the field, the cause would be sustained. He was hoping that the Northern Citizens would eventually get tired of the war and sue for peace. They even asked the British and the French to help negotiate.
The reason he went north to Penn. was to gain that one more victory that would have secured those nations willingness to be negotiators with the Union.
But he made that fatal mistake and it cost the South the whole shooting match.

Sherman and Grant both realized after that, in order to bring the war to quicker conclusion they had to break the south of all military capability, including public support as well as logisitical support.

the modified "Anaconda" plan of Windfield Scott's was working. The southern resources were diminishing rapidly and once Sherman rode through Georgia, there wasn't any military force that could stop him. He split the Confederacy in two. Divide and conqour.

[Clintville]

And your "facts" should. Sorry Ive seen your facts.

You mean actual quotes and recordings?

[Clintville]

I think Confederate veterans who lived in the Old Soldier's Home in Richmond, Virginia, are more credible than a book that was written by someone who read other biased books. That's where my grandfather got the true history of the War for Southern Independence from, and I believe it more than I believe some book written by someone who is out to eliminate Southern history. Read The South was Right if you want reality. Its actually one of the few books out there that does not whitewash history.
So, is there any documents at all from all three sides (and if there is fourth, please tell) that witness this?

[Clintville]

I asked you where and all I got back was in books somewhere.

Davis was a quote. Your quote was of a reporter.

Quantrill
Here is Booker T. Washington, a former slave.

"As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see."

The EP said the slaves in the rebelling territories were free. Why do you think they remained in captivity upon the Union armies reaching them?

[Clintville]

Germany and Italy declared war on the USA.
Did we round up American citizens of German and Italian origin ?
Actually we did, though not as much I don't think. And some were not American citizens, but living in Latin America.

Still wrong though.

[buflineks]

Did you hear what she said? She thinks the United Kingdom joined the war and fought the south. You can't believe that. That is crap.

Which is really funny because all of the Confederate "Raider" ships were built in Great Britian.
The Alabama was origionally christened the Enrica.
Capt. James Bulluch operated openly in Great Britian as a Confederate naval agent.

[buflineks]

To answer your question Nas...
Yeah, I would have nuked the Japanese. But not "to teach them a lesson". I would have done it because it's was the quickest way to end the war. It was "Total Warfare".

"teaching a lesson" is like Clinton firing cruise missles into Afghanistan. You either commit to "Total Warfare" or you don't. There is no "try", there is no "negotiate", there is no "teaching a lesson". In War there is only death and destruction. You either Win and survive, or you die.

In my own personal opinions, civilian casualties, although regrettable, are a byproduct of "Total Warfare". I don't believe in a war that a nation should "check their swing" when civilians are around. If you are going to war and you don't engage in "Total Warfare" then you will lose the war.
I have no problems with the bombing of Dresdan. I understand the Battle of Britian and can see why Hitler bombed London. I don't lay awake at night and wonder about Iraqi civilians or Afghan civilians and are they safe.

If I had been in Shermans position, I would have done the same thing.
If I had been in the pilots seat of the Enola Gay I would have done the same thing.

But I've been trained as a warrior, so things like "civilian casualties" don't bother me. I play to win/survive. I don't play, "To teach them a lesson'.

[buflineks]

Can you say evicting yankee trespassers? That's exactly what the yankees became after South Carolina seceded and took the fort to boot.

Trespassers?????

You mean on land that was sold to the U.S. Government in 1830? It was no longer a part of South Carolina.
The South Carolina legislature couldn't wait to sell the land to the Federal Government.

Tell me, how does one "trespass" on land they already own?

"trespassing" indicates that a person/entity does not have legal claim to a piece of property.

so you want to try and explain this one? Or was it because South Carolina wanted to "teach them a lesson"?

Also you may want to try and justify the first shot considering that Anderson had already agreed to surrender the Fort and was waiting for transportation.(FYI, that little bit of information is confirmed by Confederate officers reports)

[Quantrill]

and you are presenting a Foucaultian view of a historical event that does nothing to educate nor advance discussion.

As to the "And had the South won, he would have been hung" is totally off the boards.
If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

Even Lee realized early on in the War that they could not achieve an offensive victory. The wouldn't have been able EVER to have conqoured the North. Therefore, they wouldn't have been able to force their political will on the Union.
Lee took a page from Washington, realizing that if he kept his army in the field, the cause would be sustained. He was hoping that the Northern Citizens would eventually get tired of the war and sue for peace. They even asked the British and the French to help negotiate.
The reason he went north to Penn. was to gain that one more victory that would have secured those nations willingness to be negotiators with the Union.
But he made that fatal mistake and it cost the South the whole shooting match.

