Lost Cause: What Were They Thinking?

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,429
Reaction score
9,392
Points
2,030
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
38,002
Reaction score
9,932
Points
1,330
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
You have that wrong. The immorality resided entirely within the mind of the tyrant...Dishonest Abe.

This from the great Joe Sobran speaks volumes, but I suspect you are incapable of comprehending it.

Lincoln and His Legacy


February 19, 2008


At this point it is probably futile to try to reverse the deification of Abraham Lincoln. Next year, if I know my countrymen, the bicentennial of his birth will be marked by stupendously cloying anniversary observances, all of them affirming, if not his literal divinity, at least something mighty close to it.

No doubt we will hear from the high priests and priestesses of the Lincoln cult: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Garry Wills, Harry V. Jaffa, and all the rest of the tireless hagiographers of academia, who regularly rate Honest Abe one of our two greatest presidents, right up there with Stalin’s buddy Franklin D. Roosevelt, father of the nuclear age and defiler of the U.S. Constitution. Such, we are told, is the Verdict of History.

But if Lincoln was so great, we must ask why nobody seems to have realized it while he was still alive. The abolitionists considered him unprincipled, Southerners hated him, and most Northerners opposed his war on the South. Only when the war ended and he was shot did people begin to transform him into a hero and martyr of the Union cause. But that cause was badly flawed.

The Declaration of Independence, which Lincoln always quoted selectively, says that the American colonies of Great Britain had become “free and independent states” — separate states, mind you, not the monolithic “new nation” he proclaimed at Gettysburg. The U.S. Constitution refers constantly to the states, but never to a “nation”; and this is a fact we should ponder.

Alas, it appears that Lincoln seldom thought about it. For him the Union was somehow prior to its members, except in his younger days, when, oddly enough, he had been a passionate advocate of the “most sacred right” of secession — in other countries. When and why he changed his mind, or the reason he never applied this principle to his native country, we do not know; but Gore Vidal, among other keen observers, has called attention to this most striking inconsistency of his career. What he called “saving the Union” simply meant the denial of this most sacred right, and he was willing to pay any price in blood to achieve it.

No wonder his favorite play was Macbeth. He may have seen himself in the tyrant who had waded too far into a river of gore to turn back. Far more Americans died in his war than in any other in our history.

A few books have told the dark story of Lincoln’s suppression of liberty in the North, including the thousands of arbitrary arrests and hundreds of closings of newspapers; his war on the South required a war on the Bill of Rights in the North as well. All in the name of freedom, of course.

Lincoln and His Legacy: Despite his symbolic importance, most Americans know little about Lincoln. He was very secretive about himself and his family, and he remains something of an enigma to his biographers. One fact is clear, though: he was poorly educated. He made up for this with his rare rhetorical and political genius; his eloquence continues to create the illusion of greatness.

Maybe it would have happened anyway, but since Lincoln the Constitution has meant not what it says, but whatever the U.S. Government decides it shall mean. The very meaning of constitutionality has become entirely fluid, so that the law itself has become exactly what law should never be: unpredictable.

Think of the U.S. Supreme Court’s notorious 1973 abortion ruling. Nobody before then had ever suggested that abortion was a constitutional right, but the Court suddenly discovered that it was, protected somehow by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The laws of all 50 states were struck down at a blow, but thanks to Lincoln the remedy of secession was no longer available to them.

Today’s United States of America would be constitutionally unrecognizable to the authors of the original Constitution, because today the government has become the wolf at the door. Do I exaggerate? A television commercial asks, “Is the IRS ruining your life?”

Imagine what Washington and Jefferson would have said about that question! They never dreamed that their countrymen would live in dread of the government created to secure their liberty. But that is what has happened to this country, and much of this is Abraham Lincoln’s legacy.

Sobran Column --- Lincoln and His Legacy
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
Rebels...Confederates...
They were pardoned as the common criminals they were
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
You have that wrong. The immorality resided entirely within the mind of the tyrant...Dishonest Abe.

This from the great Joe Sobran speaks volumes, but I suspect you are incapable of comprehending it.

Lincoln and His Legacy


February 19, 2008


At this point it is probably futile to try to reverse the deification of Abraham Lincoln. Next year, if I know my countrymen, the bicentennial of his birth will be marked by stupendously cloying anniversary observances, all of them affirming, if not his literal divinity, at least something mighty close to it.

No doubt we will hear from the high priests and priestesses of the Lincoln cult: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Garry Wills, Harry V. Jaffa, and all the rest of the tireless hagiographers of academia, who regularly rate Honest Abe one of our two greatest presidents, right up there with Stalin’s buddy Franklin D. Roosevelt, father of the nuclear age and defiler of the U.S. Constitution. Such, we are told, is the Verdict of History.

