Confederates on the Rhine |
|
scream-of-consciousness; "If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
Confederates on the Rhine |
|
"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. " |
This will be the comment box |
That's one thing about progressives: they're not satisfied with screwing up the present. They have to screw with the past, too. Maybe a kinder, gentler future society will have the technology to treat this obvious mental disorder.
Just like that huge insulting travesty of a "documentary" the Scott brothers aired on the (rewriting) history channel.
Every Confederate was portrayed as a toothless hick or an evil slaveowner... It "all came down to slavery". Bastards.
It's sad that the most acglicurate part was the Geico reenactor comercial.
Ummmm... "accurate"
"black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically"
As Walter Williams pointed out last night on Fox this was all true up until the time the liberals took over their care and feeding. Not so much now.
I think the German re-enactors just wanted to be on the non-U.S. side ... again.
Explains why German-Americans left that "old hellhole country" and fought for the Union.
No, slavery may not have been a big issue to the Confederate soldier, but it sure as hell was for the Confederate governments.
I don't care much for the pseudo-aristocratic excuse that slaves were better-off in America than in Africa. Slavery is frikkin' slavery.
Hell, prog/lib/Democrats still believe black folks are lesser beings who need their overseeing and are better-off as protected thralls than free to succeed or fail as equals.
Slavery is a vile, dehumanizing state of existence; and I wish its continued practice in Arab & Muslim countries would be addressed by the pseudo-enlightened of this world.
Excellent, mon Roi. Lincoln's entire focus was preservation of the federal Union.
As one blue coat general and future president said...
"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."
--- Ulysses S. Grant, quoted in the NY World
IT not only came down to slavery -- the Southern leaders bragged about that, at the time.
Contrary to the utter nonsense we have been taught in school, Southern leaders, Southern newspapers, Southern documents boasted, bragged, and INSISTED it was about slavery.
Jeffereson Davis, even years later, writing in in own book, said it was about slavery -- slavery in the territories.
Southern Headlines boasted about it at the time -- see the Southern Ultimatums, all five of the Southern Ultimatums, according to Southern leaders and newspapers themselves, were about the SPREAD of slavery.
Not only did Davis say it, his Vice President went on and on about it being about slavery, as God's way, and that the rest of the world would follow the CSA example, and do slavery RIGHT -- total subjection of the inferior black race, per God's instructions.
Of course, God nor anyone else ever said such nonsense.
Southern leader Toombs screamed to cheering crowds "EXPAND SLAVERY OR PERISH". Southern leaders at Montgomery included the expanse of slavery in their own Constitution.
Never mind that the territories, Kansas mostly, had just repudiated slavery entirely -- voting 98% to 2% to keep slavery out forever -- Southern Ultimatums promised WAR if the territories did not "accept and respect" slavery.
Learn the real history of the South - spoken BY the South, at the time. SOuthern leaders, Southern documents, Southern books, Southern newspapers, Southern speeches, Southern ULtimatums, Southern sermons.
Few things are more clear than the South's insane, violent, decade long quest to spread slavery -- particularly in 1861, when things came to a head, because Kansas rejected slavery.
Only by ignoring what Southern leaders, southern newspapers, Southern Ultimatums, Southern speeches, Southern document said at the time, can you miss this truth that they shouted from the rooftops at the time.
In a way, it was NOT about slavery -- because it was really about the VIOLENT efforts to SPREAD slavery against the will of the people.
The people that did the buying and selling of slaves in Africa were the Arabs. Roughly half of the slaves were sent west to the Americas and half went east to Muslim countries. Going west it was 2:1 males to female. Going east it was 2:1 female to male and all the males were castrated before shipment to the east. Even for slaves, America was still the land of oportunity.
jim
It's always JUST slavery plain and simple. Isn't slavery another descriptor of the Southern economy that they were forced into by the growing Federal power? I mean, they had no choice but to be an agrarian society, since they were not allowed to manufacture or deal in any such commodities. There is not doubt the hate between north and south ran deep at least 30 years prior. The south almost broke away after the tariff of the abominations in '28. And slavery was not an issue at all back then. A sixty % tariff on everything, who would not want to leave? That is when the movement got brewing, had to shave the tariff down to 15% to placate the south. The riff that turned into the split long preceeded the issue of slavery. The north treated the south like its, well, slave. And they did for years after the war.-Anymouse
Speaking of Germans in the war, this is one of the most enlightening books I've read in a while.
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republicans-Lincolns-Marxists-Marxism/dp/0595446981
"...it was really about the VIOLENT efforts to SPREAD slavery against the will of the people."
I'm from Clay County Missouri and a rock throw from the old James place. We took damn good care of our Negroes and shot Kansas communists on sight. It's still pretty much that way today cept'n the Negroes don't work near as hard as they used to and they drive better cars.
