Confederate Bible-thumper conundrum

[JakeStarkey]

About 33,000 black soldiers of the North died, about 250 of the South, and less than 200 in the NYC riots of July 1863.

Both sides were punished for the sins of slavery and racism. Why? Mankind always punishes itself.

How do confederate bible thumpers make peace with the fact that God was clearly on the side of the Union in the Civil War?

denial? avoidance? straight up ignorance?

The conundrum is in the ignorance of the bigots. Some accounts give Union losses at about 350,000 and Confederate losses at about 250,000. The draft riots in New York city may have resulted in the deaths of innocent Black people than in combat.

 

[whitehall]

"Less than 200" Blacks were lynched from street lights in New York City during the Civil War Draft Riots. How comforting.

 

[manifold]

If the South had God on the side of their 'righteous' cause they wouldn't have been so soundly defeated.

Obviously God's blessing went to the Union, if you believe in that sort of thing.

That's not at all obvious. It could be argued that The War of Northern Agression was started largely by Northern Bible thumpers too stupid to know that slavery was on the way out anyway. The North spent most of the war getting it's butt soundly kicked and there was certainly nothing "righteous" about Sherman's rape and murder of civilians and captured Blacks who fought for the South.

denial and ignorance it is then

 

[del]

If the South had God on the side of their 'righteous' cause they wouldn't have been so soundly defeated.

Obviously God's blessing went to the Union, if you believe in that sort of thing.

That's not at all obvious. It could be argued that The War of Northern Agression was started largely by Northern Bible thumpers too stupid to know that slavery was on the way out anyway. The North spent most of the war getting it's butt soundly kicked and there was certainly nothing "righteous" about Sherman's rape and murder of civilians and captured Blacks who fought for the South.

do you crackers still call it that?

that's some funny shit right there, longstreet

 

[whitehall]

One thing we should all admit is that Grant's concept of warfare was way ahead of it's time. Innocent civilians would be the new enemy. Hoards of cavalry soldiers would murder and pillage and commit arson at will because the commanding general got the OK from Lincoln that the Army would make waste to the South so that a crow would have to pack a lunch. The winning side writes the history books so Grant was a "former alcoholic" rather than a drunk and Sherman, who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword", was a quirky soldier rather than a genuinely insane character who burned a city.

 

[JWBooth]

One thing we should all admit is that Grant's concept of warfare was way ahead of it's time. Innocent civilians would be the new enemy. Hoards of cavalry soldiers would murder and pillage and commit arson at will because the commanding general got the OK from Lincoln that the Army would make waste to the South so that a crow would have to pack a lunch. The winning side writes the history books so Grant was a "former alcoholic" rather than a drunk and Sherman, who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword", was a quirky soldier rather than a genuinely insane character who burned a city.

You left out the wanton rape and plunder, and impressment of slaves into union military service.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You better go study what the Army of Tennessee did west of the Appalachians.

You better go study at what the border warriors of both sides did in the Border States.

Whitehall, your problem is that you cannot give a balanced, objective picture on a give n issue, and that makes your comments subjective and almost worthless at times.

One thing we should all admit is that Grant's concept of warfare was way ahead of it's time. Innocent civilians would be the new enemy. Hoards of cavalry soldiers would murder and pillage and commit arson at will because the commanding general got the OK from Lincoln that the Army would make waste to the South so that a crow would have to pack a lunch. The winning side writes the history books so Grant was a "former alcoholic" rather than a drunk and Sherman, who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword", was a quirky soldier rather than a genuinely insane character who burned a city.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You left out the murder and or the stealing of free blacks by southern soliders.

You are condemned as whitehall with your worthless analysis.

One thing we should all admit is that Grant's concept of warfare was way ahead of it's time. Innocent civilians would be the new enemy. Hoards of cavalry soldiers would murder and pillage and commit arson at will because the commanding general got the OK from Lincoln that the Army would make waste to the South so that a crow would have to pack a lunch. The winning side writes the history books so Grant was a "former alcoholic" rather than a drunk and Sherman, who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword", was a quirky soldier rather than a genuinely insane character who burned a city.

You left out the wanton rape and plunder, and impressment of slaves into union military service.

 

[manifold]

[youtube]1ZxMDZ3TdZM[/youtube]

 

[9thIDdoc]

I had ancestors on both sides