If I Had Been President of the Confederacy. . . .

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet you offer nothing to disprove anything. Silly gunny. You think those stripes mean you can just say shit and get away with it? They mean nothing. This aint the military where you can bark orders and no one can oppose you.

It's called a forum. It's called history. If my views on racism and slavery are wrong, show me where.

Quantrill

The alternate history and fake info you provide is not true I know real history, not your conspiracy stuff.

 

[Quantrill]

The alternate history and fake info you provide is not true I know real history, not your conspiracy stuff.

Oh yes, I provide an 'alternate history'. Alternate meaning contrary to the bullshit you Yankees have been preaching since your military victory. Which means my 'alternate history' is the real history, and yours is just bullshit.

Now, if you can prove otherwise, by the historical record, by all means go ahead. But, just because you wore gunny stripes doesn't mean shit. Just because you can give order as a gunny and many obey irregardless, doesn't mean you can do the same with history. And thus far...you haven't produced shit other than your empty ass opinion.

Did you go to the same school as JoeB131? Got your bullshit degree with flying colors? You both are very 'patriotic yankees', but you both are just as empty headed.

I guess that's what it means to be a patriotic Yankee. Be a dumbass. Don't pay attention to history. Just believe whats been told ya. Glory, glory....hallelujah, glory, glory hallelujah...glory, glory hallelujah, yankees truth is marchin on..

Damn...just gives me goose bumps.

Two more days till our holiday.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

Oh yes, I provide an 'alternate history'. Alternate meaning contrary to the bullshit you Yankees have been preaching since your military victory. Which means my 'alternate history' is the real history, and yours is just bullshit.

Now, if you can prove otherwise, by the historical record, by all means go ahead. But, just because you wore gunny stripes doesn't mean shit. Just because you can give order as a gunny and many obey irregardless, doesn't mean you can do the same with history. And thus far...you haven't produced shit other than your empty ass opinion.

Did you go to the same school as JoeB131? Got your bullshit degree with flying colors? You both are very 'patriotic yankees', but you both are just as empty headed.

I guess that's what it means to be a patriotic Yankee. Be a dumbass. Don't pay attention to history. Just believe whats been told ya. Glory, glory....hallelujah, glory, glory hallelujah...glory, glory hallelujah, yankees truth is marchin on..

Damn...just gives me goose bumps.

Two more days till our holiday.

Quantrill

History has made its verdict.

The Confederacy were a bunch of losers.

Enjoy these fun Confederacy Memes

 

[Quantrill]

History has made its verdict.

The Confederacy were a bunch of losers.

Enjoy these fun Confederacy Memes

And, what verdict would that be...dumbass? You can't provide any proof of the verdict other than a military victory. That doesn't prove who the losers were.

The losers were the American government. The South fought for what America stood for. The North fought to tear it apart.

Glory, glory...hallelujah...glory, glory hallelujah...glory, glory halleilujah...the Yankee shits again.

Two more days till the great holiday.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And, what verdict would that be...dumbass? You can't provide any proof of the verdict other than a military victory. That doesn't prove who the losers were.

The losers were the American government. The South fought for what America stood for. The North fought to tear it apart.

Glory, glory...hallelujah...glory, glory hallelujah...glory, glory halleilujah...the Yankee shits again.

Two more days till the great holiday.

Quantrill

Look retard when you CHOOSE to ignore history and replace it with your fake bullshit you are the dumb ass, History is taught in school and your version is not.

 

[Robert W]

Look retard when you CHOOSE to ignore history and replace it with your fake bullshit you are the dumb ass, History is taught in school and your version is not.

What I still do not understand is that George Washington defied the government and went to war with the legal government and is considered a hero. Davis also left the government and is reviled.

 

[Robert W]

History has made its verdict.

The Confederacy were a bunch of losers.

Enjoy these fun Confederacy Memes

Had Robert E Lee been in full command to start with, he would have defeated Lincoln.

Why then did the south lose their just defending themselves? The same reason to make a point, that Iran lost the war. The North ended up having much more firepower, many more men, and burned the Souths food supply.

?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What I still do not understand is that George Washington defied the government and went to war with the legal government and is considered a hero. Davis also left the government and is reviled.

the confederates went to war over slavery the American colonies went to war over representation in government big difference.

 

[JoeB131]

What I still do not understand is that George Washington defied the government and went to war with the legal government and is considered a hero. Davis also left the government and is reviled.

Because Davis lost.

If Germany won WWII, Hitler would be a hero today.

History loves a winner, and hates a guy who flees wearing a dress like Davis did.