Certainly it was about slavery. After all, Herr Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation extended to all slaves nationwide, and was not just limited to only the states under rebelion.
What, it didn't extend nationwide? Oh. Nevermind.
H the Comet
Don't forget, Lincoln was a huge supporter of the Fugitive Slave Act, which was HUGE bidness for the North. The north was full of slaves all during the war, but they were covered by some form of contract so their slavery was somehow different that the dirty slavery of the North (85% of whom passed through Northern ports). Shoot Jersey and New Hampshire didn't end slavery on their books until Dec. of 1865. Now why would those blue bellies go die for something that legal in their state?
As long as people argue about slavery, then they don't have to deal with the fact that the war was the end of what our founding fathers gave us. Thomas Jefferson lost in 1865, not Jeff Davis. The people became subjects of their government.
Seeker ...it sounds like the source of your scholarship is, oh, say Howard Zinn?
For argument's sake, let's say you're right, that slavery was fundamentally behind the Southern grievance with the North. And it was far more complex than that, but still, are you really saying that this was the rallying cry pitched to the recruit pool?
I don't know what books you've read, but try Douglas Freeman Southall's R.E. Lee: A Biography (Pulitzer Prize Edition, 4 Volume Set) You'll find what you're looking for in Volume 1. Or, Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative (3 Vol. Set) We'll talk.
You're welcome
From my perspective, both are correct, the states right to determine whether or not to allow slavery.
Slavery was bad, but the consequences in Africa were worse. The north had it some what better in a way, the northerners didn't own the immigrants, and as such they could pay them less then it cost a southerner to own a slave, they didn't need to house em, feed em, or chase em down if they ran.
As I see it, the Union won, the citizens lost, northerner or southerner, the thirteenth ammendment got lost, and another substituted in its place.
HtheC,
Yep, ol' Abe knew a PR coup when he saw one. He sat on that proclamation until it would have some impact on foreign countries thinking about supporting the CSA and turned the war into a moral crusade. Did it without alienating the slave-holding areas still in the Union, too.
Economically, slavery was not "necessary" for an agrarian society. The main problem was that southern planters' wealth was largely tied up in or composed of the value of their slaves. The anti-slavery movement even proposed financial compensation in order to overturn the "peculiar institution."
My Liege, I'm sure your dander is up, what with communists weighing in here, and all. Surely you mean Douglas Southall Freeman. I own a red leather bound boxed first edition of that biography. I'm in the market for the one he did on Washington.
Casca
Without trying to judge the rightness or wrongness of it, is it possible that the Germans, after looking at the European situation that is the results of a Muzlim invasion, might look with nostalgia and fondness on a valhalla of white supremacy.
Casca - yes, dammit
Douglas Southall Freeman
I read much of the first volume during the week - back in the late 70's - while I ate my tuna sandwich & M&M lunch on the lawn of the Lee-Custis mansion. (We were house poor, and Carter was president. No restaurant for me).
Jebus ... it's all history now, calm down.
Yes, slavery was entirely why the civil war started.
Preserving the Union vs. Southern independence was why people fought. Troops fighting on either side didn't think much about slavery and blacks at that point, other than as a bone of contention.
And we all lost when Lincoln took the Ninth and Tenth amendments out and shot them dead, via the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
Question, if preserving a union is a cause worth any tyranny and atrocity, then was Mikhail Gorbachev wrong to not unleash the full killing power of the Rooskie military on its former subjects? You know, to preserve the Soviet Union?
Prior to 1860 we had a voluntary union of independent states. After, it was conscripted by siege and slaughter. Nothing was preserved, it was created.
Question, if preserving a union is a cause worth any tyranny and atrocity....
Not preserving "a" union bucko, preserving "The" Union. And yes, perserving The Union is worth any tyranny and atrocity...as long as it happens to the bad guys and I think the bad guys in this country are overdue for a little of that tyranny and attrocity they've been dishing out for the past 50 years.
YONI ??? Isn't that the Sanskrit name for a female sexual organ?
"Economically, slavery was not "necessary" for an agrarian society."
Perhaps, but the fact remains that cotton, the #1 crop, was extremely labor-intensive, and the most efficient way to harvest was group labor with an overseer. Most of the white folks couldn't be compelled to work that hard for low pay, so the alternative was slave labor.
Cheesy, it seem you contradicted yourself just a little, how could a plantation owner turn a profit, on his huge land holdings without slaves, given the hands on factor you talked about? I have always wanted to proclaim that Eli Whitney freed the slaves but it's just not true in a process minded perspective. My family grew cotton in Oklahoma, it wasn't the Gin that made the difference, it was the reaper. Even Cyrus McCormick didn't weigh in until the invention of the evil gas engine turned the tide for the family farm.