Stepping on a lot of toes

[robt.k.fall]

To many a Southerner The Late Unpleasantness is considered to be the Second War of American Independence. However, to many on the opposing side, it is considered the War of the Rebellion. Me, I'm a Californian not a Northerner or a Yankee. But as a Californian, I'm a Union man.
Many groan about the depredations of the Union Army in the South, all I can say is what part of W A R don't you understand.

• Was the South any different for Europe during the Napoleonic or Thirty Years War?
• Was the South any different that the Scottish Highlands after the Risings of '15 and '45?
• Or the Irish situation?

Yes, slavery was the proximate cause of the war. But, the real cause was the shift in what made an American an American.

Men like Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson saw themselves to be an American because they were Virginians. Once, the Commonwealth succeeded from the Union they thought themselves to be freed from any ties to the Union. One might think of this as a Federal Identity.

Men like Duncan Stivens, a Illinois farmer, saw themselves to be Americans because they were born in the United States. Many like him had been born in another state but then moved West. One might think of this as a National Identity.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To many a Southerner The Late Unpleasantness is considered to be the Second War of American Independence. However, to many on the opposing side, it is considered the War of the Rebellion. Me, I'm a Californian not a Northerner or a Yankee. But as a Californian, I'm a Union man.
Many groan about the depredations of the Union Army in the South, all I can say is what part of W A R don't you understand.

• Was the South any different for Europe during the Napoleonic or Thirty Years War?
• Was the South any different that the Scottish Highlands after the Risings of '15 and '45?
• Or the Irish situation?

Yes, slavery was the proximate cause of the war. But, the real cause was the shift in what made an American an American.

Men like Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson saw themselves to be an American because they were Virginians. Once, the Commonwealth succeeded from the Union they thought themselves to be freed from any ties to the Union. One might think of this as a Federal Identity.

Men like Duncan Stivens, a Illinois farmer, saw themselves to be Americans because they were born in the United States. Many like him had been born in another state but then moved West. One might think of this as a National Identity.

Have you ever read abut the Scottish fights for independence....especially Coloden....wasn't pretty. Most of the Highlanders were either bayoneted or shot...there was no mercy shown by the English. They mostly tried to eradicate them from the planet...or else starve or deport them.

 

[robt.k.fall]

That's exactly my point. Though the Rising of '45 was in support of the House of Stuart's claim to both the Scottish and English Crowns. It sought to undo the "Glorious Revolution."

Have you ever read abut the Scottish fights for independence....especially Coloden....wasn't pretty. Most of the Highlanders were either bayoneted or shot...there was no mercy shown by the English. They mostly tried to eradicate them from the planet...or else starve or deport them.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Have you ever read abut the Scottish fights for independence....especially Coloden....wasn't pretty. Most of the Highlanders were either bayoneted or shot...there was no mercy shown by the English. They mostly tried to eradicate them from the planet...or else starve or deport them.

The exact same thing they tried to do to the republican Irish, too.

 

[agedman]

Winning is not always proof of which side was righteous.

In fact, it could be said that just the opposite is the truth - especially in the last 200 years.

Rise of the Nazi.
Rise of the Communist/socialist.
Rise of Pol Pot.
Rise of Napoleon.
Rise of ...
(the list could go on)

The point being, that the North claim of righteousness is deceitful.

If the Yankees fought to "preserve the union" why didn't they make laws that would preserve the union and apply to both the slave owner AND the northern industrialist?

If the Yankees fought to "preserve the union" why did they think invading the South and killing, robing, stealing, murdering, starving, raping... was righteous?

"Preserving the union" was another cute media generated word to distract what the typical powerfully rich Yankee desired and always has desired - domination and more power.

One other point needs to be made concerning the OP.

Sherman was the first in this modern age to use modern warfare against non-combatants on a large scale toward what was arguably another country. The use of such was his sole purpose. The same thinking was that carried out in WWII by both sides, by the "shock and awe" of the gulf wars, ..., and even to this day by terrorist thinking it is "righteous."