Now, if you want to be LESS cynical, Washington was fighting for uplifting principles. Freedom, Democracy, All Men Are Created Equal, No Taxation without Representation.

The reality is he was rebelling against a moderate government because the Colonists didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes.


the Confederate inbreds were fighting so a few rich people could keep owning other people, after the rest of the world decided that was a really terrible idea.

 

[Quantrill]

Look retard when you CHOOSE to ignore history and replace it with your fake bullshit you are the dumb ass, History is taught in school and your version is not.

What history have I ignored?

What have I said that is fake? Prove what I said is fake. Disprove the quotes I provided from history, and prove they are fake. Put your money where your ass is gunny. Because that's all you and JoeB131 do is talk out your ass. More 'Preparation H' for you and JoeB131's lips.

Oh gee, you think public schools teach real history? Your dumber than I thought.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

the confederates went to war over slavery the American colonies went to war over representation in government big difference.

More bullshit.

The Confederates seceded for many reasons, slavery being the greater antagonism. The South seceded peacefully. As I have proved, Lincoln and Seward and the North started the War, refusing to acknowledge our secession.

Try and get it right. I know it's tough. You're a product of public schools and sesame street.

They replaced history with 'social studies'. Now they have produced historical idiots. A socially approved history. In other words, bullshit.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Look retard when you [Quantrill] CHOOSE to ignore history and replace it with your fake BS you are the dumb ass, History is taught in school and your version is not.

Oh, yikes. You, a retired USMC Gunnery Sergeant, are judging a version of history based on whether or not it's "taught in school"? Seriously?

Most schools teach many myths about the Vietnam War, e.g., that we were never winning the war, that the war was unwinnable, that the Tet Offensive was a surprise and a defeat for us, that we committed massive war crimes against Vietnamese civilians, that South Vietnam's army was hopelessly inept and unwilling to fight, etc., etc.

The majority of military historians reject these myths. USMC historians have written some excellent refutations of these myths. Nevertheless, these myths are still taught in most of our schools.

Some of the arguments that Quantrill is making are valid, e.g., the key role that money played in the North's refusal to allow the South to leave in peace, the crime and destructive effects of Radical Reconstruction, the Union army's war crimes against Southern civilians, and racism in the North. Quantrill is wrong about many things regarding the Civil War, but he is not wrong about these things.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, yikes. You, a retired USMC Gunnery Sergeant, judge a version of history based on whether or not it's "taught in school"? Seriously?

Most schools teach many myths about the Vietnam War, such as: that we were never winning the war, that the war was unwinnable, that the Tet Offensive was a surprise and a defeat for us, that we committed massive war crimes against Vietnamese civilians, that South Vietnam's army was hopelessly inept and unwilling to fight, etc., etc.

I read a great quote yesterday in which a US Army Colonel, Harry Summers, said to his Vietnamese counterpart, "You never beat us on the battlefield," and the Vietnamese replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

We lost the Vietnam War before the first boot hit the ground, because Ho Chi Mihn was a national hero who had fought the French and the Japanese, while we propped up sad quislings like Bao Dai, Diem, and General Ky.

(Oh, your boy Ky did what you keep falsely accusing me of, admiring Hitler.)

The Tet Offensive was a defeat because it showed the government was systematically lying about having the situation under control.

We did commit massive war crimes against the Vietnamese people. Does Mai Lai ring a bell? Rusty Calley spent a whole year in prison for killing 600 people.

We dumped thousands of land mines and tons of defoliants, which are doing damage to the Vietnamese people to this very day.

The obscene thing is how the Right Wing flipped the script, by making Vietnam vets the victims, which is why every new War is accompanied by "Support the Troops.' And you got all the bullshit stories about soldiers being spat on by hippies at airports.

Here's how I support the troops. I oppose sending them on fool's errands.

The majority of military historians reject these myths. USMC historians have written some excellent refutations of these myths. Nevertheless, these myths are still taught in most of our schools.

Which shows that military historians didn't learn a freaking thing from Vietnam. Which showed when they made ALL THE SAME STUPID MISTAKES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

Heck, if they were paying attention, they'd have realized this after the Philippine War. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRIES!!!!

Some of the arguments that Quantrill is making are valid, e.g., why the North refused to allow the South to leave in peace, the crime of Radical Reconstruction, the Union army's war crimes against Southern civilians, and racism in the North.

Nope, this is the equivalent of little Billy saying "Timmy did it too", when he's caught doing something bad.

The South tried to break up the Union so a few rich people could keep raping their slaves.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, yikes. You, a retired USMC Gunnery Sergeant, are judging a version of history based on whether or not it's "taught in school"? Seriously?