But if Lincoln was so great, we must ask why nobody seems to have realized it while he was still alive. The abolitionists considered him unprincipled, Southerners hated him, and most Northerners opposed his war on the South. Only when the war ended and he was shot did people begin to transform him into a hero and martyr of the Union cause. But that cause was badly flawed.

The Declaration of Independence, which Lincoln always quoted selectively, says that the American colonies of Great Britain had become “free and independent states” — separate states, mind you, not the monolithic “new nation” he proclaimed at Gettysburg. The U.S. Constitution refers constantly to the states, but never to a “nation”; and this is a fact we should ponder.

Alas, it appears that Lincoln seldom thought about it. For him the Union was somehow prior to its members, except in his younger days, when, oddly enough, he had been a passionate advocate of the “most sacred right” of secession — in other countries. When and why he changed his mind, or the reason he never applied this principle to his native country, we do not know; but Gore Vidal, among other keen observers, has called attention to this most striking inconsistency of his career. What he called “saving the Union” simply meant the denial of this most sacred right, and he was willing to pay any price in blood to achieve it.

No wonder his favorite play was Macbeth. He may have seen himself in the tyrant who had waded too far into a river of gore to turn back. Far more Americans died in his war than in any other in our history.

A few books have told the dark story of Lincoln’s suppression of liberty in the North, including the thousands of arbitrary arrests and hundreds of closings of newspapers; his war on the South required a war on the Bill of Rights in the North as well. All in the name of freedom, of course.

Lincoln and His Legacy: Despite his symbolic importance, most Americans know little about Lincoln. He was very secretive about himself and his family, and he remains something of an enigma to his biographers. One fact is clear, though: he was poorly educated. He made up for this with his rare rhetorical and political genius; his eloquence continues to create the illusion of greatness.

Maybe it would have happened anyway, but since Lincoln the Constitution has meant not what it says, but whatever the U.S. Government decides it shall mean. The very meaning of constitutionality has become entirely fluid, so that the law itself has become exactly what law should never be: unpredictable.

Think of the U.S. Supreme Court’s notorious 1973 abortion ruling. Nobody before then had ever suggested that abortion was a constitutional right, but the Court suddenly discovered that it was, protected somehow by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The laws of all 50 states were struck down at a blow, but thanks to Lincoln the remedy of secession was no longer available to them.

Today’s United States of America would be constitutionally unrecognizable to the authors of the original Constitution, because today the government has become the wolf at the door. Do I exaggerate? A television commercial asks, “Is the IRS ruining your life?”

Imagine what Washington and Jefferson would have said about that question! They never dreamed that their countrymen would live in dread of the government created to secure their liberty. But that is what has happened to this country, and much of this is Abraham Lincoln’s legacy.

Sobran Column --- Lincoln and His Legacy
Like you, Joe Sobran has no clue what he is talking about when referencing Washington and maybe even Jefferson ... :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
Had the victor shoe been on the other foot, you could say the exact same thing about the north. The War of Northern Aggression had just as many moments of "we may not win this" as the south did.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
Had the victor shoe been on the other foot, you could say the exact same thing about the north. The War of Northern Aggression had just as many moments of "we may not win this" as the south did.
The War of Northern Aggression? revisionist (loser) history
 
OP
Unkotare

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,429
Reaction score
9,392
Points
2,030
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
You have that wrong. The immorality resided entirely within the mind of the tyrant...Dishonest Abe.


No, it rested with the traitors who would tear the Union asunder for the sake of the evil institution of slavery; an institution by which very few of the men who gave their lives in gallant battle ever directly benefited.


"One of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."
 
OP
Unkotare

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,429
Reaction score
9,392
Points
2,030
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
Had the victor shoe been on the other foot, you could say the exact same thing about the north. .

No, not really.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
146,587
Reaction score
15,803
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
I believe the Confederates to be no less traitors than those of the American Revolution. Both fought for what they believed in.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
38,002
Reaction score
9,932
Points
1,330
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
You have that wrong. The immorality resided entirely within the mind of the tyrant...Dishonest Abe.


No, it rested with the traitors who would tear the Union asunder for the sake of the evil institution of slavery; an institution by which very few of the men who gave their lives in gallant battle ever directly benefited.


"One of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."
Then you must conclude that Americans who fought for and believed in independence from Great Britain were traitors too....just as Dishonest Abe must have believed.
 
OP
Unkotare

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,429
Reaction score
9,392
Points
2,030
You have that wrong. The immorality resided entirely within the mind of the tyrant...Dishonest Abe.


