- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
- Thread starter
- #61
Kevin, the South fought for the enslavement of human beings. Enough said.
No, they fought for their independence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Kevin, the South fought for the enslavement of human beings. Enough said.
I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.
Then why did the South start the war? Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents. The South tried to Balkanize America. Lincoln preserved the Union.
We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.
Now as the South?
Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.
But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.
Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.
It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.
I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.
Seriously are you boys fucking nuts?
You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!
Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.
You forefather were fucking monsters.
You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
Whining fucking crybabies, the lot of yas.
This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.
The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?
As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.
A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.
The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.
What crap. They tried to balkanize America. Had the Confederates succeeded, it would not have been long until Texas succeeded from the Confederacy, and then the South would have been fighting another civil war.
We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.
Now as the South?
Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.
But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.
Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.
It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.
I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.
Seriously are you boys fucking nuts?
You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!
Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.
You forefather were fucking monsters.
You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
Whining fucking crybabies, the lot of yas.
This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.
Document it. Tally it. Get back to me with the numbers, okay?
The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?
Had the POLTICAL power been just a tad stronger, the retribution they'd have imposed on the South would have been horrific.
The Seccsionists can than their lucky stars there were enough LIBERALS on the North to treat the former rebellious states with some degree of mercy.
As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.
One out of every four families owned slaves, Kevin.
A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.
Had the South won, I don't doubt they would have
The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.
We can agree to disagree about the wording of what they did.
As to your whining about how badly the South was treated?
My utter lack of sympathy for them is based on their utter lack of sympathy for their slaves, Kevin.
You speak of the war as though killing civilians was common, yet to date all you do is make these exaggerated claims without any real support.
Civilians are killed in every war.
In a civil war one can expect very high numbers, yet to my knowledge there is NO evidence to support you theory of mass killings.
Do you believe that if I KNEW that were true I would DENY it?
ME? Mr. outraged by ever example of such things no matter WHO does it?
Where is your evidence to support your claim that there was systemic murder of civilians?
A couple of rapes, a pattern of scallywags looting and killing?
They're not PART of the union army and they're not part of the official (or unoffical policies of the Union aArmy either.
They're just examples of the freaking criminals who follow wars to take advantage of the anarchy that have existed since wars began.
Incidently...go here to read websites documenting the stories of union soldiers who were hanged or shot for mudering civilians, raping civilians or looting civilians.
Your claim that such behavior was an OFFICAL POLICY is put to rest when one reads case after case of UNION soliders being tried by a courts martial and then being PUT TO DEATH for such behavior.
A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.
One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.
Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."
Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.
Targeting Civilians
Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have? Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
but a war CRIME is only a CRIME if a law has been written against it.
And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.
Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have? Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
but a war CRIME is only a CRIME if a law has been written against it.
And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.
The South started the war before Lincoln even stepped in office.I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.
Then why did the South start the war? Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents. The South tried to Balkanize America. Lincoln preserved the Union.
The south didn't start the war. Lincoln was unwilling to meet or be diplomatic with the southern states whatsoever
....
General Sherman:American Hero.
Has Jefferson Davis' official Proclamation that ALL free blacks - ones in the South as well as the North' were to be placed in "slave status" - forever - been brought up yet?
A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.
One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burnss "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.
Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincolns war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."
Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincolns war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincolns war.
Targeting Civilians