Most schools teach many myths about the Vietnam War, e.g., that we were never winning the war, that the war was unwinnable, that the Tet Offensive was a surprise and a defeat for us, that we committed massive war crimes against Vietnamese civilians, that South Vietnam's army was hopelessly inept and unwilling to fight, etc., etc.

The majority of military historians reject these myths. USMC historians have written some excellent refutations of these myths. Nevertheless, these myths are still taught in most of our schools.

Some of the arguments that Quantrill is making are valid, e.g., the key role that money played in the North's refusal to allow the South to leave in peace, the crime and destructive effects of Radical Reconstruction, the Union army's war crimes against Southern civilians, and racism in the North. Quantrill is wrong about many things regarding the Civil War, but he is not wrong about these things.

you are as bad as he is by defending his racism and support for slavery.

 

[mikegriffith1]

you are as bad as he is by defending his racism and support for slavery.

What??? Huh??? When have I ever defended racism or voiced support for slavery? What are you talking about?

Are you going to address the main point I made in my reply? I notice you simply ignored it and did not quote it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What??? Huh??? When have I ever defended racism or voiced support for slavery? What are you talking about?

you read his posts and you post in support of his claims so that makes you as bad as him. Not once in this thread have you called him out for his views and instead post support of his views.

 

[forkup]

If I had been president of the Confederacy, instead of Jefferson Davis, here is what I would have done differently:

-- I would have vetoed the Confederate congressional bill in early March 1861 that set CSA tariff rates at 10%. This low tariff posed a direct threat to Northern economic interests. Many Northern newspapers noted the threat that the lower CSA tariff posed to the Northern economy. It was too early to be passing such a provocative tariff bill. I would have worked to ensure that the initial CSA tariff rates were comparable to the U.S. rates, if not identical to them. I would not have considered lowering Confederate tariff rates until months after it was clear there would be no war with the U.S.

-- I would have ordered a halt to the seizure of federal installations in the South.

-- I would have publicly expressed regret for the seizures that had already occurred and would have explained that they were done before the Confederacy was formed.

-- I would have repeatedly made it clear in public statements that the Confederacy was willing to pay compensation for federal installations in the South.

-- I would have repudiated the obnoxious, ridiculous statements regarding slavery in Alexander Stephens' "cornerstone speech."

-- I would have ensured that the provision of food to the Fort Sumter garrison was continued. This would have enabled Lincoln to avoid having to send a federal naval convoy to provide food to the garrison.

-- If Lincoln had still sent a convoy to Sumter to provide additional food, I would have done nothing to prevent the operation.

-- Regarding the whole Sumter question, I would have issued a public statement along these lines:

"I realize that for many of our Northern brethren, Fort Sumter is still federal property and cannot be relinquished. I know there are some elements in the North who hope that we will attack Fort Sumter if it is not evacuated in the next few weeks, and who plan on using such an attack as a pretext for an invasion of the Confederacy. I declare that we will not attack Fort Sumter as long as the fort does not fire on us and does not fire on ships entering and leaving Charleston Harbor. We will leave Fort Sumter unmolested even if the federal garrison remains there for years to come--again, as long as the garrison takes no hostile action against us or against shipping in the harbor. The same applies to Fort Pickens."

This would have put the onus on Northern hardliners to fire the first shot. It would have led many more Northerners to conclude that it made no sense to leave the garrison on Sumter given that the fort was now in another nation's harbor and could no good for the U.S. there. This, couple with a repeated Confederate offer of compensation for all federal installations in the South, would have caused a majority of Northerners to see Sumter as a non-issue and to support its sale to the Confederacy.

-- I would have publicly called for a gradual, compensated emancipation program in my first message to the Confederate Congress in early 1861.

-- By no later than mid-1862, I would have called for enlisting slaves as soldiers in exchange for freedom for themselves and their families. Some states and individual commanders were already doing this, persuading 3,000 to 7,000 slaves to serve as soldiers in their armies, but this was a drop in the bucket. A call for such enlistments sanctioned by the national government from the Confederate president would have been a great PR move and would have provided much-needed reinforcements for the army.

-- If the Confederate Congress still had not begun a gradual emancipation program by the time Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, I would have used the proclamation as another occasion to call for a Confederate emancipation program.

-- In response to the Emancipation Proclamation issued in January 1863, I would not have threatened to treat ex-Southern slaves serving in the Union army and their officers as criminals who would be handed over to the states for prosecution. Instead, I would have announced that such soldiers and officers would be treated just like any other captured Union soldiers and officers.