No, it rested with the traitors who would tear the Union asunder for the sake of the evil institution of slavery; an institution by which very few of the men who gave their lives in gallant battle ever directly benefited.


"One of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."
Then you must conclude that Americans who fought for and believed in independence from Great Britain were traitors too....just as Dishonest Abe must have believed.


No, and you have just proven yourself "dishonest" with the above post.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
Had the victor shoe been on the other foot, you could say the exact same thing about the north. .

No, not really.
Yes, actually really. It's n ot as though the south did not hold their own on the field. Many, many battles involved confederate victory and absolutely horrendous loss of life. It wasn't a northern aggression sweep by any standard.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
One of the only advantages the Southern traitors had when they instigated the long-brewing American Civil War was the benefit of some brilliant military minds. They had to know that they had little to no chance of prevailing. Sure, both sides initially envisioned a very brief struggle, but when it became clear after Bull Run that it wouldn't be a quick one-and-done for either side the Confederate traitors had to know they had little to no hope over the long run. The British and the French may have gotten their hopes up about recognition, but surely calmer heads in the South had to know how thin that hope really was.

They essentially performed human sacrifice in outrageous number for a hopeless, immoral, untenable cause. A waste of so many courageous, honorable men for the vainglorious obstinacy of a few.
Had the victor shoe been on the other foot, you could say the exact same thing about the north. The War of Northern Aggression had just as many moments of "we may not win this" as the south did.
The War of Northern Aggression? revisionist (loser) history
The facts are the civil war are not up for revision. The victor gets the historical writing spoils, but that tells a true history buff little to nothing about the actual times. It's mainly propaganda and fiction designed to promote the efforts of the victor as moral, ethical and of sound judgment.

Ther eis, however, no use in arguing with someone ignorant of the historical record. You probably watched Ken Burns civil war series and consider yourself well informed. Like most ignorant LOLberals.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
38,002
Reaction score
9,932
Points
1,330
No, it rested with the traitors who would tear the Union asunder for the sake of the evil institution of slavery; an institution by which very few of the men who gave their lives in gallant battle ever directly benefited.


"One of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."
Then you must conclude that Americans who fought for and believed in independence from Great Britain were traitors too....just as Dishonest Abe must have believed.


No, and you have just proven yourself "dishonest" with the above post.
I am well aware of your weak debating skills, but when one makes a valid point, responding with you are "dishonest," only further confirms my low opinion of you.

Can you please explain why my post is dishonest? If not, I understand entirely.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
Calling generals of the war traitors is quite disgusting. Some of those who served the confederate army did so out of love for their home states, and were not entirely on board with the notions of the state body. But they fought and fought honorably for that in which they believed. And some later returned to union positions and govt. posts. It's extremely ignorant to call anyone of the southern civil war time persuasion, traitors.

That's all
 

Granny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
813
Points
200
Location
Rocky Top, TN
Having been born and raised in the South I get sick and damned tired of those who are bound and determined to continue the damned thing. I don't care who starts the crap. For those who know little to nothing about the war - it's over. The war was NOT started because of slavery - the abolitionists hitched their star to the situation and made the most of it - and that's about the only part of the situation that get's any recognition. One more way to continue racial hatred and keep things stirred up all the time.

Another poster mentioned the "War of Northern Aggression" and that is NOT "revisionist history." That term was used then and continues to be used. It was a war started because it was in essence a trade war between the industrial north and the agricultural south. End of story.

Was slavery wrong? Yes. But don't think the South was the only place in this country were slaves were held owned.
 
OP
Unkotare

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,429
Reaction score
9,392
Points
2,030
Had the victor shoe been on the other foot, you could say the exact same thing about the north. .

No, not really.
Yes, actually really.

NO, not really. Even if the traitors had won, the fact remains that prior to the war there was very little on paper to suggest the South had much chance of winning a protracted war against the North. This doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, but it would have been despite very long odds indeed.
 
OP
Unkotare

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,429
Reaction score
9,392
Points
2,030
Then you must conclude that Americans who fought for and believed in independence from Great Britain were traitors too....just as Dishonest Abe must have believed.


No, and you have just proven yourself "dishonest" with the above post.
I am well aware of your weak debating skills, but when one makes a valid point, responding with you are "dishonest," only further confirms my low opinion of you.

Can you please explain why my post is dishonest? If not, I understand entirely.

You introduced the word "dishonest" into this discussion, and you did so in the course of asserting something that Lincoln "must have believed" without a shred of evidence that he did or would have thought so. That is dishonest.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top