Sherman and Grant both realized after that, in order to bring the war to quicker conclusion they had to break the south of all military capability, including public support as well as logisitical support.

the modified "Anaconda" plan of Windfield Scott's was working. The southern resources were diminishing rapidly and once Sherman rode through Georgia, there wasn't any military force that could stop him. He split the Confederacy in two. Divide and conqour.

Big word. I guess that depends on what one sees as "advancing" discussion.

Why is it totally off the boards. Its an opinion based on the truth of Sherman and the events. Since when is that not allowed. Do you disagree?

If you check back you will see that I have offered nothing as to the "correctness" of the total war strategy. What I have told you and am telling you now is that it doesn't matter how correct a strategy it was. To those civilians on the recieveing end, and the soldiers of those cvilians, Sherman is and will always be scum.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Vicksburg was a fortified position guarding the Mississippi River and siege was an accepted tactic of war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pKmRyeLDa0

You don't mind if we don't forget it then. Correct?

[Quantrill]

Executing prisoners. Already brought it up.

Well I must have missed it. Could you provide the information concerning it?

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

LMAO

Yeah, whatever.

Written by two brothers who aren't historians.

If you want reality I wouldn't read that nor their sequel Was Davis Right?

" ...the Kennedys remind us of how simplistic analysis may be used to obfuscate and distort complex historical subjects."
Dirck, Brian, The Journal of American History vol. 86 no. 2 ( September, 1999.) pg 785

Again, History is best left to the professionals.

Professionals? History has been left to the "professionals" and we have in this country a distorted view and understanding of history." What little history is really taught.

Quantrill

[buflineks]

Professionals? History has been left to the "professionals" and we have in this country a distorted view and understanding of history." What little history is really taught.

Quantrill

And what distorted view is that?

That British soldiers didn't invade the south during the Civil War?

Btw don't confuse "Pop Historians" with the genuine thing.

That has been the undoing of America.

People like the kenedy's write less than scholarly work and you have people like buy it at a bookstore and then think it's a credible historical work. They make a few bucks and people like Nas think it's the truth.

That's the problem with "history" in America.

Or something is made into a movie, and then people can't seperate truth from hollywood license.

addum. It's like people who read the Dan Brown's Davinci Code and think it is the truth, when it's clearly "Fiction".

[Quantrill]

Someone who uses the monicker "Quantrill" should show a little discression on whom he refers to as scum.
I really can't defend Sherman as a person.
Abondoning the blacks who followed his army to be slaughtered by trailing Confederates was deplorable and of course the accurate quote "The only good Indian I ever so was dead" doesn't say much for his humanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4AW8wgjoA&feature=related.

I am showing discression.

And, concerning Sherman you are in large company.

Quantrill

[buflineks]

Here's and example of what I'm talking about.

In a few months a movie is coming out called, "The State of Jones". It's based upon a book by the same name written by Sally Jenkins ( a journalist) and John Stauffer, a Harvard Pop Historian.

They have based this book and movie ( damn near plagerising) a book called The Free State of Jones by Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, San Marcos.

They've basically taken her work, thrown in some hollywood liberty, and you'll have people who will see the movie and think they know about Newton Knight and the county in Mississippi that attempted to suceed from the Confederacy during the Civil War.

While Dr. Bynum's book is an excellent scholarly work, most people have never read it. In addition the Jenkins book has a major publisher and one hell of an ad campaign.

That's what's wrong with history today in America.

[NascarGirl2448]

LMAO

Yeah, whatever.

Written by two brothers who aren't historians.

If you want reality I wouldn't read that nor their sequel Was Davis Right?

" ...the Kennedys remind us of how simplistic analysis may be used to obfuscate and distort complex historical subjects."
Dirck, Brian, The Journal of American History vol. 86 no. 2 ( September, 1999.) pg 785

Again, History is best left to the professionals.

Biased are we? Since when are you a professional?

[NascarGirl2448]

Did you hear what she said? She thinks the United Kingdom joined the war and fought the south. You can't believe that. That is crap.

Only according to you.

[NascarGirl2448]

Or something is made into a movie, and then people can't seperate truth from hollywood license.

Gettysburg is the prime example of that. That movie distorted the truth so horribly it was downright sad.

[buflineks]

Biased are we? Since when are you a professional?

since attaining my degree, getting published, and recieving money for it.

[buflineks]

Gettysburg is the prime example of that. That movie distorted the truth so horribly it was downright sad.

Of that there is no disagreement.

Gods and Generals was just as horrific.

But see... this is the problem. It's not the History, it's how it is presented to the public.

I was in a dicussion earlier this week in which we talked about this, "Pop" history.
The major problem is that most historians write for the Academic community, their peers. They do not write for the public en masse.
So what you have are people like the Kennedy's, Dan Brown, James Carrol, et al, who are good writers, but they are lousy historians.
Which do you think sells more?
And all of a sudden, people see something on the NYT best seller list and they think that it historically accurate.