Sure, media attention, brought to folks because of the indiscriminate bombing and murder of the Vietnam era, moderated the use and brought more accountability for excess - no doubt. In particular, the assassination in the street, streamed into the black and white TV screens, showing a South Vietnam's police chief, Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a prisoner in the streets, is still a symbol of the excess of evil hearted. The police chief is/was proclaimed a hero, but in fact, he was totally unrighteous in taking that life.

Sherman's stated purpose was to demoralize and destroy the South. It was just as unrighteous as shooting that captured North Vietnam Lieutenant.

There is no righteousness in such and to claim it was W A R and such treatment of non-combatants is just doing business is the same as Ben Laden claiming that the destruction of 9/11 were justified, or being proclaimed a hero for the assassination of a non-combatant on the streets of Vietnam.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh, did Sherman purposefully try to annihilate the Southern people like was done to the Jews, The Poles, the Ukrainians, the Highland Scots, the original Prussians, the Carthaginians etc? Or did he wage war on them in order to break the spirit of the south & thus end the war?

In any event, he was just a tool to be used to achieve victory. I know soldiers who have used certain tactics to destabilize the enemy and claim victory & some of these tactics I still cringe to even recall quite frankly. As Sherman is frequently quoted, "War is hell." Should we also decry President Truman for not being more humane to the Japanese (who would never have surrendered w/o that dropping the ABomb's) ? I dont know?

 

[robt.k.fall]

My point is when compared to the harsh results of other failed rebellions the results for the South turn out to be fairly mild.

 

[robt.k.fall]

Did you read the conflicts I listed in the OP? It took the Germanies well over a hundred years to recover from the Thirty Years War. As of the NV shot by the police chief, the man was a spy caught in the battle. As such, he was subject to summary execution.

Winning is not always proof of which side was righteous.

In fact, it could be said that just the opposite is the truth - especially in the last 200 years.

Rise of the Nazi.
Rise of the Communist/socialist.
Rise of Pol Pot.
Rise of Napoleon.
Rise of ...
(the list could go on)

The point being, that the North claim of righteousness is deceitful.

If the Yankees fought to "preserve the union" why didn't they make laws that would preserve the union and apply to both the slave owner AND the northern industrialist?

If the Yankees fought to "preserve the union" why did they think invading the South and killing, robing, stealing, murdering, starving, raping... was righteous?

"Preserving the union" was another cute media generated word to distract what the typical powerfully rich Yankee desired and always has desired - domination and more power.

One other point needs to be made concerning the OP.

Sherman was the first in this modern age to use modern warfare against non-combatants on a large scale toward what was arguably another country. The use of such was his sole purpose. The same thinking was that carried out in WWII by both sides, by the "shock and awe" of the gulf wars, ..., and even to this day by terrorist thinking it is "righteous."

Sure, media attention, brought to folks because of the indiscriminate bombing and murder of the Vietnam era, moderated the use and brought more accountability for excess - no doubt. In particular, the assassination in the street, streamed into the black and white TV screens, showing a South Vietnam's police chief, Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a prisoner in the streets, is still a symbol of the excess of evil hearted. The police chief is/was proclaimed a hero, but in fact, he was totally unrighteous in taking that life.

Sherman's stated purpose was to demoralize and destroy the South. It was just as unrighteous as shooting that captured North Vietnam Lieutenant.

There is no righteousness in such and to claim it was W A R and such treatment of non-combatants is just doing business is the same as Ben Laden claiming that the destruction of 9/11 were justified, or being proclaimed a hero for the assassination of a non-combatant on the streets of Vietnam.

 

[agedman]

Did you read the conflicts I listed in the OP? It took the Germanies well over a hundred years to recover from the Thirty Years War. As of the NV shot by the police chief, the man was a spy caught in the battle. As such, he was subject to summary execution.

What he was "subject to" was to be tried in a court of law, found guilty in a court of law, and then executed if the law was applicable. The man was restrained, was offering no resistance and murdered because the chief of police was not in control of himself.

I don't plan of contending over the recovery times of one geographical area over another - Japan, Germany, France... all recovered very quickly after WWII, and South Korea after that conflict.

But each had tremendous help and aid to repair the damage.

There was NO help given to the south, but just the opposite. The Yankee controlled government wanted and continued to punish the south.

