Uttles Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Looks like January was a good month to be born, I was born Jan 23rd! http://www.danielscochran.com/dscblog/2010...-and-jackson-2/ Seriously though, this is a great article about two generals for the confederate (read: sovereign) states of america Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) When I got to the fourth paragraph and read While the strategies and circumstances of the War of Northern Aggression ... I stopped reading. Goddamn slave state apologist. But yes, Lee and Jackson were very good generals. Edited January 7, 2010 by Grames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 When I got to the fourth paragraph and read I stopped reading. Goddamn slave state apologist. But yes, Lee and Jackson were very good generals. As was Field Marshall Irwin Rommel who fought a brilliant campaign against the Allies in North Africa and who bolstered the defense of the Reich on the Atlantic Coast from Norway down to the south of France. A marvelous commander who fought for an evil cause and fought well. Which made him an enemy of good and right thinking people. Irwin Rommel did not hate Jews just as T.J. (Stonewall) Jackson freed his slaves, but they still fought on the wrong side of the struggle. They both fought for an evil cause. To the main thrust of the O.P.'s argument that the South was right to fight against Yankee Aggression. Never mind how many slaves bled and died to pick cotton for the Southron landed aristocracy. Never mind that the Secession was illegal from the git-go and Southron insurrection was Treason by definition of the Constitution they signed on to. If we were to take his argument seriously, then New York City could secede from the United States. It was true that Lincoln was high-handed and also violated the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned Union citizens for speaking and writing against the War. The Confederacy was insurrection and treason and had to be put down regardless of Lincoln's transgressions. In addition to which, it was the South that started the bloodiest war in the history of this nation. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uttles Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Grames, that is a very ignorant position to take. If you would have kept reading, you would realize this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 I stopped reading. Goddamn slave state apologist. But yes, Lee and Jackson were very good generals. Absolutely. Both were military geniuses. I mean, they overcame the Union's numbers and technological advantages for a long time, even if they ultimately lost. But there's the fatal flaw abut defending slavery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Grames, that is a very ignorant position to take. If you would have kept reading, you would realize this. Doers the article address this clause in the Confederate Constitution: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed? Does it address the "Cornerstone Speech" given by its Vice President, which contains these remarks: "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted." (Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.? I haven't seen it, whilr looking it over. Instead, he seems to prefer determining what each side stood for based on the personal preferences of three generals, as if either state was governed by generals. And you seem to be asking us to base our conclusions about the Civil War on that nonsense. In reality, it's a fact that the war happened over slavery, as Lincoln was going to work to abolish it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uttles Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Any name to go with that speech? I've never seen that one. The fact of the matter is that the war was fought over money. The North was making tons of money from the South, and when the South left, they shit themselves. That is the reality of the situation. The War for Southern Independence was as much about slavery as the war in Iraq is about WMDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Any name to go with that speech? I've never seen that one. The fact of the matter is that The fact of the matter is that you can't just admit you never heard of one of the main arguments against your position and then proceed to lecture us on how ignorant we are and what the fact of the matter is. That's the fact of the matter. Oh, and you forgot to officially exclude the Confederate Constitution that guarantees the ownership of slaves forever and ever from the record. I'd love to hear how that's also not part of the reality o the situation, because we are ignorant for not reading your favorite website. Sorry, but I've seen much better arguments in favor of your position, that I proceeded to ignore, than the article you linked to. I did so because they are all still silly jokes, which refuse to address the most important issue, the undeniable fact that the Confederate States of America was established as an entity to enforce the ownership of 4 million individuals, in the year 1861, instead focusing on indicting various Northern politicians and history books. While in the 18th century the argument that slavery was the norm might slide, that is definitely not true in 1861. At that point, slavery was the rare exception, specific to that one entity which set out to defend it, and which deserves moral condemnation for it. Ignoring obvious facts such as: -the political positions of Lincoln and his Republican Party, which ranged between immediate emancipation of all slaves and gradual, compensated emancipation, in direct opposition with Southern Democrats who aimed to protect a Southern economy reliant on the free labor of 4 million slaves; -the Emancipation Declaration; -the hundreds of thousands of Southern slaves who escaped to freedom behind Northern lines, and the millions who were freed upon the advance of that line; , is clear evasion, and any arguments about generals' personal opinions, or attacks on one single detail or another, in the face of the obvious, are rationalizations. Even if the Confederate Constitution was in other ways an improvement over the US Constitution (particularly by not allowing the government to raise taxes for the general welfare or impose tariffs to support industries, and the single subject/law thing was not bad either), that is in no way relevant to the moral outrage that they established and fought for a nation built on slavery, at a time when Western World had renounced the practice for decades. Edited January 7, 2010 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uttles Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 You're obviously too biased to change your mind, so I'm not going to try. I'd suggest reading something other than an official government indoctrination camp sponsored textbook on the subject though. "The politically incorrect guide to the Civil War" would be a good start. You sound just like Republicans today saying that "Iraqi Freedom" is a great cause to fight for. It's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) You're obviously too biased to change your mind, so I'm not going to try. I'd suggest reading something other than an official government indoctrination camp sponsored textbook on the subject though. Made up government "camp" names generally suck (though not as much as yours here), you have no idea what I read, and it's obviously more than you. P.S. I wouldn't read anything starting with "The Politically Incorrect Guide To...". It's stupid. (except maybe if it ends with "...Hours of Orgasms") Edited January 7, 2010 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maken Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 More of a Longstreet fan myself.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Oups. I think I forgot to wish a happy birthday to General Lee the other day. Oh, well, happy belated birtday there, Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 More of a Longstreet fan myself.... Longstreet, "Old Pete", knew the war was over when it was over. Eventually he became a Republican. He was a capable field commander and eventually knew a lost cause to be a lost cause. To his credit, he was no enthusiastic supporter of slavery, but he was surely a Southern patriot. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 that is in no way relevant to the moral outrage that they established and fought for a nation built on slavery, at a time when Western World had renounced the practice for decades. Brazil, a Western nation did not renounce slavery until the late 19th century and that was for practical reasons; slavery became economically unsustainable. In the U.S. as long as cotton grew in the warm sunny South the "peculiar institution was both sustainable and profitable. In Britain the motive for renouncing slavery was not reason, but Christian sentimentality. The Brits could have run their Caribbean sugar plantations into the 20th century and at a profit, too. France did not renounce slavery for black folks. It was a revolution in Haiti that put an end to it there. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Looks like January was a good month to be born, I was born Jan 23rd! http://www.danielscochran.com/dscblog/2010...-and-jackson-2/ Seriously though, this is a great article about two generals for the confederate (read: sovereign) states of america Thomas J. ("Stonewall") Jackson was a bit of a lunatic. While professing to be a Christian he once advised one of his subordinates to "kill'em all" at Fredricksburg. Meaning kill all the Yankees. Once his blood was up, forgiveness was not in his nature. He was a living contradiction. Robert Lee did not demonize his enemy. He referred to the opposition as "those people". At the same battle (Fredricksburg) Robert E Lee said, as he witnessed 12 Union charges uphill against Maries Heights --- It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it. Once the war was lost, Lee to his credit, advised his troops (or former troops) to take up the ways of peace. He said something like -- if you all are as good citizens as you were soldiers, all will be well for you. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liberal Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 I think the civil war was just a fight between Americans over who is more stupid and the south won. The real war where the conduct of Americans needs to be examined, because there is so much we can learn about ourselves, are the various "Indian wars" we engaged in on this continent. That being said, the civil war was about states' rights. The right of the slave states to deny human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.