Civil War

This represents a fundamental lack of understanding of or the origin of the US government. The states formed the US government to be its agent, not its master. The states existed as separated sovereignties prior to the existence of a US government.

When did this happen? The states delegated certain authority to the US government, but certainly never intended it to be a master/servant role.

The governors are counterparts of the preseident. both oare chief executives in thier own territory. The fact that the federal government has usurped more and more power over the years does not make this usurpation legitimate. Nor should we applaud this situation. This usurpation has led to such abominations as Roe v Wade (which the states should refuse to acknowledge), the removal of the 10 Commandments in Alabama's Supreme Court Building, the removal of God from the schools, and the edict that the states cannot pass laws prohibiting sodomy. None of these things would have been possible if not for the invasion of the Southern states and the re-writing of the Constitution.

What could be more honorable than the defense of personal property and the defense of your native homeland? This shows a fundamental ignorance of the truth of history.

Nothing is more pathetic than the self-hatred of your own region. How exactly was the South "terrorist loving"? If you look to the North, you will see terrorist tactics, such as those exemplified by the modern terrorists---namely the attack of innocent citizens. Sherman burned down entire cities. Sheridan burned the Shenandoah Valley, thereby starving thousands of people. Sherman's troops raped and murdered countless people--both black and white. Lincoln, meanwhile, played the part of dictator quite well, imprisoning an estimated 30,000 political opponents---including prominent legislators, newspaper editors who dared to criticize his politces, and the grandson of the man who wrote the Star Spangled Banner. Where is the honor in that?

 

We can stop there. Remember when Rodney King's arrestors were declared innocent? Remember the riots in L.A.? Remember that the President called in the NATIONAL GUARD. That is right, a MILITARY was sent in to squash the rebellion.</font>[/QUOTE]That wasn't a "rebellion", but a riot carried on by a group of thugs. If you're trying to anologize the lawful secession of a group of states to the public rioting of a group of thugs in a single geographic area, that is really ridiculous.

Actually, the US did start the war. The blockading of the Southern ports was already underway (an act of war). Firing the first shot isn't as significant as forcing one into firing that shot. That's what Lincoln did. The terrorists (Lincoln, Sheridan, Grant, etc.) came later.

Your irrational hatred of the South, a truly Christian republic, is sad, and difficult to understand in a forum such as this.

 

My little toe was throbbing from a recent athlete's foot flare-up when I posted my question.

Thanks for the link, Doc.

 

Thanks for your kind greeting, Dr. Bob. As for the posts, I could understand that no one would be as ignorant as to make the comments that were made, I have heard some patently absurd remarks in recent years, such as analogizing the Confederate battle flag to a swastika and the like by goons like Julian Bond. It's grown more than tiresome.

It's my plesure to be among fellow history lovers. I look forward to some good discussions.

Jeff

 

Netpublicist, I'd like to make a couple of comments to you as well:

1) I agree that Walter Williams is a great writer. I have very much enjoyed some excellent columns of his. Additionally, I enjoy the rare occasions when he fills in for Limbaugh.

2) You are absolutely right in saying that the War of 1861-1865 was not a civil war. this is indeed a misnomer, as the South and North were not fighting for control over the same government.

Jeff

 

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson has always been a hero of mine. I have studied his life. He was a man of high principles and a devout Christian as was Robert Edward Lee.

Being from Tennessee, I can't imagine fighting for the North, although some in my ex-husband's family did. There was a hugh family split and most who fought for the North never spoke to those who fought for the South again, and, in fact, they refused to even claim any relation.

There was no division in my family. Everyone was staunch Southern supporters although none of them owned any slaves and were not fighting to keep that way of life. They fought for states rights and because the South was invaded.

 

Perhaps if terrorists hadn't come to power, the United States wouldn't have had to remove them like they did the taliban.

 

Daniel, you know something. That's probably exactly what England thought of those colonists' terrorists. After all, as far as they were concerned, this country was part of England and what the colonists were doing by theirs and your standards was anarchy. The colonists were fighting their own people. I mean, they were Englishmen because they were subjects of the King
and this country belonged to England. Now, here these terrorists come along and want to seceed from England and they have to be stopped because they are tearing the country apart. After all it was England's money that developed the colonies. How dare these terrorists think they can take the King's money and his country too. They had to be stopped. What if they won? What would happen to England if they won? England would lose it's territory, it's tax money and all that it had spent to establish these colonies.
Tell me something. If the colonists had lost and we were still part of England, would the colonists now be terrorists?