The "union" was unrighteous, and remains unrighteous.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

My point is when compared to the harsh results of other failed rebellions the results for the South turn out to be fairly mild.

Not by U.S. standards they don't. The Civil War and the 150 years following have altered the course of U.S. history for the far worse. As others have said, if the North had let the Southern states withdraw as per the constitutionality of such action, by the bombing of Pearl Harbor, they would have been ready to rejoin the Union, and our country would look markedly different today. The acrimony, the tensions between peoples of differing colors, the liberal/Marxist mindset -- all would have long ago disappeared.

Obviously, God's got other plans, else this would have been what happened.

 

[Van]

Was slavery the proximate cause of the Civil War, or the root cause? The correct answer is root cause.

Some states seceded over slavery.

Some in those states, with a federal versus national view, fought for the state against the Union.

Thus the proximate cause of some might have been their federal mindset, but under it all lies slavery.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Was slavery the proximate cause of the Civil War, or the root cause? The correct answer is root cause.

Some states seceded over slavery.

Some in those states, with a federal versus national view, fought for the state against the Union.

Thus the proximate cause of some might have been their federal mindset, but under it all lies slavery.

From now on, you're "Johnny One Note."

 

[Van]

Slavery was the root cause of the civil war, and those that deny it are whistling Dixie.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Was that 3 million, or 10 million slaves….I forgot. Help me out.

 

[Van]

Many variations of "When Johnny comes Marching Home" can be found on the internet. I like the Mitch Miller version, which contains, "In 1863 Old Abe ended slavery."

 

[Van]

Lets see, 10 million blacks were brought in Chains from Africa to the Americas, North, Central, and South. Up to 50% died in transport.

Now in the South, of North America, more than 3 million slaves were held in captivity, and they were being beaten, chained, abused and murdered. Does that ring a bell?

Slavery as practiced in the south is condemned in the Bible, violating the do unto others as you would have them do unto you commandment. Does that ring a bell.

When Johnny comes marching home again, hurrah, hurrah,

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Lets see, 10 million blacks were brought in Chains from Africa to the Americas, North, Central, and South. Up to 50% died in transport.

Now in the South, of North America, more than 3 million slaves were held in captivity, and they were being beaten, chained, abused and murdered. Does that ring a bell?

Slavery as practiced in the south is condemned in the Bible, violating the do unto others as you would have them do unto you commandment. Does that ring a bell.

When Johnny comes marching home again, hurrah, hurrah,

We're all aware of your one song, but yet you won't even try to prove these numbers, and your bible verse doesn't prove anything. There were well treated slaves. There were black slave owners. There were black slaveholders who fought for the south. That has all been proven. I know logic is lost on you, and all you have is nastiness for the folks who challenge you, so I don't expect a rational conversation, but for once I'd like to see you at least try to back up what you say.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Would the apostle Paul try to twist Christ's words ?

No, he would not.

Jesus never condemned slavery.

Paul gave us the methods to treat slaves, after Christ's death.

Paul gave slaves the way to behave, after Christ's death.

Slavery is not condemned in scripture. As bad as we want it to be, it is not in there.

I suppose by pointing this out to you, that instead of trying to understand what the bible is telling us, you will ignore all the facts and challenges, and go to your oft-repeated lie that I somehow must support slavery.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There was NO help given to the south, but just the opposite. The Yankee controlled government wanted and continued to punish the south.

Then that would be your true rape if thats true

The "union" was unrighteous, and remains unrighteous.

Come on now..... where do you come up with that? As if the people living in the North have planned out & executed a conspiracy against the South. Have you lived up here for any length of time that you have experience with that pipe dream.

No brother, we got hard working people up here getting there heads handed to them, loosing their homes or having them underwater & unable to sell them. We have hordes of illegals invading our streets & towns .... just like you do. So point your animosity in a different direction......like Bill Clinton, The Family Bush, The Banksters, the 1% ers, The Government etc. Those are the people who always covet, always design programs to fleece the tax payer & the middle class.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Van's favorite you.tube video

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCtNkGxOwNo]Judy Garland: "Johnny One Note"[/URL]