[Spectre]

To those of you here who support Shermans use of total war upon American civilians... Do you also support the Terrorist attacks on the World trade center or do you have double standards?

[buflineks]

To those of you here who support Shermans use of total war upon American civilians... Do you also suppoert the Terrorist attacks on the World trade center or do you have double standards?

The attacks on the World trade center were not "Total Warfare".
They were Guerilla tactics akin to the Jayhawkers and the Bushwackers.
IN fact the attacks on the world trade center couldn't even be considered "guerilla tactics".

And btw, as Nas will surely point out, at that time they no longer considered themselves "American Civilians", they were "Confederate" civilians

[Spectre]

"There is a class of people [in the South] men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

William T Sherman's letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War Stanton. June 21, 1864

[buflineks]

A note here.

The "Civil War" is actually a misnomer.

A "Civil War" implies that one faction was trying to wrest control of the Government from another.

Quantrill is right is calling it "the War of Southern Independance". It was a rebellion/revolution by the evaluation of the politics and goals.

However, the use of the term " U.S. Civil War" (inappropriately by Lincoln at Gettysburg) has become part of the American and world lexicon.

So I myself am guilty of using the term, but I do so for the sake of common understanding.

[buflineks]

"There is a class of people [in the South] men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

William T Sherman's letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War Stanton. June 21, 1864

Okay, nice out of context quote.

What "class of people" was he refering to?

[Spectre]

July 1864 Sherman ordered the kidnapping of hundreds of Roswell Georgia women. These women were sent North most of them never heard from again.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1086

[Spectre]

The United Kingdom supported the South by selling them hundreds of thousands of rifles.

And selling them unarmed merchant ships in England that were outfitted elsewhere as combatants.

Two such ships the CSS Alabama and the CSS Florida thoroughly trashed Union commerce shipping.

The CSS Alabama became the most successful commerce raider in American history.

[buflineks]

Okay, if Sherman is such a "scumbag" then please explain this communication to Gen. J.E. Johnston dated April 13th, 1865

"General Stoneman s under my command, and my order will suspend any devastation or destruction by him. I will add that I really desire to save the people of North Carolina the damage they would sustain by the march of this through the central or western parts of the State"

I patiently await the explination of this.

[Spectre]

Okay, nice out of context quote.

What "class of people" was he refering to?

Innocent civilians.

I guess the Sherman fans here are OK with kidnapping women too.

[buflineks]

July 1864 Sherman ordered the kidnapping of hundreds of Roswell Georgia women. These women were sent North most of them never heard from again.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1086

Gee.... no where in that article did it say "kidnap"......

there were "arrests" (that is in the article)..... They were charged with "Treason".

But no kidnappings.

Engage in Hyperbole much?

btw, if he was such a "scumbag", why didn't he just summarily execute them?

[buflineks]

Innocent civilians.

I guess the Sherman fans here are OK with kidnapping women too.

Wrong.

Nice try.

Better do some more research.

Again, more hyperbole.... this doesn't strengthen any of your assertions or attempted character assassination.

[Spectre]

Okay, if Sherman is such a "scumbag" then please explain this communication to Gen. J.E. Johnston dated April 13th, 1865

"General Stoneman s under my command, and my order will suspend any devastation or destruction by him. I will add that I really desire to save the people of North Carolina the damage they would sustain by the march of this through the central or western parts of the State"

I patiently await the explination of this.

Are you asking me to explain the writings of a deranged suicidal man?

Sorry, I am not a Psychiatrist.

[Spectre]

Question for all Yankee apologists here,

How would you feel and if Lees army would have burned Washington DC down, burned every house they came to while they were in PA, and also kidnapped hundreds of PA women and took them South.

Also how would history look at these acts?

[buflineks]

Are you asking me to explain the writings of a deranged suicidal man?

Sorry, I am not a Psychiatrist.

I figured you duck the question.

well one down.

will one of the other two be courageous enough to engage in honest historical discussion?

btw, since admit you are not a Psychiatrist, then how is it you're qualified to label him as "deranged" and "suicidal"?

addum. It is this type of Character assasination that keeps any honest historical discussion from coming to the table.

[buflineks]

Question for all Yankee apologists here,

How would you feel and if Lees army would have burned Washington DC down, burned every house they came to while they were in PA, and also kidnapped hundreds of PA women and took them South.

Also how would history look at these acts?

And this qeaustion has bearing how....?

If you keep engaging in hyperbole and rhetoric, no one is going to take you serious.

the entire question is non-sequitor.

I realize that it doesnt' mesh with your Foucaultian methodology, but hey....
thems the breaks.

[Spectre]

And this qeaustion has bearing how....?



It is an exact role reversal of what Shermans army did.

[Spectre]

btw, since admit you are not a Psychiatrist, then how is it you're qualified to label him as "deranged" and "suicidal"?

Sherman admitted this.