-- I would have used the occasion of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation to again call for a Confederate emancipation program.

-- I would not have refused to include captured black Union soldiers in prisoner exchanges.

-- I would have accepted the huge loans that European nations offered in early 1861, as opposed to the much smaller loans that Jefferson Davis agreed to accept.

-- I would have made no effort to seize New Mexico Territory. The Confederacy had no right to that territory. If you leave the Union, then you forfeit any right to a "fair distribution of the territories."

You would have done all this as a Southerner in the middle of the 19th century?

The thing about looking at history is that himdsight is always twenty twenty and that you don't have to consider the restraints and context of the time.

 

[mikegriffith1]

you read his posts and you post in support of his claims so that makes you as bad as him. Not once in this thread have you called him out for his views and instead post support of his views.

This is just idiotic and ridiculous. It should be self-evident and should go without saying that just because I agree with him on some issues does not mean I agree with him on all issues. Have you just missed all the replies where I have challenged him on the neo-Confederate myths he has presented? Go read my exchanges with him in the "New Website on the American Civil War" thread, for starters.

As I understand his position, he does not condone the practice of slavery. I have seen him deny that he supports slavery in at least two replies. There is a world of difference between arguing that most slaves were not abused and arguing that slavery was right and good. And obviously I don't agree with him when it comes to racism.

What would you think if I compared you to JoeB131 because you have not called him out on every single one of his aberrant, sick views? What if I said, "Well, you must agree with some of his revolting views because you have not specifically condemned them"?

And, again, it is very unwise to judge a version of history based on whether or not it's "taught in school." I'm starting to wonder just what kind of a Marine you were and/or are. Most schools spit on many of the things that the USMC teaches and stands for when it comes to our history as a nation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is just idiotic and ridiculous. It should be self-evident and should go without saying that just because I agree with him on some issues does not mean I agree with him on all issues. Have you just missed all the replies where I have challenged him on the neo-Confederate myths he has presented? Go read my exchanges with him in the "New Website on the American Civil War" thread, for starters.

As I understand his position, he does not condone the practice of slavery. I have seen him deny that he supports slavery in at least two replies. There is a world of difference between arguing that most slaves were not abused and arguing that slavery was right and good. And obviously I don't agree with him when it comes to racism.

What would you think if I compared you to JoeB131 because you have not called him out on every single one of his aberrant, sick views? What if I said, "Well, you must agree with some of his revolting views because you have not specifically condemned them"?

And, again, it is very unwise to judge a version of history based on whether or not it's "taught in school." I'm starting to wonder just what kind of a Marine you were and/or are. Most schools spit on many of the things that the USMC teaches and stands for when it comes to our history as a nation.

actually, if you had read other threads Joe retard posts in you would find when he spots his crazy stuff, I attack him for it. He hasn't done that here so no need to do so. Your buddy has said a lot of ignorant stuff without a peep from you.

As for Marine history, I am sorry you are too stupid to know that the organization reporting on its own history would know more than an outside source.

 

[Quantrill]

April 14, 1865, the War was all but over. The South was militarily defeated. The North had their military victory. Sumter had fallen on April 14, 1861. Glory, glory...hallelujah

So, Lincoln and the North wanted to openly shit on the South and have a glorious flag raising at Sumter. And Lincoln wanted the hero of Sumter, Anderson, there to raise the flag. "President Lincoln wanted the American flag to again fly over the fort and wanted its former commander, Robert Anderson, to raise it." (The Demon Of Unrest, Erik Larson, Crown Publishing Group, p. 479)

And so Anderson did. And he gave his speech, "Anderson said, I restore to its proper place this flag which floated here during peace, before the first act of this cruel Rebellion." (Larson, p. 487) And of course much patriotic feeling and song.

Then later that night in Charleston, a special dinner was held at the Charleston Hotel. (Larson, p. 488) And of course toasts were made all around by the victors. "Doubleday honored the Sumter garrison; former secretary of war Joseph Holt toasted Anderson." (Larson, p. 488)

Then around "ten o'clock, Anderson himself got up and delivered what was probably the most heartfelt of the tributes. 'I beg you now...that you will join me in drinking the health of another man whom we all love to honor....I give you the good, the great, the honest man, Abraham Lincoln'." (Larson, p. 488)

But oh the irony, for Anderson did not know. "He could not know it, but at that instant, Lincoln lay dying of a gunshot wound in a box at Ford's Theatre in Washington." (Larson, p. 488)

Yep, Anderson gave us that good , great, honest Abe as they carried him out the theatre with a bullet in his brain.

Glory, glory, hallelujah....

Quantrill